Jump to content

Oldtimer

Members
  • Posts

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in What If The Government Rejects The Constitution?   
    In good times and bad the best thing we can do is live for Christ. If we strive to grow in Christlikeness, being salt and light, making disciples, spreading the Gospel, then we are doing what's best for us, our families, our community, our countries, because we are doinig what our Lord commands.

    We are to live for the Lord, trusting and obeying Him in all things. If we do this we can rest in the comfort and peace that God can be trusted with the results of our living our lives for Him.
  2. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from HappyChristian in German pensioner eats 64-year-old tub of lard   
    Personal opinion coming up!

    One of the biggest frauds being carried out today is the dating of foods, such as "Sell-By", "Use By", "Best By" on packaged foodstuff, especially canned and dried foods. People are tossing tons of food every year because of those dates. Food that is SAFE to eat. Food pantries reject food that has "expired" according to those dates, so people go hungry. People with low incomes waste their few dollars because they trust those dates and toss food that can still be safely eaten and enjoyed.

    Unless recently changed, the only dating that has regulations behind it are the dates on baby foods. For the rest, those dates are decided by processors/distributors, using their own motives for those dates. Who decided that a bag of rice should "expire" in 18 months -- lab results or the sales & marketing department? BTW, rice, if properly stored, has a 30+ year shelf life. As does a number of other staples in the pantry. http://providentliving.org/content/display/0,11666,7798-1-4224-1,00.html

    Canned foods are safe to eat as long as the seal isn't broken. The lard in the OP is an example. As a general rule, the nutritional quality of food will decline over time. Flavors of some foods will change, colors may darken, texture can change, all depending on the particular properties of the food itself. Fruits have a shorter shelf life, primarily because the acid in them will attack any metal in the container and break the seal. That applies to both commercially and homecanned fruits. However, that can or jar of applesauce is still fine to eat, as long as that seal isn't broken. So what, if it's lost 10% of the nutritional value and has turned a little dark. Toss the 90% remaining food value because of some date a manufacturer decided to use? Toss it because they want you to buy the next season's production run of applesauce?

    Think about it the next time you decide to toss properly stored dry pasta or dry beans beause of a date. Yes, dried beans will have some nutritional loss and will take longer to cook, as they age. That's a given. However, to foster the thought, in the average person, those beans are no longer safe to eat is a fraud. No, the manufacturer's don't directly say they aren't safe, but the implication is there across the whole food industry. Sometimes I want to yell when I see expiration dates on foods with unlimited shelf life, again, if properly stored. Pure honey is an example.

    Wish I had the time and space to dive into this subject in depth. How to store, how to identify hazards, glass vs plastic effect on storage, and so much more.

    Time to get off my soapbox.
  3. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from jchahl in Are You A Connoisseur?   
    Recognizing old quality castiron cookware.

    As long as I can touch it (don't have to see it), the weight relative to size and the "texture" of the iron is enough to identify the craftsmanship that went into the piece. While a bit harder, even pieces coated with years of cooking "crud" give clues to what lies underneath. Listening to a piece will reveal hidden cracks.

    This comes from actually cleaning and restoring old pieces, some my own and others from friends.

    Old gate-marked pieces (the mark resulting from pouring molten iron into a mold) that don't carry a foundry's trademark have an interior so smooth it rivals modern non-stick. These pieces, often from the 1850's or so, have withstood the test of time. Modern non-stick tends to become useless through usage, while the old CI continues to improve with age.

    The KJB is like an early Griswold skillet, much sought after by collectors. It has withstood the test of time and is well seasoned through use. The craftsmanship, when this skillet was poured at the foundry, is not being duplicated today by any producer anywhere, today.
  4. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to heartstrings in Are You A Connoisseur?   
    Sing unto him a new song; play skilfully with a loud noise. Psalm 33:3

    Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest. Ecclesiastes 9:10

    Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men. Proverbs 22:29

    He also that is slothful in his work is brother to him that is a great waster. Proverbs 18:9

    And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Colossians 3:23


    While we have to live in this world we all have worldly needs for worldly goods and services. It is just as much testimony to do an honest days work, and do your very best as it is to "witness" to people. Because people are watching, and they notice if you are a careless, lazy slacker who takes shortcuts or shortchanges them on quality, service and time. They also notice when you do right. It's part of "letting your light shine". I believe that it doesn't matter if you are a musician, plumber, electrician, garbage man, or preacher; you should strive diligently to be the VERY BEST you can possibly be at what you do. It honors God..
  5. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from JerryNumbers in Kansas Officials Call Storm Chasers 'outrageously Stupid'   
    Even national news reporters were out playing "Storm Chaser". Trying to be the first ones there to get "breaking news" of the destruction and misery these storms can bring.

    Similar to hurricane season here in NC. As soon as the warning flags go up, every TV station in our area sends teamS to the coast. Multiple reporters and camera crews stationed all along the coast, from each TV station. Add to those, are national media. Then, when/if the storm hits, the fools are standing in the wind, rain, and flying debris to tell us there's a storm. Yes, fools, when the newscasters tell us to watch their TV stations for the latest info. (Listening to them on a battery powered radio because electric lines are down.)

    Sorry, I just get aggravated, primarily at the media.... news coverage, especially, considering the impact this stuff has on many of the clueless John Q Public who want to imitate what they see.
  6. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in What If The Government Rejects The Constitution?   
    The Constitution long ago was cast aside by both Parties in order to promote their own agendas. They only appear to support the Constitution because they raise that issue when opposing the agenda of the other.

    Nearly 90% of the federal government is unconstitutional. It takes both Parties for that to happen and continue.

    Apparently most voters don't really care, Christian or otherwise, because they continue to vote for those who support this year after year.
  7. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to Salyan in "Ban The Person Above You" Game   
    Ban Oldtimer for not bring specific! :frog:
  8. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in Help With Cleaning Out Christian Books   
    Touching on what LuAnne said, an author doesn't necessarily have to be of "our stripe" in order to write a worthwhile book. There are good books out there written by Christian authors who are not IFB. As will all things, it's a matter of being careful in what we choose to read, and sometimes of trial and error.

    I read a lot so over the course of the years I've come to recognize some that I want to avoid completely, some I'm comfortable reading their works as soon as I see something from them, and I'm also better able to judge a book by it's cover, so to speak, from reading the blurb found on most back covers. That's not to say I never pick up a not-so-good book once in awhile, but it's less often now than years ago.

    What I'm getting at is we have to use discernment, biblical discernment with the help of the Holy Ghost. The more rooted and grounded we are in the Word, the more we draw close to the Lord, the better able we are to discern whether a paritcular book or author is worthwhile or not.
  9. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in Friday Church News Notes   
    Regarding Mark Driscoll, I've noticed a growing number of preachers on the radio will quote him. Each time they make a clarifying statement before they quote Driscoll; typically something to the effect of them knowing Driscoll is controversial, that they don't agree with the way he speaks, the words he uses, but that he's not as bad with his language as he once was, etc.

