NKJV ?

The NKJV is based on the Byzantine more than the other modern versions are, however it still leans heavily on the Alexandrian school of manuscripts. It relies on it more so in the footnotes, but does so in the actual text as well. Also, many think that removing the "thees" and "thous" is no big deal, but it does change things considerably when there is no distinction in the use of the word "you" between singular and plural. Thats why the translators of the KJV incorporated the use of the "thees" and "thous" in the first place.

Anyway... the NKJV is a modern version. It is truer to the KJV than the others... but it falls way short. I personally tried to "settle" for the NKJV when I was first discovering the truth about the KJV. The Holy Spirit convicted me that I was compromising the truth by settling for the NKJV.

But thats just me... I'm sure someone will tell me that it wasnt the Holy Spirit. Oh well.

Krispy

Stever responds to the use of New King James:

The New King James Bible cannot be trusted, and I would not suggest it to anyone, the same as I would not suggest the NIV or any of the other newer Bible Versions.

I know how you hate to read, but if you want an indepth answer, that leaves no doubt about this issue, then I would suggest that you check it out, Combat_Chuck:

The New King James Bible Examined
By M. H. Reynolds, Editor, Foundation Magazine

http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html

WHAT ABOUT THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE?

In this article, we want to share with God's people some of the important facts which led us to reject the NKJV and warn others about it. We do not believe that the "NKJV makes the KJV even better" as its publishers claim. To the contrary, our study leads us to conclude that the NKJV vitiates the original, reliable, accurate KJV in a most deceptive manner. While claiming to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, the actual result is a hybrid text which incorporates many changes identical with or similar to the corruptions found in other modern Bible versions.

Why the New King James Bible? Its publisher, Thomas Nelson Company, says its purpose is "To Preserve the Integrity of the Original in the Language of Today"-"To preserve the authority and accuracy . . . of the original King James while making it understandable to 20th Century readers"-"To update with regard to punctuation and grammar; archaic verbs and pronouns"; and "Up-to-date accuracy with regard to words whose English meaning has changed over a period of 3 1/2 centuries."

The completed NKJV text is said to be "Beautifully Clear" and "Highly Readable." Thomas Nelson Publishers has spent millions to convince Chr istians that the NKJV is "the" Bible of the present and the future.

Why do we recommend rejection of the NKJV? Space limitations preclude a full discussion of every reason, but we do urge a careful consideration of the following facts. It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

THE INSTANCES IN WHICH THE NKJV BREAKS WITH THE ORIGINAL KJV BY SUBSTITUTING WORDING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF CORRUPTED MODERN BIBLE VERSIONS ARE TOO NUMEROUS TO BE CONSIDERED COINCIDENCE. AND, SINCE NELSON TELLS US THAT THE NKJV SCHOLARS SPENT "MONTHS OF PRAYER, RESEARCH, AND DISCUSSION OVER THE HANDLING OF A SINGLE WORD," WE MUST CONCLUDE THAT THESE CHANGES WERE NEITHER COINCIDENTAL NOR ACCIDENTAL.

The following references are listed as examples of the way the translators inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text:

Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man. (The one who holds to heresy is to be rejected, not the one who exposes false doctrine. The new versions confuse who is in mind here).

Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."

Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."

Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."

Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").

2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."
Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."

1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."

2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."

Old Testament examples include:

Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.

Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.

In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-----doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "SODOMITES" IS CHANGED TO "PERVERTED PERSONS."

The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. IT IS A PERVERTED VERSION.

Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.

A striking word change involves changing "corrupt" to "peddling" in 2 Corinthians 2:17.
The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God...." But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not-they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to pe ddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

Dr. Jerry Falwell, a member of the NKJV overview committee, gives this new Bible his unqualified endorsement, stating that "It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars." This simply is not true! As already pointed out, words have been changed and with those changed words have come changed thoughts and ideas.

Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be con cerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.
In raising strenuous objections to the changed words of the NKJV text, we are not referring to those changes which update old English verb forms without changing the meaning, i.e., removing "est" or "eth" from verb endings. Neither do we refer to updating the old English pronouns "thee," "thou" and "thine" where they refer to individuals. We do consider it a tragic mistake to eliminate the use of "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" where these refer to Deity. There is a disturbing trend toward stripping God of His Majesty both in word and deed. The substitution of the common pronouns 'You" and "Yours" for "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" which have historically been used to refer to Deity both in the Scriptures and the Hymns of the Church, only helps pave the way for further attempts of sinful men to bring God down to their level rather than exalting Him in every way possible.
The NKJV translators claimed it was one of their purposes to update words where the meaning of a particular word had changed over the last 375 years. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, they updated "letteth" to "restraineth"; in Psalm 4:2, "leasing" is updated to "lying"; In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, "prevent" is updated to "precede"; in Matthew 19:14, "suffer" is updated to "let" (meaning allow or pennit).

In other instances it is difficult to understand how the NKJV scholars thought they were updating and clarifying the KJV as, for example, when they substituted "minas" for "pounds" in Luke 19:13; or, "satraps" for "princes" in Daniel 3:3; or, "black cummin" for "fitches" in Isaiah 28:27.

Many Christians today are purchasing NKJV Bibles for three reasons: (1) Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it. (2) They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts. (3) The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.
The duplicity of the NKJV publishers, translators and endorsers greatly increases the possibility of believers being deceived. The word duplicity is used advisedly. Webster's Dictionary defines duplicity as, "Deception by pretending to feel and act one way while acting another."

The following duplicity can be fully documented:
The duplicity of the Thomas Nelson Publishers is clearly evidenced by their supposed concern and stated desire to "preserve the authority and accuracy...of the original King James" Bible. Yet, Nelson is the largest publisher of Bibles in the world and publishes eight of the nine modern versions including the iniquitous Revised Standard Version, copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. If the Thomas Nelson Publishers were genuinely concerned about the purity of the Scriptures, would they continue printing the RSV and other corrupted modern Bible versions?

The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?

Further duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts-the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.

NKJV readers are further misinformed as to why there are so many differences between the original KJV and all the modern versions. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are assured, "...That the most important differences in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation." This simply is not true. Many important differences in the English New Testament of today are indeed due to manuscript divergence (over 5700 differences exist between the TR and WH Greek texts) in addition to the divergent views of the scholars who produced the various translations.