    The question should be, if a preacher feels the need to distance himself from Driscoll on several points before quoting from him, shouldn't they recognize Driscoll isn't someone they should be quoting from? Shouldn't they be able to see that they can get an equally good quote from someone who actually is, or was (if they are deceased) following Christ in how they lived? If they can't find a quote from some preacher to fit their sermon why not simply do without the quote, quote something relevant from Scripture or make their own statement?

    One thing Driscoll does that I'm finding really irksome and tiring in that it's done so much today, is how he calls virtually anything he disagrees with that other Christians practice as "legalism" or "fundamentalism". Today "fundamentalism" is used as if it's a dirty word and "legalism" is cracked like a whip in an attempt to shame and silence those who disagree.

    Typically, those things denounced as "legalism" or some form of bad "fundamentalism" are soundly biblically things that these people don't want to accept.

    The whole idea of being a "sound Christian" yet acting and living like the world is totally unbiblical.
  10. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from HappyChristian in Cast iron cookware set or other...   
    One of my hobbies is collecting and restoring castiron cookware and related items. Haven't counted them, but I'm guessing I have around a hundred pieces, including 3 CI laundry stoves. Some observations, FWIW.

    Yes, using plain CI cookware is a way to add some iron to your diet. However, a well seasoned skillet can only yield a very small amount, as the seasoning is a barrier between the metal and the food. The better the quality of the seasoning, the less contact there is between foodstuff and the bare metal, itself. Poorly seasoned CI and/or heavy use of acid foods (tomato based for example) an increase the potential for iron in the food. Enameled cookware that doesn't have scratches or chips is the equivalent of cooking in glass, as enamel is considered to be non-reactive.

    If buying new plain CI cookware, Lodge is by far the best. The best enameled cookware is Le Creuset manufactured in France. (Expensive!) Lodge enamel ware is produced in China. (sigh) In the past foundries were commonplace here in the US and were producing high quality cookware. Over time the foundries closed and the craftsmanship of the remaining ones declined. To my knowledge, Lodge is the last foundry in the US producing cookware on a commercial scale. Sadly, their quality has declined, too. Sometime in the 1960's, they changed their casting/finishing procedures, due to the high cost of replacement finishing equipment when it failed. They couldn't replace it and still stay competitive with the flood of imports, especially the cheap "stuff" from China.

    If buying new, do support Lodge to help keep them from closing their doors, too. The quality of their cookware is still much higher than the WalMart pieces marked Made In China. If you were to visit my shop, I could easily show you the difference.

    That said, I can also show you the difference between pre and post 1960's Lodge. As a general rule, the older the piece of CI, the better the quality of pieces that haven't been abused by time. With a little hands-on study, you can tell the difference while being blindfolded. Some brands of old cookware are highly collectable and command high dollars on the collectors market. Griswold and Wagner are the most sought after brands, today. There are several others, including old Lodge. But, even the no-name old pieces are easy to recognize in terms of quality and craftsmanship. When comparing two pieces of the same size, old US cast will be lighter in weight and will have a smooth finish -- that non-stick finish, if well seasoned -- that just isn't available in modern production, regardless of the location of the foundry. Using that same comparison new Lodge has a much higher quality compared to the slipshod castings of the China imports.

    Next: Sets of cookware. Don't buy them, regardless of the materials used for construction, whether stainless, enamelware, or castiron. I learned that the hardway years ago. "Sets" generally have pieces that go unused, thus are wasted money that could be better spent elsewhere. Buy individual pieces of cookware based on your actual needs and cooking style. Sure a matched set is "pretty" in the kitchen. But what good is "pretty" if the item(s) stays on the back shelf because it isn't used?

    If you're in the market for castiron and have a limited budget, shop for it at yard sales, flea markets and such. AFTER spending some time teaching your hands how to recognize quality. One way to do this is to visit high end antique stores and handle those old high dollar Griswold pieces. Pick them up and feel the weight compared to the sizes. Run your fingers around the interior and notice the smooth and polished surface. Remember that as you visit WalMart or any other place and do the same thing with "Made in China". The interior will feel like a gravel road in comparison.

    It does take time to find these old pieces at good prices. Ebay can give you an idea of what the going rate for "collectibles". That'll help you determine when you've found a bargain at a yardsale or in Aunt Bettie's basement. A FWIW... found a #10 Griswold for $4 at a yard sale. Looked it up on Ebay and the going rate for that particular skillet was $150. At the same sale found a #8 Griswold dutchoven for $50. Better half thought I was nuts for paying that much for a DO. That is until I whispered that the trivet in it was selling for $50, by itself. These are rare finds, BTW. OTOH, I've paid from $2 to $5 for QUALITY no-name CI pieces for use in the kitchen. Having Griswold stamped on the bottom, doesn't make that piece cook any better than the same quality ware produced by a foundry that didn't label their craftsmanship.

    This post is getting long and I've rambled on long enough. Haven't even touched on bringing that old CI back to a useful life. Or, how much I enjoy cooking in CI when compared to the "modern" stuff, even the high end, high dollar All-Clad, Calphalon and other brands. Forget the celebrity endorced sets being promoted by most mass merchandisers - Emeril, WolfGang Puck, Rachel Ray, Paula Deen, etc. IMHO, they are like "designer jeans", in that you're paying a premium to have their label in your kitchen.

    Get busy searching out those old quality pieces of CI. Don't know how to get started? For everything you ever wanted to know about CI cookware, visit this site: http://www.griswoldandwagner.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl There's a wealth of information there, even if you don't become a member with extended access.

    Hope someone finds these thoughts to be useful this morning.
  11. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from jchahl in Young Chef   
    I can testify to that. It's been amazing what's happened in my life since I finally "listened" and stopped being a lukewarm Christian who wasn't even sitting on the back pew of a church for many years.

    No, I haven't won the lottery or inherited a fortune from a long lost relative. God blesses each of us with what we need in our lives when it's our turn to "do" for Him. Better half and I were becoming hermits after we retired. About the only time we saw other people were the dreaded trips to the grocery store or when a neighbor would stop by for a few minutes. The latter didn't happen often, either. All of that changed, when one of those neighbor's invited us to church.

    Twice, in fact, he offered the invitation. Today, I thank God, we listened to the person who turned out to be His messenger, two years ago. Through His messenger, He brought us into a Baptist church (neither of us were Baptists) to hear His word, again. Today, our lives are richly blessed in too many ways to number as we answered the call to serve Him. Being here, this morning, to testify about the impact He's had on our lives, is just one of those blessings.

    Thank God for the blessings He bestowed on the young man in the OP. Thank God for blessings of renewal and growth in our walk of faith. Thank God for the same thing He's doing for others who will "listen" and "do" for Him, when it's "their turn".



    :sSig_praiseGod:
  12. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in Young Chef   
    Amazing how God works in our lives, especially when we are willing to "do" when it's our turn.
  13. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to irishman in The City of Dire Straits   
    “Dire Straits” is my hometown; I have lived here for many years. It isn’t much, with all of its crime and vice, but it is the place I call “home”. I am not very excited about living here, but with my “roots” planted deeply in the soil, and family and friends all around, I feel I can hardly leave this place. People seem to love it here, there are many that live in Dire Straits. We are not really the greatest city in size, but we lead the country in crime and vice, which I say to my own shame. I hope to be free from here “someday” but when that will be, I do not know; it would take a miracle to get me out of here, it seems. The people are not the friendliest you could find in the world, but then, they do live in Dire Straits! Someday we will escape the hold this city has on us, and be free from its grasp, and from the adverse influence it effects upon us and others. Meanwhile, please don’t come to Dire Straits, it is not a resort town, and strangers are not trusted, let alone not well received. The streets are rampant with crime; “druggies” and prostitutes rule the highways, and the sodomites are in a majority here.

    Life in Dire Straits is miserable, but then life anywhere can be miserable, so I might as well be miserable here! My family is in Dire Straits too, of course, and we all seem to be trapped in our own hometown. Is there any hope for us? It would take a miracle for us to break free from the influence and I am wondering if it is even possible at all.
    I have not seen many miracles, and don’t expect any in the near future, so I have given myself to life in this town for now, and silently cling to the hope that there is something better for us ahead. Making a living in Dire Straits is not easy; there is constant bickering; jostling for position in the work-a-day world; and even immorality and envy and much strife. It almost sounds like a church! But as they say, “Life goes on.” Each day is a drudgery, and a burden; I live for tomorrow; I see no light in the near future, and all hope is at a premium. Is this all there is to life? One wonders.

    Please don’t plan your vacation in Dire Straits; there are better places to go. This is not a resort town, full of charm and gaiety, but a “prison” or rather a “city of prisons”, and the chances of getting away unscathed are minimal indeed. It seems that all my neighbors have the same problems, and are also miserable here; their misery is well seen and felt among their peers. We are all “in the same boat” as the saying goes, and of course, that is because we all live in Dire Straits, and there is no way that we know of to escape it, at least not without outside help. You see, there is a great wall around the city, high and vast, so that none can escape; there are guards on all the gates, “demons” of death and mayhem, waiting for the execution and the torture of an escapee, or an alleged escapee. It is a prison, indeed. The one main entrance that is called “Hope” has been shut and sealed long ago, and all chances of escape there have been destroyed; it has been torn down and cemented shut so that it resembles a part of the original wall, and one must study it to even know that there was once a door of Hope. Who can help me? I have heard of a Great One who has the power to deliver us from all sorts of “prisons” and malady’s, but as to where to find Him, I know not.

    The people try to suppress the rumors of this Great One, and His name is not spoken in public anymore, but I have heard much…rumors of long ago. They say He is a mighty King, a “King of kings” and that He turns none away who seek refuge in Him. I must find this Great One, but where do I begin? His name cannot be spoken in public for fear of retribution, but many of us have heard of His greatness.

    There is, in Dire Straits, an old, dilapidated and broken-down building that burdens the lot where it sits. It has long since lost its charm and has given way to decay and has been enveloped with weeds and thistles, and is an eyesore to all who pass. No one graces its doors anymore, but it sits in solitude, and sadly and slowly dies. It was at one time the home of the Great king, and many came to honor Him, but now men have ignored it, and it has fallen into the clutches of Dire Straits, and has taken the mood of the rest of the city; it is there, but it is not there. The physical building is there, though in need of much repair and cleansing, but the building itself is empty. One can look upon it, and see the entire city in its backward charm; it is a reflection of what Dire Straits is all about. It stands as a monument to yesterday, and what used to be, but no more does it shine its light into the dismal city of despair. This building was a center of activity at one time, with singing and gaiety filling the air, but now it has been abandoned for many years, and stands in a state of ruin. The city had another name at that time, it was called the “City of Hope” then but has long since been changed. My grandparents used to tell me stories of the Great King and that He dwelt in that old building, which was then a new, vibrant light to our dismal town. They told the stories with a gleam in their eyes, as if they longed again for the “old days” but knew that they would not see them again in their lifetime. They died a few years ago, and with them the tales of hope and of the Great King who can deliver us; they never did see the King again as far as I know. I find myself curious of the old place, and spend much time there dreaming of better days.

    There are two fellows that seem to follow me wherever I go. Every turn I make, I see them there, lingering, and ogling at me with sneering eyes. Their names are “Grief” and “Despair”. They follow me, stopping where I stop, and going when I go; the only recourse I have is when I flee to the old building called “The House of The Living God”, therefore, I find myself spending more and more time in the “church” (another name that my grandparents used to call it). There is debris all over the place when I enter, the place is a shambles, and yet, I find peace from my pursuers. Long benches have been overturned, and windows have been broken out, and the walls are full of holes, but it is here I find my greatest refuge. They will not enter the threshold of this place, as if they fear its mysterious charm. Through a hole in the roof, the sun shines; and as I follow its rays, I see it illuminates a well preserved cross that has been placed up on the stage. Such an awesome sight it is, that I can only stand and gape, stunned by the peaceful bliss of the moment. I do not understand the feelings inside me, but there is something very peculiar about that cross, and very comforting. I do not know how long I stood gazing up, but it seems as only minutes. I find myself muttering words that I don’t really understand, and it seems as if some great force is compelling me to call upon the Great King and seek His grace. I humbly fall prostrate before the cross, and spill out my heart in tears. Finally, I turn to leave, and see that my pursuers have fled, and I am free of their gaze and their stalking; I have never felt so good!

    Everything seemed to take on a new look, as if the world had been painted with bright and happy colors. My eyes seemed to see differently, and those things I held dear before seemed to be of no avail to me now. I don’t know exactly what had happened, but I liked it. As the months went by, I fled to my place of refuge often, and began to clean it up. It was in such a state of disrepair that I alone could not restore it to its original state, but by then I had recruited a few friends, and they too began to seek refuge from the city of Dire Straits. It wasn’t long before we had quite a group and someone had found an old Holy Book in the cellar of the church, and we began to meet together to read from it collectively. The things we read there were amazing! It was such a comfort, and it spoke of the greatness of the Great King that gramps used to tell us about--a greatness that far exceeded the stories we used to hear. The place had shaped up quite well and we were meeting every couple of days for fellowship and comfort and for the hearing of the words in the Holy Book, and to talk of those things that we had learned.

    Because I was the burdened one that began to work on the church and gather the people, they put me in charge of the Holy Book. I read it every day, and met with the God of the Book that was introduced to me there; I had discovered that he was the Great King of lore, and that he was the Creator of all things, and the Judge of the whole earth. We began to meet early every morning, and, as time would have it, He had given me favor in the eyes of the people. The church had grown to an immense size, and we had to expand a few times to hold all the people. Being the keeper of the Book, I also had the great honor of speaking to the people of the wondrous things contained therein, and the church continued to grow. Soon, I was made the keeper of the gate also, and sat in the high place of the government of the city. Certain changes had been effected, but now the Great King, who I now know as my Lord and Savior, had inspired me to repair the door of Hope, and eventually to change the name of the city. When I brought it to the people for a vote, they were of the same mind, and the work was begun. The walls were later torn down and a gate was put up with the inscription over it “Whosoever will may come”, and come they did, until we could hardly contain all the people. The City of Hope had been restored, and the new name now was adopted into the minds and hearts of the people, and even the surrounding cities began to effect change. Revival swept the country, and the old ways were woken. The old timers were seen crying and dancing in the streets, and even this man was of a glad heart and rejoicing greatly at what the Great King had done. He had removed us from Dire Straits and given us a new hope, the city of Hope in the Lord our God. Never despair; there is always a City of Hope; there is always hope, found in the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessed be the great name of the Lord.
  14. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Robert Reynolds in Happy Resurrection Day!!!   
    In a little while, I'll be leaving home to help with the final preparations for a day of celebration of Christ's victory over death that we remember on Resurrection Sunday. Robert, as your day winds down, our sunrise is still a promise, as I type. I hope your day was filled with all the joy of God's greatest gift that the promise of our day has yet to bring.