On page VII of the preface is another very significant statement concerning the NKJV footnotes: "Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in footnotes. Important textual variants in the Old Testament are footnoted in a standard form. The textual information in the New Testament footnotes is a unique provision in the history of the English Bible. Terms in the footnotes such as 'better manuscripts' are avoided. The footnotes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings which diverge from the traditional text. Thus, a clearly defined presentation of the variants is provided for the benefit of interested readers representing all textual persuasions."

As a crowning climax of duplicity and inconsistency, the editors of the NKJV make the following incongruous statements on pages 1,234 and 1,235 of the King lames history printed at the conclusion of the NKJV text:
"The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of Scripture, based on the most recently discovered extant manuscripts. In using the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, these words and phrases were retained. And, in those few places where the majority of the manuscripts did not support a word or phrase, that fact could best be indicated in a footnote. (The New Testament of the New King James Version shows in its footnotes those places where the major textual traditions differ from the language of the King James Bible.)

"It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."
Will the next modem Bible be the "Do It Yourself" version? This would be a distinct possibility if the advice of the NKJV editors in the two preceding paragraphs were to be followed. In effect, they are saying, let each reader decide for himself what portions, verses, phrases and words should be included in God's Holy Word." NKJV footnotes, far from being helpful, are an invitation to disobey the plain command of God not to add to or take from His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19.
The preservation of God's divinely inspired Word is clearly set forth in Psalm 12:6,7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. " God has fulfilled His promise through the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Those who replace the KJV with the NKJV will have been duped into accepting a Bible which still bears a respected name but one which has placed "readability" above purity.

The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished!

Believers who will take the time to compare the KJV with the NKJV and then with other modern versions will see for themselves why the NKJV should be exposed and repudiated as a polluted version. And, those who will take time to carefully look at the NKJV footnotes will be doubly concerned and will join in warning others about it.

Our plea to God's people is to reject the NKJV Bible and continue preaching, teaching, memorizing and meditating upon the pure, unadulterated, Divinely preserved milk and meat of God's Holy Word-The King James Authorized Version of 1611 upon which God has placed His stamp of approval over a span of nearly four centuries. Nothing is more important than the purity of God's Holy Word.

-M. H. REYNOLDS, EDITOR, FOUNDATION MAGAZINE
Fundamental Evangelistic Association Box 6278 Los Osos CA 93412 USA

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

God bless,

Stever ;-)

PS: Other sites that document the deception of the New King James Bible:

What is wrong with the New King James Bible?
http://www.chick.com/ask/articles/nkjv.asp?FROM=biblecenter

Stever posts to Kombat_Chuck---post #2

Here are just some examples of the corrupted New King James Text:

Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make every feminist proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV)

Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved! 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them! Where, oh where, did they come from? Care to take a wild guess? YOU GOT IT! The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV!

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

AND THAT DOESN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ALL THE CHANGES!

The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times!

The NKJV removes the word God 51 times!

The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times!

In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV!

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV!

And Thomas Nelson Publishers have the audacity to claim in an ad for the NKJV (Moody Monthly, June 1982, back cover), "NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED except to make the original meaning clearer."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I can go on and on with other examples, but you get the gist.

The New King James is corrupt, and is not good for your Spiritual health. Put it where it belongs---in the trash can. Better yet, burn it so it will not corrupt anyone else who might happen to pick it up.

God bless,

Stever ;-)

Stever’s response to Mike:

I am sorry that my posts come across to you as the way you described them above. What troubles me with all of the newer versions is the complete annihilation of doctrine. That annihilation takes place in the New King James, and I hope that what I posted proves that to you and all who take the time to read it in detail.

Right now, all of us need sound doctrine. We receive this by studying God’s Word, not the words of men, not the words of Origen or others.
What you hear from me is alarm---alarm that others cannot see what is happening. I would only pray that sound doctrine will prevail. Many will be left behind to go through the Great Tribulation because of false Doctrine and disbelief.

God has put it upon my heart to reveal the difference between His Word, and the Word and thoughts of men. We are all called to study God’s word, and to “rightly divide the Word of truth”. That hardly seems possible if what we are studying is NOT God’s Word.

2 Timothy 2:15-18
15. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17. And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus;
18. Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

The Church is becoming Apostate. No one wants to hear sound doctrine. Many today want teachers that give them what they want to hear-prosperity, name it and claim it, and materialism. They would rather listen to their flesh, and Satan (who they think is the Holy Spirit) talking to them, than studying God's Word. If they studied God's Word, they would know how to test the Spirit that talks to them.

I think that the time of the end is very close. All of the signs are in place. All of the Nations surround Jerusalem, and Jerusalem is indeed a cup of trembling. There is now more anti-semitism than I have ever witnessed in my entire lifetime of 63 years. The World is getting ready to create it's one world government, that Nimrod tried to start in Genesis, before God came down and confused their language. The currencies in Europe are becoming one with the Euro. Our borders in America are disapearing. By 2010 America will be "borderless" --between that of Canada and Mexico.

God's Word tells us that the end is almost upon us:

2 Timothy 4:3-4
3. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4. And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

My words are not meant to offend, only to inform and arouse others to take action. If others think that what I posted is in error, I would more than welcome a response. Today, in 2006, there is so much lack of knowledge of the truth of this issue---Which Version. It is on my heart and my mind, and my soul to reveal the truth of this important issue for all that have ears to hear and eyes to see.

God bless,

Stever :-)

Even tho I hold a different position from Mike concerning this issue... I agree with him that this issue needs to be discussed rationally and intelligently without rudeness. It certainly is a hot button, and in my opinion a very crucial matter. But accusations and attacks dont do anything but push people away.

Krispy

Study what the original language said, not what the KJV said. They get it wrong too, you know.

Really? Where...? Dont just throw that out there without some proof. Where is the KJV wrong? I think there are a few spots where the translation could be a little more clear, but to say they made mistakes... I'd like someone to show me one. So far no one has, yet people love to say there are mistakes.

Give us some proof.