    Further, if we are granted another day, tomorrow, I pray that the celebration of Him, will continue to live and grow stronger in our hearts. Each and everyday, until the Lord calls us home.

    Thank you Robert, for a few moments of reflection, as it's been a while between this sentence and the one that precedes it.

    Praise God for Resurrection Day! In Jesus most holy and precious name I pray. Amen
  15. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to Robert Reynolds in Happy Resurrection Day!!!   
    On behalf of my family and Hillside Baptist Mission, here in Laoag City, Philippines, we would like to say "Happy Resurrection Day to you all, Lord bless you!!!"
  16. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to Bro K in Who Cares ???   
    Took one of my old Bible off the shelf and found this outline. May it be of help.

    If one dies and goes to hell...who cares
    Lk 16:23 "And in hell he lifted up his eyes...."

    God Cares- John 3:16
    Jesus Cares- Mt 18:11
    Apostle Paul Cared- Rom 1:16
    People in Heaven Care- Lk 15.7
    People in Hell Care- Lk 16:27-28

    DO WE CARE??
  17. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Crushmaster in Leaving.   
    This bears repeating with emphasis!
    :sSig_praiseGod:
  18. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Crushmaster in Leaving.   
    This is a difficult post for me to write, as I have a deep concern for you, and I'm not sure how to express it using a keyboard because we can't just sit and talk. In the end, you'll have to make your own decision based on how the Holy Spirit leads you.

    Please be careful and be sure that satan isn't using some posts here (and whatever the other situations are) influence your thinking. As we're all subject to our own human emotions, it is easy for him to trigger a negative response when none is needed. Or, for him to trigger a negative reaction far greater than how we should react. I know. I'm speaking from far too much experience with that. (sigh) Even today, I use the phrase "satan get behind me" quite often when I react to things I should ignore, especially when I'm tired.

    For example, there's a lady at church who gets on my last nerve. She means well but she has a way about her that's hard to take sometimes. I don't have the option of avoiding her as we work together on several ministries. Yes, I could make the choice to stay away from those ministries. If I take that choice, then I'm actually taking a bite from satan's apple because he's defeated my desire to serve the Lord with those ministry opportunities. If I do that, I'm allowing another person to have more influence over my life than the guidance (influence) of the Holy Spirit. Satan get behind me. I will NOT allow you to defeat me over something so immaterial in my life, as the grating remarks this worman can sometimes make.

    If we let him, satan can use and does use Bible issues to come between us and our Lord. If we let him, he will drive in a wedge deeper and deeper into our faith in God ... between members in the body of Christ. If you and I fight over the differences between the KJV and the NIV doesn't that serve his purpose? If our fight can keep you from visiting a Baptist church, doesn't that serve his purpose? IMHO, Satan will do everything he can to keep you from hearing God's word and from fellowship with other believers in Jesus Christ.

    I don't know if your MIL's church is the right one for you to attend. Only the Holy Spirit can help you determine that for yourself. Just don't let satan use any opportunity to make that determination for you. Don't let satan set a stumbling block in your path that keeps you from at least visiting a church and learning, for yourself, AND allowing the Holy Spirit to guide in your decision.

    I pray that these words come across the way that I intend. I wish we could sit around a kitchen table and share a cup of coffee or tea and simply talk. Then, end our conversation with each praying for the other and thanking the Lord for the opportunity to share our faith.

    I pray for God's blessing on you without any reservations. May the Lord draw you even closer to Him in your walk of faith.
  19. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from HappyChristian in Need some advice and prayer   
    Robert, I see that you are 42 years old. There may be another piece to this puzzle that hasn't been considered yet in the responses. If your wife is in or nearing the "change of life", that may be affecting her both physically and emotionally. Some women go through this rather easily. However, that's not the case with all. Not saying that's the case with your wife. Just mentioning that it can be a tramatic emotional upheavel for some ladies.

    Yes, I agree that you should talk with her, carefully. Choose a quiet time, when you know you won't be interrupted. Choose a time when neither of you are rushed, harried, angry, or extremely tired. Gently lead into the conversation by expressing concern for her above everything else. I'm sure God won't mind, if you put her first for a little while. He knows where your heart lies. And, then simply listen to her. That may be all that she needs. For you to really listen without any reservations.

    If the conversation starts to go sour, back off for a while. It may be difficult for her to express herself, her concerns, her problems. If that's the case, pressuring her will probably have the opposite effect from what you'd like to happen. Just chose another quiet time and try again. In the meantime, let her know in little ways that you truly love her and are concerned. An unexpected hug. An unexpected thank-you and/or something similar. Often, it isn't the BIG things, but the small gestures of understanding, appreciation, and compasion that can make the difference.

    Pray with her and for her. Pray with her that both of you seek the Lord's guidance in your lives. Keep her included so she knows everything isn't all about you and God's direction for you individually.

    I pray that the Lord will help you, as a couple, come through this time of trouble, whatever the source of it may be.
  20. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from 1Timothy115 in Leaving.   
    This is a difficult post for me to write, as I have a deep concern for you, and I'm not sure how to express it using a keyboard because we can't just sit and talk. In the end, you'll have to make your own decision based on how the Holy Spirit leads you.

    Please be careful and be sure that satan isn't using some posts here (and whatever the other situations are) influence your thinking. As we're all subject to our own human emotions, it is easy for him to trigger a negative response when none is needed. Or, for him to trigger a negative reaction far greater than how we should react. I know. I'm speaking from far too much experience with that. (sigh) Even today, I use the phrase "satan get behind me" quite often when I react to things I should ignore, especially when I'm tired.

    For example, there's a lady at church who gets on my last nerve. She means well but she has a way about her that's hard to take sometimes. I don't have the option of avoiding her as we work together on several ministries. Yes, I could make the choice to stay away from those ministries. If I take that choice, then I'm actually taking a bite from satan's apple because he's defeated my desire to serve the Lord with those ministry opportunities. If I do that, I'm allowing another person to have more influence over my life than the guidance (influence) of the Holy Spirit. Satan get behind me. I will NOT allow you to defeat me over something so immaterial in my life, as the grating remarks this worman can sometimes make.

    If we let him, satan can use and does use Bible issues to come between us and our Lord. If we let him, he will drive in a wedge deeper and deeper into our faith in God ... between members in the body of Christ. If you and I fight over the differences between the KJV and the NIV doesn't that serve his purpose? If our fight can keep you from visiting a Baptist church, doesn't that serve his purpose? IMHO, Satan will do everything he can to keep you from hearing God's word and from fellowship with other believers in Jesus Christ.