Boomat, you are encouraging others to study the original languages... is this what you do? Do you study the original languages? We sure seem to have a tremendous amount of linguistical experts on this forum! LOL

On a side note, Boomat... my great-great grandfather was wounded at Fredicksburg. He was a proud Confederate. Shot in the hand and lost 2 fingers. Never left his post. Died in 1938 at the age of 96. He actually got to hold my father in his arms when my dad was born in 1937.

Krispy

JaySaved... I posted some things about the Easter translation on another thread. It's not a misinterpretation. The translators knew exactly what they were doing when they used the word Easter. Go back and read what I posted, or visit some of the KJV websites. All of them address this because it's one of the most common arguments against the KJV. But there is a very simple and reasonable explanation for it.

Krispy

Combat_Chuck wrote:

By 2010 America will be "borderless" --between that of Canada and Mexico.

If by January 1st 2010 this has not come to pass, may I stone you?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Stever's response:

Nice try, Combat_Chuck: The above is not a prophecy of my own, given to me by God. It is a plan put in place by the Council on Foreign Relations. Will it be totally in place by 2010? I don't know. What I do know is that every person that runs for President seems to be concerned about it (illegal immigration). However, once they are elected, it is no longer important, even though it is responsible for the closing of our hospitals, and the rampant misuse of welfare.

You can find out about this borderless community in a book published by the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. It goes into great detail about all of the plans for globalization that are in place for North America, consisting of Canada, America & Mexico—all by the year of 2010

•\tBuilding a North American Community
Chair: John P. Manley, Pedro Aspe, William F. Weld
Vice Chair: Thomas P. D'Aquino, Andres Rozental, Robert A. Pastor

Council on Foreign Relations Press
May 2005
175 pages
ISBN 0-87609-348-9
$15.00
xxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is part of another article, with links below, that address the issue of a borderless America:

Trading Sovereignty for Globalism
The government's apparent dereliction of duty (the securing of America’s borders, that every President since Eisenhower has been derelect in) may be ascribed to a long-term goal of transnationalism or globalism. Bush certainly has his eyes set on such a future.

It was during a 2005 North American Summit with Fox and Paul Martin, then prime minister of Canada, at his Crawford ranch that Bush signed on for a brave new borderless world. According to a Council on Foreign Relations document, a five-year plan involved the "establishment by 2010 of a North American economic and security community" with a common "outer security perimeter."

As reported at the time by Phyllis Schlafly, "the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) document lays 'the groundwork for the freer flow of people within North America,'" or rather, "a space in which trade, capital, and people flow freely." Last weekend's meeting of the Trilateral Summit in Cancun likely furthered this goal.

While this might sound a bit conspiratorial, it's hard to deny that everything is leading inexorably in that direction. The disregard for border security, the influx of illegal immigrants in numbers unprecedented in history, free trade agreements and increasing foreign ownership are fast producing a transnational hub where once a country stood.

Today, we find ourselves facing a future unlike any previous generation's. It's a future in which America as a sovereign nation could cease to exist.

For the entire article, you can go here:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/04/05/cstillwell.DTL

If you want to read an eye-opening article, that is very long, but written by the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, GO HERE:
http://www.cfr.org/publication/63/us_trade_negotiations.html

Cinnamon Stillwell is a San Francisco writer. She can be reached at cinnamonstillwell@yahoo.com
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord!

God bless,

Stever

Stever posts:

Who is this group----The Council on Foreign Relations? Every President, other than Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush has been a memeber since it started in 1921.

Council on Foreign Relations, The Harold Pratt House, 58 East 68th Street, New York NY 10021, Tel: 212-434-9400, Fax: 212-861-1789.

Membership Roster. 2004.

The Council on Foreign Relations has been the most powerful private organization in U.S. foreign policy since it began in 1921. While priding itself on non-partisanship and on recent efforts to recruit minorities, women, and youth (under 35), CFR's 4,200 members mainly reflect the resources needed by the ruling class to maintain their power. Don't call them if you want to join; they call you. And don't wait for a call unless you have big money, national security expertise, CIA experience, a political constituency, or clout with the media. CFR publishes the prestigious journal "Foreign Affairs" as well as a number of books and reports. Another major activity is to organize closed meetings for their members with assorted world leaders. Everyone feels free to share views and information about current world events, primarily because CFR has strict confidentiality rules and keeps its records locked up for 25 years.

This is a list of only the A's in the alphabet:

Council on Foreign Relations Membership Roster
(as of June 30, 2005)
http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/cfr2005roster.html

UPDATED ON APRIL 24, 2006

Posted By: Mordechai Zember (zembmor98@yahoo.com) and
Benito Ribbentrop (benribqqq@yahoo.com)

Source: Council on Foreign Relations 2005 Annual Report (for names) and various websites via Google.com (for description)

Individual Membership

*** Elected to Membership in 2004-2005
† Elected to five-year term membership in 2005

A

Aaron, David L. – former ambassador to OECD (1993-1997); former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade (1997-2000)
Abbot C. Spencer
Abbot, Charles S. “Steve” (Admiral) – former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command; a Rhodes scholar
Abbott, Wilder K.
Abboud, A. Robert
Abboud, Labeeb M. – general counsel for International AIDS Vaccine Initiative
Abdelal, Rawi – associate professor at Harvard Business School
Abell, Keith W.
Abercrombie-Winstanley, Gina Kay
Abernethy, Robert John – chairman of American Standard Development Company, Inc.
Abizaid, John P. (Gen.) – commander of Central Command (CENTCOM) in Iraq
Aboelnaga Kanaan, Mona
***Abramowitz, Michael J. – No. 2 editor at the Washington Post
Abramowitz, Morton I. - former ambassador to Thailand (1978-1981) and Turkey (1989-1991)
Abrams, Elliott – former Assistant Secretary of State for International Organization Affairs under Reagan; major Iran-Contra figure
Abshire, David M. – former ambassador to NATO (1983-1987)
Aburdene, Odeh F. – former Vice President for Middle East business at Occidental Petroleum
Ackerman, Peter – Chairman of the board of Freedom House
Adams, Gordon M. – professor at George Washington Univ. Elliott School
Adams, Michael F. – President of the University of Georgia
Adams, Robert McCormick – former Secretary of the Smithsonian Institute (1984-1994)
Adelman, Carol C. - senior fellow and director of Hudson's CCenter for Science in Public Policy
Adelman, Kenneth L. – former director of Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (1983-1987)
Adler, Allen R.
Aggarwal, Vinod K. - political science professor at Berkeley
Agnew, Harold M. - former director of Los Alamos Labratory (1970-1979); former New Mexico State Senator
Agostinelli, Robert F.
Ahearn, William Edward – former executive editor at The Associated Press (AP)
Aidinoff, M. Bernard – senior counsel for Sullivan & Cromwell LLP; director for AIG
Ajami, Fouad – professor at Johns Hopkins University
Albright, Madeleine K. – former Secretary of State (1997-2001); former Ambassador to UN (1993-1997)
Alderman, Michael H.
Alderman, Peter Belmont – an associate of Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
Aldrich, George H. – a judge on the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (at The Hague); former U.S. representative at the United Nations' Law of the Sea Conference (1977-1981)
Alexander, Margo N. – former banker for UBS Warburg and Paine Webber
Alexander, Robert J.
Alford, William P. – professor at Harvard Law School
Ali, Mustafa Javed
Allaire, Paul A. – former Chairman and CEO of Xerox
Allan, Scott Hazzard Jr.
Allbritton, Joe L. – former CEO of Riggs Bank
Allen, J. Michael III
Allen, Jodie T. - managing editor of U.S.News & World Report
Allen, Lew Jr. (Gen.) – former Air Force Chief of Staff (1978-1982); director of National Security Agency (1973-1977)
Allen, Richard V. – former National security advisor (1981-1982)
Allen, William L. – former editor-in-chief of National Geographic
Allison, Graham T. – Director of Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard; former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Policy and Plans (1993-1995)
Allison, Richard C.
Almond, Michael A.
Alonzo, Anne L. – recently a co-chair of Hispanic Alliance for Free Trade
Alpern, Alan N.
Alter, Jonathan H. – senior editor and editor of Newsweek
Alterman, Jon B. – an analyst and political commentator at the CSIS
Altman, Roger C. – Chairman of Evercore Partners Inc.; Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under Clinton (1993-1995)
Altman, William C. – a Rhodes scholar
Altshuler, David - CEO of Binnacle Capital and Chair of TechFoundation
Alvarado, Donna Maria – Vice Chair of the Ohio Board of Regents
Alvarez, Jose E. – professor at Columbia Law School
†Alvarez, Kira M.
Alving, Amy E. – vice president for technology at Science Applications International Corporation
Amador, Angelo I. – Director of Immigration Policy for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Amanat, Omar S. – former founder of Tradescape Corporation
Amerine, Jason L. (Maor, Army) – professor at West Point; Special Forces officer; wounded in a friendly fire incident in Afghanistan
† Amlani, Ajay K.
Amos, Deborah Susan – National Public Radio and ABC News Propagandist
Amr, Hady A. – former member of the board of the Virginia Public School Authority; former World Bank bureaucrat
Andelman, David A. – Executive Editor of Forbes.com; former CBS News correspondent
Andersen, Harold W.
Anderson, Craig B. – former President of National Council of Churches (1998-1999)
Anderson, Desaix - Executive Director of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization; former Charge d’Affaires ad interim (acting ambassador) to Red Vietnam (1995-1997)
Anderson, Edward G. III
Anderson, Gloria B.
Anderson, John B. (R-IL) – former member of House of Representatives (1961-1981); ran for President as independent in 1980
Anderson, Lisa – Dean of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University
Anderson, Mark A.
Anderson, Paul F. – senior advisor to Booz Allen Hamilton
Anderson, Robert O. (Orville) – former Chairman of ARCO
Andreas, Dwayne O. - former chairman and CEO of Archer Daniels Midland Company
Andreas, Terry Lynn
Andrews, David R. – State Department Legal Adviser under Clinton; former General Counsel for PepsiCo.
Andrews, Michael A. (D-TX) - former member of House of Representatives (1983-1995)
Angelson, Mark A.
Ansour, M. Michael
Anthoine, Robert
Anthony, John Duke - founding President and CEO of the National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations
Aossey, Nancy A. – President and CEO of International Medical Corps
Apgar, David P. – former vice president in Lehman Brothers' Financial Institutions Group
Aponte, Mari Carmen – appointed by Clinton in 1998 to be ambassador to Dominican Republic; she withdrew her nomination
Appenteng, Kofi - attorney for Thacher Proffitt & Wood, LLP
Appiah, Kwame Anthony
Applebaum, Anne E. – columnist for Washington Post
Apter, David E. – former political science professor at Yale
Arcos, Cresencio S. - former ambassador to Honduras (1990-1993)
***Arend, Athony Clark – professor at Georgetown Univ. School of Foreign Service
Arkin, Stanley S. – senior partner of Arkin Kaplan LLP
Armacost, Michael H. – former ambassador to Japan (1989-1993) and Philippines (1982-1984)
Armstrong, Anne L. – former ambassador to Great Britain (1976-1977)
Armstrong, C. Michael – former CEO of Comcast, AT&T, and Hughes Electronic (involved in satellite scandal with Bernard Schwartz)
Armstrong, John Alexander, Jr.
Armstrong, Lloyd, Jr.
Arnhold, Henry H.
Arnold, Millard W.
Aron, Adam M. – former Chairman and CEO of Vail Resorts; former senior VP of United Airlines and Hyatt Hotels
Aronson, Bernard W. – former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs (1989-1993)
Aronson, Jonathan David – professor at Univ. of Southern California
Arsht, Adrienne – Chairman of the Board of Totalbank in Miami, Florida
Art, Robert J. – international relations professor at Brandeis University
Arthurs, Alberta – former director for arts and humanities at the Rockefeller Foundation; former President of Chatham College
Artigiani, Carole - Executive Director of Global Kids, Inc.
Asencio, Diego C. – former ambassador to Brazil and Colombia
Asmus, Ronald D. – former Deputy Asst. Sec. of State for European Affairs (1997-2000)
Assousa, George E.
Atkins, Benjamin A.
Atkins, Betsy S. – President and CEO of Baja LLC; a trustee at Florida International University
Atwood, J. Brian – Dean of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at Univ. of Minnesota; former Administrator of Agency for International Development [AID] (1993-1999)
Auer, James E. – former Navy officer; a professor at Vanderbilt
Aufhauser, David D. – former Treasury Department General Counsel under Dubya (2001-2003); currently a global general counsel of UBS
Augustine, Norman R. – former Chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin; Under Secretary of the Army under Gerald Ford
Auslin, Michael R. – Japanese history professor at Yale
Auspitz, Josiah Lee – a director at The Sabre Foundation
Ausubel, Jesse H. - Director of the Program for the Human Environment and Senior Research Associate at The Rockefeller University
Avedon, John F. – writer and author
Avery, John E.
Awuah, Patrick G. Jr. – founder and president of Ashesi University
Axelrod, Robert M. – professor at University of Michigan
Ayers, H. Brandt - publisher of The Anniston Star (Alabama)
Ayres, Alyssa C. - deputy director of the Center for the Advanced Study of India
***Azim, Khalid