    I don't know if your MIL's church is the right one for you to attend. Only the Holy Spirit can help you determine that for yourself. Just don't let satan use any opportunity to make that determination for you. Don't let satan set a stumbling block in your path that keeps you from at least visiting a church and learning, for yourself, AND allowing the Holy Spirit to guide in your decision.

    I pray that these words come across the way that I intend. I wish we could sit around a kitchen table and share a cup of coffee or tea and simply talk. Then, end our conversation with each praying for the other and thanking the Lord for the opportunity to share our faith.

    I pray for God's blessing on you without any reservations. May the Lord draw you even closer to Him in your walk of faith.
  21. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in Leaving.   
    As long as we are open and willing to follow God's leading, that's what matters. As I mentioned, we are not currently in an IFB church. We wouldn't leave the church we are in now unless the Lord directed us to.

    It's not so much as what name is on the church, it's whether that church preaches the Gospel and teaches the congregation to live according to the Word; and that it's the church God leads us to attend.
  22. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Pastor Matt in Leaving.   
    This is a difficult post for me to write, as I have a deep concern for you, and I'm not sure how to express it using a keyboard because we can't just sit and talk. In the end, you'll have to make your own decision based on how the Holy Spirit leads you.

    Please be careful and be sure that satan isn't using some posts here (and whatever the other situations are) influence your thinking. As we're all subject to our own human emotions, it is easy for him to trigger a negative response when none is needed. Or, for him to trigger a negative reaction far greater than how we should react. I know. I'm speaking from far too much experience with that. (sigh) Even today, I use the phrase "satan get behind me" quite often when I react to things I should ignore, especially when I'm tired.

    For example, there's a lady at church who gets on my last nerve. She means well but she has a way about her that's hard to take sometimes. I don't have the option of avoiding her as we work together on several ministries. Yes, I could make the choice to stay away from those ministries. If I take that choice, then I'm actually taking a bite from satan's apple because he's defeated my desire to serve the Lord with those ministry opportunities. If I do that, I'm allowing another person to have more influence over my life than the guidance (influence) of the Holy Spirit. Satan get behind me. I will NOT allow you to defeat me over something so immaterial in my life, as the grating remarks this worman can sometimes make.

    If we let him, satan can use and does use Bible issues to come between us and our Lord. If we let him, he will drive in a wedge deeper and deeper into our faith in God ... between members in the body of Christ. If you and I fight over the differences between the KJV and the NIV doesn't that serve his purpose? If our fight can keep you from visiting a Baptist church, doesn't that serve his purpose? IMHO, Satan will do everything he can to keep you from hearing God's word and from fellowship with other believers in Jesus Christ.

    I don't know if your MIL's church is the right one for you to attend. Only the Holy Spirit can help you determine that for yourself. Just don't let satan use any opportunity to make that determination for you. Don't let satan set a stumbling block in your path that keeps you from at least visiting a church and learning, for yourself, AND allowing the Holy Spirit to guide in your decision.

    I pray that these words come across the way that I intend. I wish we could sit around a kitchen table and share a cup of coffee or tea and simply talk. Then, end our conversation with each praying for the other and thanking the Lord for the opportunity to share our faith.

    I pray for God's blessing on you without any reservations. May the Lord draw you even closer to Him in your walk of faith.
  23. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Salyan in Apocrypha   
    We subscribe to a small hometown newspaper to keep up the the local happenings. What the county commissioners are up to now. Write ups of local events, deaths, high school sports, and other items considered to be "news" in our community. With each issue of the paper there's a pile of inserts that go straight to the recycling bin. Rarely do I ever read the advertisements for all the "stuff" being promoted for someones commercial interests in those inserts. The inserts are NOT "news" as we traditionally define the term.

    The Apocrypha was an INSERT into the 1611 KJV between the Old & New Testements. To be read or ignored, just as today's advertising inserts in our local paper. The translators made it clear what the purpose was for including the Apocrypha in the 1611 printing. Just as we know today the purpose for including inserts in a newspaper. Editors of the KJV later dropped it because it wasn't scripture and only led to confusion as time moved forward. Later generations didn't have the Catholic church background of those who first read the 1611 edition.

    Time hasn't moved on far enough for newspaper advertising inserts to be dropped. There's a commercial interest (agenda) to keep them in place in the "news". Just as there's an interest (agenda) to keep the Apocrypha being preceived as scripture. With the newspaper inserts somebody wants to sell me something. If the Apocrypha were to be inserted into the KJV again, somebody wants to "sell" me something.

    I'm not buying.

    All the "news" (scriptures) that I want to read is within the pages of the Old and New Testements of the KJB.

    If I want to be led into temptation it's easy to find the Apocrypha on line. Just as it's easy to thumb through all those newspaper ad inserts that try to tempt me to part with my money. I don't need to know about somebody's latest, greatest, improved, whatever-they-are selling ads to trust the brands I put in my shopping cart.

    Same thing applies when I pick up the KJB that I trust to give me the word of God.
  24. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to brandplucked in Vatican Versions reject the Hebrew texts - new expanded study   
    In 1 Chronicles the NIV rejects the Hebrew in 1:4, 17; 4:3 changes "father" to "son" along with the NKJV, NASB though the Hebrew translations, RV, ASV, Young, Darby and others read as does the KJB with "were of the father of Etam". 4:33; 6:25, 27, 28, 59, 77; 8:29, 30; 16:15; 25:9; 26:20 (NASB too), 2 Chronicles 15:8 both NIV and NASB add "Azariah son of" from the Syriac and the Vulgate; 20: 1,2, and in 20:25 both the NIV, NASB change "dead bodies" to "clothing"; 22:2 both NIV, NASB change 42 to 22 on basis of some LXX, but the Hebrew says 42; and in 36:9 the NIV changes 8 to 18 but the NASB retains "eight" years old, according to the Hebrew.

    One example of many:
    1 Chronicles 16:15 and 19. “BE YE MINDFUL always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations (v. 15)....when YE were but a few, even a few, and strangers in it.”

    The modern versions present us with their typical array of confusion and mutual disagreement in these two places - “BE YE MINDFUL” (v. 15) and “when YE were but a few” (v. 19.)

    The Hebrew texts clearly read as does the King James Bible, but the NIV has chosen to reject the Hebrew texts and instead follow SOME Greek Septuagint versions in these two places.

    Agreeing with “BE YE MINDFUL” or, as some modern versions have it “Remember” (which means the same thing) and “when YE were but a few” are the Hebrew versions of JPS 1917, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Names Version.
    Also agreeing with both Hebrew texts - “Be ye mindful” and “when YE were but a few” are the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the ASV 1901, Youngs, Darby, Webster’s, Rotherham’s Emphasized Bible 1902, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the NKJV 1982, Green’s interlinear, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, Third Millenium Bible 1998, and the 2001 revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV (English Standard Version.) The RSV has it one way, the NRSV another and the ESV yet another. These guys are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

    Also agreeing with the Hebrew reading of “BE YE MINDFUL” (or Remember) are the NRSV 1989, NASB 1963-1995, Douay, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible, Holman Standard 2003 and Daniel Wallace’s NET version.