You will find members of both political parties on this list, including John Kerry.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Will it happen by 2010?

This is the current membership website:

http://www.geocities.com/benribqqq/cfr2005roster.html

God bless,

Stever

Stever... a little overkill, man. I thought this was about the NKJV... didnt know it was about foreign relations and world-wide governments.

:-)

Krispy

Philologos has a tendancy to drop off the edge of the earth from time to time, and then re-surface at a later date.

Krispy

Personally... I wish they would. I'm in no way opposed to that, but so far no one has.

In the meantime tho, if people would stop believing the lie that KJV is just to hard to understand, they may realize that we do have an understandable and readable translation of the Byzantine texts.

Krispy

KrispyKrittr wrote:
Stever... a little overkill, man. I thought this was about the NKJV... didnt know it was about foreign relations and world-wide governments.

:-)

Krispy

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response:

No, not overkill. Just a follow-up to the following:

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By 2010 America will be "borderless" --between that of Canada and Mexico.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If by January 1st 2010 this has not come to pass, may I stone you?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thr Council on Foreign Relations is behind the erasing of our borders between Canada and Mexico by 2010, and I wanted you to know who they were. Basically anyone that is anyone in Washington D.C., our major News and Television Networks, Major Journalists; etc. etc. etc. are members of this organization.

God bless,

Stever

Combat_Chuck wrote:

Perhaps it's best to just give these kids the NKJV Bible(or nasb or esv... of course, avoid niv and the message at all costs), and then let them move up to the KJV, unless a better translation comes out someday.

This is my stance anyways, after reading these forums: "Currently using the KJV until I can find something better."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response: I DISAGREE--SEE MY NEXT POST

God bless,

Stever

Stever reposts to Combat_Chuck in regards to supplying the young, new believers who aren't well educated, with an NIV Bible until they are more mature.

My first response proceeded from my flesh (at the very least), from my human nature, from my human reasoning---all are full of error. All are found in the blood of Adam, which fills each of our veins with our inherited sin nature.

[b]TO BE CLEAR, I WITHDRAW MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE TO COMBAT_CHUCK, AND REPLACE IT WITH WHAT APPEARS BELOW:[/b]

The Holy Spirit has convicted me of my error, of my sin, in suggesting that the NIV would be acceptable for new believers who are young and or uneducated and cannot read well.

The King James ranks easier to read and easier to understand than the NIV or any of the other newer versions.

Many Christians prefer the new versions because they are under the illusion that they are easier to read than the King James Version. However, the KJV ranks actually easier than the new versions in 23 out of 26 comparisons on the Flesch-Kincaid grade level indicator [5th grade reading level,] and in most verses is easier for children to read. In most passages the new versions have replaced simple, one-syllable words from the KJV with more complex multi-syllable words. This was done because the new perversions are copyrighted which the KJV is NOT. Copyright laws require the publishers to make substantial changes in text from the KJV.

Examples:
NIV, NAS, NLT, NKJ, RSV – All change new to 'unshrunk' in Mark 2:21
The variety of word uses amongst all the new versions in some of the following verses is a good example of 'Scripture du jour' for those who want to make the Word fit their own idea of what God intended to say. Mat. 8:11, Lk. 5:29, Mat. 11:26, Lk. 10:21, Jn. 7:8, Acts 11:24,26, Col. 2:13, 2 Thes. 2:3, Acts 25:20, Acts 27:30, Acts 19:23.

Over 6,000 changes and deletions have been executed by the newer versions, there is no limit to the number of places that the text of the King James Version has been corrupted by them. I have previously posted many of them on the thread by Philologos-“Why would anyone still read the King James Bible?” Because of copyright laws, the new versions can never use as simple words as the King James Version.

Some readers object to the KJV's use of archaic words like thee, thou, thine, and ye. However, these words were used [even after they had begun to cease from English conversational use,] to convey the singularity or plurality of the person[s] addressed. This is conveyed in the Greek and Hebrew, but is not possible using only the common English pronouns "you" or "your". When Jesus said to the Pharisees in John 8:44, "ye are of your father the devil" we know from the KJV that he was speaking to the entire group, not just one individual. Similarly, in the KJV the singular terms the and thou means 'you alone,' and thine means 'yours alone [for Thine is the kingdom" – Matt. 6:13.]

These distinctions from the original manuscripts are lost in the newer versions. The few problems with other archaic terms used in the KJV such as suffer [permit,] prevent [precede,] etc, can be easily overcome with a brief education in the definitions and usage of these terms.

NOTE: A copy of Noah Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language is a perfect companion to the serious reader of the Word of God.

To understand the very serious business of keeping the Word of God pure and inerrant, just as it is promised, it would be most helpful for the reader to take time to read the message to the readers of the King James Version who worked so faithfully and diligently to keep it perfect.

God takes His Word very seriously. He has even magnified His Word above His name [Ps 138:2,] and expects His children to tremble at his word [Isaiah 66:5.] Despite all of Satan's efforts to destroy it, God has preserved His Word. The greatest group of Bible and language scholars ever assembled rejected the corrupt Alexandrine Text available to them, and following the traditional text which God preserved through the ages, produced the King James Version. In light of the Satanically inspired deletions and substitutions made in the new versions, there is no excuse for any Christian who has been presented with this information to continue using any of the new versions of God's Holy Word, which has been preserved for us only in the Authorized King James Version.

Please, if you want to denigrate or criticize the above studies, include source of your contradictory information.

God Bless

Stever -(
vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Stever wrote:
Combat_Chuck wrote:

Perhaps it's best to just give these kids the NKJV Bible(or nasb or esv... of course, avoid niv and the message at all costs), and then let them move up to the KJV, unless a better translation comes out someday.

This is my stance anyways, after reading these forums: "Currently using the KJV until I can find something better."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever's response: I DISAGREE

God bless,

Stever

Dear Ccchhhrrriiisss:

You have never responded to my challenge on this issue.

Specifically

"Ccchhhrrriiisss, I would be interested in a Scholarly debate of this issue. You are a College man that surely knows how to take two sides of the same issue, and be able to be either for or against the other side, no matter what your own internal bias is, don't you? Go back to my first post in this thread (THE NESTLE GREEK TEXT), as well as my first post on Philologos' thread of "Why would anyone still read the King James Bible" [BOTH FOUND ON SCRIPTURES & DOCTRINE], and refute what I have posted by documentation and source material, not adjectives. Not words like WRONG, UNWISE OR DISHONEST. Those very adjectives, without source material that can be verified, will provide you with a failing grade!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ccchhhrrriiisss-----
Without your scholarly response to the above,as well as the entire post below, how can you be taken seriously on this issue of "Which Version is really the Bible"??

God bless,

Stever :-)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ccchhhrrrriiisss continues to believe that there are no doctrinal differences that really matter between the NIV and all of the other newer versions and the King James Bible. With him, it is all in the “original source material”. I am very well aware of that. To be very clear, I will state it one more time, without the textural proofs that I normally post to back it up---“THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE TEXT “RECEIVED” FROM THE DISCIPLES & APOSTLES AND THE “CHURCH”, AND AMOUNTS TO THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. THE “MINORITY” TEXT IS TEXT CREATED BY ORIGEN AND OTHERS THAT BECAME THE CATHOLIC BIBLE, THAT IS REFERRED TO AS THE "MINORITY TEXT". THE PROTESTANT BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MINORITY TEXT. THEN, AFTER WESTCOTT AND HORT PERFORMED THEIR “WORK”, THEY SWAPPED THE RECEIVED TEXT WITH THE MINORITY TEXT. SO TODAY, WHEN YOU PICK UP THE NIV OR THE NEWER VERSIONS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A CATHOLIC BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Cccchhhrrriiisss:

As the years have progressed, I believe that Satan is behind the modern translations. The once great soul winning denominations have been reduced to social clubs by means of modernist translations that question every important doctrine needed to get to heaven.

On this thread I have provided insight into the mindset of Westcott and Hort, who are responsible for the creation of “neutral” Textural Criticism, and in the process of their "Revision Committee" were responsible for swapping the Received Text found in the Protestant Bible for the Minority Text found in the Catholic Bible. Now, when a Protestant Christian opens the NIV, NASB, or any of the "newer" Bible versions, he is in effect opening up the Catholic Bible unawares.

The”analysis” made by you Ccchhhrrriiisss is flawed. We have a Bible, that has been handed down to us by the Disciples & Apostles. It was created in Koine Greek, and the language is a dead language. What does that mean? The meaning of the words are frozen in time. There is no confusion as to the meaning of the words-their meanings are cast in stone and frozen. Ccchhhrrriiisss's example of the Mexicans translating English (which is a living language, where the meaning of words are in a state of flux and change) to Spanish is absolutely absurd and has no relationship to the translation of the Received Texts and what transpired then. The Received Texts were written in Koine Greek, a language that became a "dead language" approximately 200 years after the Cannon was established,and were then translated into Latin & Greek by Erasmus, and then from there translated into English. This English that we find in the King James is 1611 English, and again is locked in time as of 1611. The English language was not changing dramatically at that time as it is today. England controlled much of the World then, and the language was stable. That is why if we pick up an 1828 Noah Websters American Dictionary of the English Language all of the meanings of words that appear in the King James at are not quite clear to us today, COME ALIVE TO US. Also, with the Strongs Concordance we can look up the meanings of the Koine Greek words that are found in the New Testament for further clarification.

What I have posted here documents how Origen and others actually changed the Sacred text to conform with their own heresies. This is the “source material” that created the Catholic Bible and is called the minority text.

The fact that Ccchhhrrriiisss has posted what he has (below my post) reveals to me (again) that he has not read or understood what I have posted. His response is like that of person who is deaf, that is not only trying to respond to a speech, but also telling others while standing on the rooftops that what they heard is wrong. YET, HE NEVER REFUTES WHAT HE THINKS THE OTHER PERSON SAYS, HE JUST SAYS, AS LOUD AS HE CAN THAT THE OTHER PERSON IS WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

Ccchhhrrrriiisss continues to believe that there are no doctrinal differences that really matter between the NIV and all of the other newer versions and the King James Bible. With him, it is all in the “original source material”. I am very well aware of that. To be very clear, I will state it one more time, without the textural proofs that I normally post to back it up---“THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE ORIGINAL SOURCE MATERIAL. THE RECEIVED TEXT IS THE TEXT “RECEIVED” FROM THE DISCIPLES & APOSTLES AND THE “CHURCH”, AND AMOUNTS TO THE VERY WORDS OF GOD. THE “MINORITY” TEXT IS TEXT CREATED BY ORIGEN AND OTHERS THAT BECAME THE CATHOLIC BIBLE. THE PROTESTANT BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE RECEIVED TEXT. THE CATHOLIC BIBLE HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE MINORITY TEXT. THEN, AFTER WESTCOTT AND HORT PERFORMED THEIR “WORK”, THEY SWAPPED THE RECEIVED TEXT WITH THE MINORITY TEXT. SO TODAY, WHEN YOU PICK UP THE NIV OR THE NEWER VERSIONS, YOU MIGHT AS WELL HAVE A CATHOLIC BIBLE IN YOUR HANDS.”

I truly pray that this opens eyes and hearts in the understanding of this most important issue-Which Version. I have seen so much doctrinal error, even here on sermon index. 30 years ago, that was not the case. The error was always found with the Cults- the Latter Day Saints, JVH, and others. But today, even Christians are reading Bibles that water down sound Christian Doctrine, found in God's Word.