    However all of these versions, both old and new - Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the NASB, Holman, NRSV and Wallace’s NET version - then proceed to reject the Hebrew text in verse 19, where instead of reading “When YE were but few”, all these versions incorrectly read “when THEY were but few in number.”

    The NIV, RSV and TNIV reject both Hebrew readings and in verse 15 instead of saying “Be ye mindful always of his covenant” they say: “HE REMEMBERS his covenant forever”. Then they tell us in their footnotes that these readings comes from “SOME Septuagint manuscripts, but the Hebrew reads ‘Remember’.” and “when you were few”. Not all ‘Septuagint’ versions are the same. The copy of the Septuagint that is the most common says “LET US REMEMBER forever his covenant” and not “He remembers his covenant”.

    Likewise the foreign language bible versions are a hodgepodge of conflicting readings. Agreeing with the Hebrew texts and the King James Bible are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1902 and the Sagradas Escrituras 1569 - “Haced memoria de su alianza perpetuamente” and “Cuando erais pocos en número, Pocos y peregrinos en ella.” However the newer Reina Valera versions have rejected the Hebrew texts, and both the 1960 and 1995 versions read like the NIV with: “El hace memoria de su pacto perpetuamente” and “Cuando ellos eran pocos en número”.
    The Italian Diodati 1649 and the Italian Nuova Diodate 1991 agree with the Hebrew and the KJB saying - “Ricordatevi sempre del suo patto” and “quando non eravate che un piccolo numero”

    The French Martin 1744 and the 1996 French Ostervald both read the same as the Hebrew and the King James Bible. The 1999 French version called La Bible du Semeur, put of by the same people who gave us the NIV, the International Bible Society, does follow the Hebrew texts and agrees with the King James Bible. It says “Souvenez-vous pour toujours de son alliance” and “Vous n'étiez alors qu'un très petit...” So the French NIV differs from the English NIV.

    The Modern Greek translation (not to be confused with the so called Greek Septuagints) also reads “Remember his covenant always” and “when you were but a few”.

    The King James Bible is right - as always.

    2 Chronicles 15:8 "And when Asa heard these words, AND the prophecy OF OBED the prophet, he took courage and put away the abominable idols..."

    So read the Hebrew texts and the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, modern Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Geneva Bible 1599, Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Darby, Young's, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the NKJV and even Wallace's NET version.
    However in modern times beginning with the liberal RSV, many bible versions add words to the Hebrew text on the belief that the Hebrew text has been corrupted. These include the NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, TNIV and the Message. These versions add the words "Azariah the son" to the inspired text.

    Jamieson, Faucett and Brown give this faith destroying comment: "when Asa heard . . . the prophecy of Oded the prophet--The insertion of these words, "of Oded the prophet," is generally regarded as a corruption of the text. "The sole remedy is to erase them. They are, probably, the remains of a note, which crept in from the margin into the text" [bERTHEAU]."

    This is an interesting comment from these men who do not believe that any Bible or any text is free from corruption. They suggest that we merely "erase" these words from the divine text, but yet none of the other multiple bible version translators have followed their advice. Instead the versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman have ADDED the words "which Azaraiah the son" of Obed to the text, allegedly from the Syriac and Latin Vulgate.

    The NIV says "the prophecy of AZARIAH SON of Obed the prophet" and then tells us in a footnote: "Vulgate and Syriac; Hebrew does not have 'Azariah son of'.
    Furthermore, the Syriac translation done by Lamsa reads: "the prophecy of Azariah the son of Azor" and not Obed. Then the conflicting Septuagint versions are again in disarray. The LXX copy I have does not add the name of Azariah to the text but says: "the prophecy of AZOR", but then footnotes that the Alexandrian Septuagint reads: "the prophecy of Azariah" and both omit the name Obed altogether. So we see that these other "ancient versions" are in complete disagreement among themselves and the footnotes in versions like the NIV are a misleading lie.

    Another note of interest as to why it is the King James Bible and not the previous English versions that is the perfect words of God is that Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops's Bible of 1568 all contain this added false reading of "the prophecy OF AZARIAH THE SON of Obed" to the Hebrew text.

    There are two possible explantions I am aware of for believing that God got it right after all, and that His words have not been corrupted or lost over time, but have been faithfully preserved in the Hebrew texts and more specifically in the King James Bible. One explanation is that the prophet Azariah is called by the name of his father Obed. This is possible. However I personally lean towards the other explanation that not only did king Asa hear the words of Azariah but that he ALSO was told at this time about a previous prophecy given by Azariah's father Obed.

    Notice carefully the words recorded in the King James Bible in 2 Chronicles 15:8: "And when Asa heard these words, AND the prophecy OF OBED the prophet, he took courage and put away the abominable idols..."

    The King James Bible is correct and translators who put together versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, and Holman are guilty of adding to the words of God and not believing in an infallible Bible.

    Modern Bible translators do not believe in the preservation of the inspired Scriptures. There are many examples of where modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman often reject the clear Hebrew readings and either follow some other source, or just INVENT or make up a reading on a whim. Yet they continually disagree among themselves as to when they do this.

    2 Chronicles 20:1 KJB - “It came to pass after this also, that the children of Moab, and the children of Ammon, and with them other BESIDE THE AMMONITES, came against Jehoshaphat to battle.”

    These “other beside the Ammonites” would include “those of mount Seir” later mentioned in verses 10 and 22.

    THE AMMONITES is the reading found in the KJB, the Jewish translations of the JPS 1917, Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, the Geneva bible, the Bishops’ Bible and the Spanish Reina Valera.

    However the NIV says: “After this, the Moabites and Ammonites with SOME OF THE MEUNITES came to make war on Jehoshaphat.” Then it footnotes that this reading comes from “SOME Septuagint copies, but the Hebrew reads Ammonites”. Not only does the NIV reject the Hebrew text in this place but so do the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NET, NASB and the Holman Standard. Wallace’s NET version also follows the non-Hebrew reading “Meunites” but then he footnotes: “The Hebrew text has “Ammonites,”...Most translations, following some mss of the LXX, read “Meunites” so NASB, NIV, NRSV.” Likewise the older Catholic Douay followed the Hebrew text and reads like the KJB, but the more modern Catholic versions like the St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem add "and with them the Meunites" and then footnote that these extra words come from "the Greek; Hebrew corrupt"!!!

    By the way, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac has a completely different reading than either the Hebrew texts or “some” LXXs. In stead of “and with them beside the Ammonites” it reads “with the mighty men of war”.

    In the very next verse, 2 Chronicles 20:2 we read in the KJB - “There cometh a great multitude against thee from beyond the sea on this side SYRIA ; and behold, they be in Hazazontamar, which is Engedi.”

    SYRIA (or Aram, which is the same) is the reading found in the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, 1936 Hebrew Pub. Com., the Judaica Press Tanach, Wycliffe 1395, Bishops’ Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, the Douay-Rheims, the Revised Version, the American Standard Version, the NKJV, Third Millenium Bible, Green’s literal, Darby, and even the Greek Septuagint - Siria.