We do not serve a God who causes confusion by providing us with a different Bible (His WORD) that takes away from understanding his Majesty, and Power and will for our lives. We serve a God who provides us with HIS WORD that teaches us:
2 Timothy 1:6-7 KJV
"6. Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
7. For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind."

God bless,

Steve

P.S. Ccchhhrrriiisss, I would be interested in a Scholarly debate of this issue. You are a College man that surely knows how to take two sides of the same issue, and be able to be either for or against the other side, no matter what your own internal bias is, don't you? Go back to my first post in this thread, as well as my first post on Philologos' thread of "Why would anyone still read the King James Bible", and refute what I have posted by documentation and source material, not adjectives. Not words like WRONG, UNWISE OR DISHONEST. Those very adjectives, without source material that can be verified, will provide you with a failing grade!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

long post snipped

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Just out of curiousity, is 1 John 5:7 found in the textus receptus?

And is 1 John 5:7 found in the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts?

Thanks,

Adam :-)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Stever responds:

Here are some authorities in support of including 1 John 5:7 in the canon.

contestants for (pro) and against (contra) 1 John 5:7-8
----------------------------------------------

Edward F. Hills, ThD (1912-1981) pro
Dr. David O. Fuller (1903-1988) pro
Dr. Harold Bennett Sightler (1914-1995) pro
Dr. Curtis F. Hutson (1934-1995) pro
Dr. B. Myron Cedarholm (1915-1997) pro
Bruce M. Metzger, PhD (1914-) contra
R. J. Rushdooney (1916-) pro
Dr. M. James Hollowood (1916-) pro
Dr.* M. H. Reynolds, Jr. (1919-) pro
Timothy Tow, STM, DD (1920-) pro
Peter S. Ruckman, PhD* (1921-) pro [BJU]
Dr. Bruce D. Cummins (1924-) pro
Siang Hwa Tow, MD (1925-) pro
Ian R. K. Paisley (1926-) pro
Dr. Robert Gray (1926-) pro
Dr. Clinton Branine (1926-) pro
Dr. Allan Dickerson (1926-) pro
Dr.* Jack Hyles (1926-) pro
Robert G. Taylor, MD (1926-) pro
D. A. Waite, ThD, PhD (1927-) pro
Koa Keng Woo, BTh (1929-) pro
Dr. J. G. Tharp (1930-) pro
Stewart Custer, PhD* (1931-) contra [BJU]
Dr. Russel Dennis (1932-) pro
James V. Reynolds (1933-) pro
Dr.* Robert J. Barnett (1933-) pro
Wilbur N. Pickering, PhD (1934-) contra
Dr. Rodney Bell (1936-) pro
Floyd N. Jones, PhD*, ThD* (1936-) pro
C. Ken Johnson, MDiv, DMin (1936-) pro
James H. Sightler, MD (1937-) pro
Stephen Khoo, PhD (1938-) pro
David J. Engelsma, ThM (1939-) pro
Jack A. Moorman (1941-) pro
John M. Krinke, BA (1942-) pro
James Qurollo, ThD (1942-) pro
Harris D. Himes, J.D. (1942-) pro
Edward Paauwe, MDiv, STM (1942-) pro
Dr. Robert Hitchens (1942-) pro
Dr.* Gary E. La More, MA (1943-) pro
Curtis A. Pugh (1944-) pro
Dell G. Johnson, ThD (1944-) pro
Gerardus D. Bouw, PhD (1945-) pro
Thomas M. Strouse, PhD* (1945-) pro [BJU]
Dr.* Ron Tottingham (1945-) pro
Dr.* Gail Anne Riplinger, MA,MFA(1947-) pro
Dr. Thomas Cassidy (1947-) pro
Maurice A. Robinson, PhD (1947-) contra
David W. Cloud (1949-) pro
D. A. Waite, Jr., MLA (1949-) pro
John P. Thackway (1950-) pro
Samuel C. Gipp, ThD* (1950-) pro
Theodore P. Letis, MTS, PhD (1951-) pro
James E. Bearss, ThD, DMin (1951-) pro
Dr.* Kirk D. DiVietro (1952-) pro
J.D. Watson, D.R.E. (1953-) pro
Kevin R. James, BSME (1954-) pro
Quek Suan Yew, MDiv, STM (1955-) pro
Michael Maynard, MLS (1955-) pro
Mei Kang Tsai, PhD (1956-) pro
Thomas Holland, ThD* (1956-) pro
Lawrence M. Vance, ThD* (1962-) pro
James R. White, MA, ThM* (1962-) contra
Charles Seet, MDiv (1962-) pro
Dr.* John Cereghin (1964-) pro
Jeffrey Khoo, STM, PhD (1964-) pro
Jeffrey A. Young, PhD (1965-) pro
Prabhudas Koshy, MDiv, ThM (1965-) pro
Daniel S. Waite, MDiv (1965-) pro
[ed. of Monarch Standard] Nigel C. Harris (1965-) pro
Merrick J. Stemen, MS (1966-) pro

The year of birth for certain others (Joseph B. Chambers, William P. Grady, et al.) are not yet available to me.

List of contestants for and against 1 John v.7f. Note: Due to the trend for so many pastors to put "Dr." in front of their name, and due to so many issued from degree mills and institutions which are not even regionally accredited, the "Dr." becomes meaningless, without clairfication. Hence, to facilitate distinction, if the degree was earned, it is placed in the following list after the name. If the degree was granted as honorary, or if the doctorate is not specified as ThD, PhD, or DMin, then "Dr." is placed before the name. An asterick means that the degree came from a non regionally accredited institution. [The "ThM" of James White is from Faraston Theol. Seminary, which is a recognized "degree mill, period." (Name It and Frame It, 4th ed.[1995], p. 141). In a recent video of the Holland-White debate, White announced that he is working on a "doctorate of Christian philosophy"! ] It should be noted that degrees from certain non-accreditated institutions (e.g., Pensacola Christian College) are more respectable than those from regionally accredited schools with liberal teaching.

http://home.sprynet.com/~receptus/procon.htm

God bless,

Stever :-)

P.S. I really don't know that much about this debate, other than many that are on the list as against (Contra) also do not support the KJV.

So I guess that John Calvin, Theodore Beza, the Westminster Assembly, Francis Turretin, Matthew Poole, the 1689 Baptist Assembly, Matthew Henry, John Gill, John Brown of Haddington, Robert L. Dabney, and Edward F. Hills are all to be considered "outside the realm of meaningful scholarship" because they voted PRO when they did their work?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Combat_Chuck wrote:
Just out of curiousity, is 1 John 5:7 found in the textus receptus?

And is 1 John 5:7 found in the majority of the Byzantine manuscripts?

:-)

Thanks,
Adam

Stever responds:

[b]It is the same old story, repeated over and over in these end times. When supporters of newer versions want others to doubt the KJV, they make up MYTHS to do so. Bruce Metzger is the one responsible for creating this lie. He has since recanted of it. The problem is that the lie is never recanted on the internet or in the books that have already been printed, so people continue to believe the lie! As soon as Metzger recanted of the lie, Humanist & Textural Critic Erika Rummel created a similar lie, but later she had to recant it as well. Why would supposed Christians find it necessary to lie about the KJV in order to support their position that the Newer versions- NIV, etc. are better?
Why does any Christian find it necessary to lie about anything?
[/b]

xxxxxxxxxxxx

The first two editions of Erasmus’ Greek New Testament in the early 16th century omitted the following words from 1 John 5:7-8 -- “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth.” This portion of Scripture containing a clear Trinitarian statement is called the Johannine Comma. It was added to the third edition of the Erasmus Greek New Testament and it was not again seriously questioned until the 19th century.

There are TWO POPULAR MYTHS regarding Erasmus and 1 John 5:7 that are PARROTED BY MODERNISTS, EVANGELICALS, AND EVEN FUNDAMENTALISTS TODAY WHO DEFEND THE MODERN VERSIONS AGAINST THE KJV.

The first MYTH is that Erasmus promised to insert the verse if a Greek manuscript were produced. This is stated as follows by Bruce Metzger: “Erasmus promised that he would insert the Comma Johanneum, as it is called, in future editions if a single Greek manuscript could be found that contained the passage. At length such a copy was found--or made to order” (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1st and 2nd editions).

The second myth is that Erasmus challenged Edward Lee to find a Greek manuscript that included 1 John 5:7. This originated with Erika Rummel in 1986 in her book Erasmus’ Annotations and was repeated by James White in 1995 (The Truth about the KJV-Only Controversy).

In A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8, Michael Maynard records that H.J. de Jonge, the Dean of the Faculty of Theology at Rijksuniversiteit (Leiden, Netherlands), has refuted both myths. de Jonge, a recognized specialist in Erasmian studies, refuted the myth of a promise in 1980, stating that Metzger’s view on Erasmus’ promise “has no foundation in Erasmus’ work. Consequently it is highly improbable that he included the difficult passage because he considered himself bound by any such promise.”

De Jonge has also refuted the new myth of a challenge (which Rummel devised in reaction to the burial of the promise myth). In a letter of June 13, 1995, to Maynard, de Jonge wrote:
“I have checked again Erasmus’ words quoted by Erika Rummel and her comments on them in her book Erasmus’ Annotations. This is what Erasmus writes [on] in his Liber tertius quo respondet ... Ed. Lei: Erasmus first records that Lee had reproached him with neglect of the MSS. of 1 John because Er. (according to Lee) had consulted only one MS. Erasmus replies that he had certainly not used only one ms., but many copies, first in England, then in Brabant, and finally at Basle. He cannot accept, therefore, Lee’s reproach of negligence and impiety. ‘Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek MS. which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.’

“From this passage you can see that Erasmus does not challenge Lee to produce a manuscript etc. What Erasmus argues is that Lee may only reproach Erasmus with negligence of MSS if he demonstrates that Erasmus could have consulted any MS. in which the Comma Johanneum figured. Erasmus does not at all ask for a MS. containing the Comma Johanneum. He denies Lee the right to call him negligent and impious if the latter does not prove that Erasmus neglected a manuscript to which he had access.

“In short, Rummel’s interpretation is simply wrong. The passage she quotes has nothing to do with a challenge. Also, she cuts the quotation short, so that the real sense of the passage becomes unrecognizable. She is absolutely not justified in speaking of a challenge in this case or in the case of any other passage on the subject” (emphasis in original) (de Jonge, cited from Maynard, p. 383).

Jeffrey Khoo observes further: “YALE PROFESSOR ROLAND BAINTON, ANOTHER ERASMIAN EXPERT, AGREES WITH DE JONGE, FURNISHING PROOF FROM ERASMUS’ OWN WRITING THAT ERASMUS’ INCLUSION OF 1 JOHN 5:7F WAS NOT DUE TO A SO-CALLED ‘PROMISE’ BUT THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVED ‘THE VERSE WAS IN THE VULGATE AND MUST THEREFORE HAVE BEEN IN THE GREEK TEXT USED BY JEROME’” (Jeffrey Khoo, Kept Pure in All Ages, 2001, p. 88).

Edward F. Hills, who had a doctorate in textual criticism from Harvard, testifies: “... it was not trickery that was responsible for the inclusion of the Johannine Comma in the Textus Receptus, but the usage of the Latin speaking Church” (Hills, The King James Version Defended).

[b]IN THE 3RD EDITION OF THE TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT BRUCE METZGER CORRECTED HIS FALSE ASSERTION (LIE) ABOUT ERASMUS [/b]as follows: “What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H. J. DeJonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion” (Metzger, The Text of The New Testament, 3rd edition, p. 291, footnote 2).

[b]THE PROBLEM IS THAT THESE MYTHS CONTINUE TO BE PARADED AS TRUTH BY MODERN VERSION DEFENDERS.[/b]

A recommended resource for further study is Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7-8: a tracing of the longevity of the Comma Johanneum, with evaluations of arguments against its authenticity (Comma Publications, P.O. Box 1625, Tempe, AZ 85280-1625, receptus@sprynet.com; a second edition is scheduled for publication sometime in late 2005).
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/mythsabout-erasmus.html

God bless,

Stever :-)