    However beginning with the liberal RSV and followed by the NRSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman Standard and the Message, these modern versions have rejected the Hebrew reading of Syria (or Aram) and read EDOM instead. Again, the older Catholic Douay version read "SYRIA" but the more modern Catholic versions like St. Joesph and New Jerusalem have "EDOM". Then versions like the NIV, NRSV, New Jerusalem and NET footnote that EDOM comes from ONE Hebrew manuscript, but that the Hebrew Masoretic texts read Syria or Aram. Even the LXX agrees with the KJB here. Once again the Syriac is corrupt and has a completely different reading than either the Hebrew or the LXX. Instead of “on this side Syria” it actually says: “and behold, they are encamping in Jericho”!!!

    Then again in 2 Chronicles 20:25 we read: “And when Jehoshaphat and his people came to take away the spoil of them, they found among them in abundance both riches WITH THE DEAD BODIES, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away: and they were three days in gathering of the spoil, it was so much. “

    The context is really quite simple. When the children of Israel cried out to the Lord, God Himself set these enemies against one another and they killed each other. Verse 24 reads: “And when Judah came toward the watch tower in the wilderness, they looked unto the multitude, and, behold, THEY WERE DEAD BODIES FALLEN TO THE EARTH, and none escaped.”

    Not only does the King James Bible read “with the DEAD BODIES” (or corpses) but so also do the Jewish Scriptures ( JPS 1917, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, Judaica Press Tanach 2004, the Complete Jewish Bible) the RV 1885, ASV 1901, NKJV 1982, Green’s, Spanish Reina Valera, Darby, Youngs, the Geneva bible 1587, the Lesser Bible 1853, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, and this time even the Holman Standard version of 2003. The Geneva Bible says: “they founde among them in abundance both of substance and also of bodies laden with precious iewels, which they tooke for themselues.” Even Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac agrees with the Hebrew texts and the KJB saying “and behold they were DEAD BODIES fallen to the earth”.

    The Hebrew word is found over 20 times in the Masoretic text. It is # 6296 peh-ger and is variously translated as "dead bodies" in the previous verse of 2 Chron. 20:24, Jeremiah 31:40; 33:5; 41:6, and as "carcases" in Genesis 15:11; Lev. 26:30; Eze. 43:7 and as "corpses" in Isaiah 37:36.

    (As a side note, earlier English versions were still influenced by some Latin Vulgate readings and the earlier English translations from Wycliffe 1395 to Coverdale 1535, Matthew's Bible 1549 and the Bishops' Bible of 1568 contained the reading of "clothing" instead of the Hebrew text of "dead bodies". The 1568 Bishops' Bible read: "And when Iehosaphat and his people came to take away the spoyle of them, they founde among them aboundaunce of goods, rayment, & pleasaunt iewels, which they toke for them selues, more then they could cary away." It wasn't till the Geneva Bible that the Hebrew reading was followed instead of the Latin in this place. This shows the purification process that was taking place, which finally was perfected in the King James Bible.)

    The NKJV also reads “dead bodies” but then it casts doubt on the Hebrew reading by footnoting “ A few Hebrew manuscripts, Old Latin, and Vulgate read garments; Septuagint reads armor.” Well, for one thing they are lying about what the Septuagint reads. Instead of “dead bodies” or even “armor”, my copy of the so called LXX reads: “they found much CATTLE and FURNITURE, and spoils and precious things.”

    The NIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and NET versions all reject this Hebrew reading of “dead bodies” and instead say: “his people came to take their spoil, they found much among them, including goods, GARMENTS (NASB) CLOTHING (NIV) and valuable things.” Then the NIV tells us that this reading comes from “Some Hebrew manuscripts and Vulgate; most Hebrew manuscripts corpses.” The newer Catholic bibles (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) also read "clothes" and then footnote that the Hebrew reads "dead bodies".

    Another Bible corrector, Daniel Wallace, also reads in his NET version “clothing” instead of “dead bodies”, and he footnotes: “The MT reads “corpses”, but this seems odd among a list of plunder. A few medieval Hebrew mss and the Vulgate read “clothing”, which fits the context much better.”

    Sorry Dan, but the context is just fine as it stands in the traditional Hebrew texts and the KJB.

    The JPS (Jewish Publication Society) translation of 1917 reads just like the King James Bible with - “And when Jehoshaphat and his people came to take the spoil of them, they found among them in abundance both riches and dead bodies, and precious jewels, which they stripped off for themselves, more than they could carry away”

    Likewise the 2004 Jewish translation called The Complete Tanach follows the Hebrew Masoretic text (as does the KJB) and says: “And Jehoshaphat and his people came to plunder the spoils, and they found among them plenty, and belongings and corpses and precious vessels, which they emptied out for themselves to the extent that they could not carry them away, and for three days they were plundering the spoil, because it was so much.”

    Wycliffe 1395, which was translated from the Latin includes BOTH the words “dead bodies” and “clothes”. It reads: “Therfor Josaphat cam, and al the puple with hym, to drawe awey the spuylis of deed men, and thei founden among the deed bodies dyuerse purtenaunce of houshold, and clothis, and ful preciouse vessels”

    The Latin Vulgate - "spolia mortuorum inveneruntque inter cadavera variam supellectilem vestes "

    Catholic Douay-Rheims, like the Latin Vulgate and Wycliffe (which was translated from the Latin) also includes both the “dead bodies” and the garments - “and they found among the dead bodies, stuff of various kinds, and garments, and most precious vessels”. So, even the footnotes found in the NIV are false and misleading.

    The NIV reads: “ So Jehoshaphat and his men went to carry off their plunder, and they found among them a great amount of equipment and clothing [1] and also articles of value—more than they could take away. There was so much plunder that it took three days to collect it.” Footnotes: Some Hebrew manuscripts and Vulgate; most Hebrew manuscripts corpses

    2 Chronicles 26:5 - “And he sought God in the days of Zechariah, who had understanding in THE VISIONS of God: and as long as he sought the LORD, God made him to prosper.”

    The VISIONS of God is the reading found in the vast majority of Hebrew texts and is the reading of every Jewish translation I am aware of, including the 1917 Jewish Publication Society, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, the modern Complete Jewish Bible, the Hebrew Names Version and the Judaica Press Tanach.

    It is also the reading found in the King James Bible, Latin Vulgate 425, Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, American Standard Version 1901, Darby, Youngs, the Spanish Reina Valera, French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996, Italian Diodati and the Rivudeta 1927, the NKJV, Modern Greek, and the NASB 1972-1995,

    However he NIV has chosen a different text and reads: “He sought God during the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in THE FEAR of God. As long as he sought the LORD, God gave him success.” Likewise the newer Catholic versions like St. Joseph and New Jerusalem say "THE FEAR of God" and then the New Jerusalem footnotes that "fear" comes from the Greek, but that the Hebrew reads "vision of God".

    Then the NIV footnotes that the reading “fear” comes from ‘Many Hebrew manuscripts, Septuagint and Syriac; other Hebrew manuscripts vision ‘ This variant reading was first adopted by the liberal RSV in 1954 and now it is found in the NRSV, ESV, NIV, NEB and the Holman Standard Version. The LXX does read "fear of God" rather than "visions of God", but Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has "worship of God" rather than either 'fear' or 'visions', but with the modern versionists' Bible Agnostic mentality, I guess we can never be sure what God inspired in His precious words of truth and grace.

    NET version- Daniel Wallace’s fickle NET version has an incredible 4 footnotes in this single verse and yet for the word in question he has nothing. He seems to have made up his own text which more or less leans towards the NIV reading. The NET says: “He followed God during the lifetime of Zechariah, who TAUGHT HIM HOW TO HONOR GOD. As long as he followed the Lord, God caused him to succeed.”
    Both readings obviously cannot be what God originally inspired. Who wants you to be unsure about what God has said? As the Rolling Stones say: “Won’t you guess my name?”

    2 Chronicles 31:16 - “from THREE years old and upward” or “from THIRTY years old and upward”?

    In the King James Bible and in all Hebrew texts we read: “Beside their genealogy of males, from THREE YEARS OLD and upward, even unto every one that entereth into the house of the LORD, his daily portion for their service in their charges according to their courses.”

    Not only does the King James Bible correctly read “from three years old and upward” but so do the following Bible translations: Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the RV 1885, ASV 1901, RSV, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, NIV 1984 and 2011, NKJV 1982, Holman Standard 2003, the Berkeley Version 1969, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac, the Greek LXX, the New English Bible 1970, Daniel Wallace’s NET version and the Revised English Version of 1989.

    Yet the NASBs read: “without regard to their genealogical enrollment, to the males from THIRTY YEARS OLD and upward--everyone who entered the house of the LORD for his daily obligations--for their work in their duties according to their divisions.” Then in a footnote they tell us “the Hebrew reads three years old.” In other words, they just made this number up out of thin air. The only other version I could find that also reads “thirty years old” is Eugene Peterson’s The Message. In like manner, the previous Douay-Rheims read "THREE" but the newer Catholic versions (St. Joseph, New Jerusalem) say "THIRTY years and upwards" and then the New Jerusalem footnotes that the Hebrew reads THREE, just like the KJB has it.

    There is NO Hebrew text that reads this way; nor the so called Greek Septuagint nor the Syriac; they all read “from three years old and upward”. The NASB seems to attempt some justification for this whimsical change in the text by cross referencing 1 Chron. 23:3 where it talks about the age of the priests, but that passage is talking about the age of the Levites and not the Aaronic priesthood, which originally was 30 years old and upward, but was later changed to 20 years old and upward as can be seen from looking at the very next verse in 2 Chronicles 31:17 “...and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses.”

    John Gill comments: “Beside their genealogy of males, from three years old and upwards… Their office was not only to give to the priests, but to those of their males in their genealogy, who were three years old and upwards; for under that age, according to Kimchi, they were not fit to come into the temple; nor have they knowledge to keep what is put into their hands; nor fit to handle offerings, lest they should defile them; but at that age they might be taught how to hold them, and be used to it; but as for females, he says, they were not admitted at any age.”

    Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown - “With the exception of children under three years of age--an exception made probably from their being considered too young to receive solid food--lists were kept of the number and age of every male; of priests according to their fathers' house, and Levites from twenty years (see Nu 4:3; 28:24; 1Ch 23:24).”

    The King James Bible is right, as always, and the NASB is clearly wrong.

    Ezra 8:5 and 8:10 NASB 95, NIV, ESV, RSV, Holman all add to the Hebrew Scriptures.

    In Ezra chapter eight we read of the genealogy of those who went up with Ezra from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. In Ezra 8:5 we read: "Of the sons of Shechaniah; the son of Jahaziel, and with him three hundred males."

    This is the reading of the Hebrew text, as well as the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, Douay, the Spanish Reina Valera, and the Jewish translations of 1917 JPS, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company, 1998 JPS updated and the 2004 Complete Jewish Tanach. It WAS also the reading of the NASB in their 1972, 1973 and 1977 editions.

    However, the new NASB of 1995 now reads as do the RSV, ESV, NIV, the newer Catholic versions like the Jerusalem Bible and the St. Joseph NAB (BUT the latest 2009 Catholic Public Domain Bible has now gone back to the Hebrew text and omits these two added names!) and the Holman Standard. These versions say: "Of the descendants OF ZATTU, Shechaniah son of Jahaziel.." Then in a footnote the NIV, ESV and Holman tell us that the name ZATTU comes from SOME LXX copies, but that the Hebrew does not have this added name.

    The same thing occurs in Ezra 8:10. Here the King James Bible as well as the Hebrew text and Jewish translations (1917 -1998), the 2004 Complete Jewish Tanach, and the RV, ASV, NKJV, Young's, Darby, Douay of 1950, and Spanish versions all read: "And of the sons of Shelomith; the son of Josiphiah, and with him 160 males." This WAS the reading too of the NASB of 1972, 1973 and 1977.

    But once again, the 1995 NASB has changed its Old Testament text and it now reads along with the RSV, ESV, NIV, the newer Catholic versions (except the latest 2009 version), and the Holman Standard: "Of the descendants of BANI, Shelomith son of Josiphiah..." Then in the NIV, ESV and Holman footnote (the NASB doesn't tell us that they changed the text), we read that the name of BANI comes from SOME LXX copies (they do not all read the same), but that the Hebrew does not have the name BANI in the text. Not surprisingly, Daniel Wallace and company's NET version does the same thing - adding these two names to the Hebrew texts - and then footnotes:
    ” They are lying. The LXX I have says “and after him” not “his brothers”, AND it has two names listed. So much for the ESV and its accuracy.

    Nehemiah 11:14 - Here the KJB as well as the Hebrew texts read: "And THEIR BRETHREN, mighty men of valour, an hundred twenty and eight..." Agreeing with the reading of THEIR BRETHREN are Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, the 1917 Jewish translation, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, Young's and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac. However the NIV, TNIV, Message and Daniel Wallace & company's NET version read: "And HIS ASSOCIATES". Then the NIV footnotes that HIS comes from "Most Septuagint manuscripts" but that the Hebrew reads "their". It should also be pointed out that "associates" is not the same thing as "brethren". The copy of the LXX I have reads "adelphoi autou" or "HIS brothers". Wallace's NET version also reads like the NIV- HIS COLLEAGUES" - and then he footnotes - "
    ” They are lying. The LXX I have says “and after him” not “his brothers”, AND it has two names listed. So much for the ESV and its accuracy.

    Nehemiah 11:14 - Here the KJB as well as the Hebrew texts read: "And THEIR BRETHREN, mighty men of valour, an hundred twenty and eight..." Agreeing with the reading of THEIR BRETHREN are Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, the 1917 Jewish translation, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, NASB, Young's and Lamsa's translation of the Syriac. However the NIV, TNIV, Message and Daniel Wallace & company's NET version read: "And HIS ASSOCIATES". Then the NIV footnotes that HIS comes from "Most Septuagint manuscripts" but that the Hebrew reads "their". It should also be pointed out that "associates" is not the same thing as "brethren". The copy of the LXX I have reads "adelphoi autou" or "HIS brothers". Wallace's NET version also reads like the NIV- HIS COLLEAGUES" - and then he footnotes - "The translation reads with the LXX “and his brothers” rather than the MT reading “and their brothers”.




    Among the Catholic versions the older Douay read "THEIR BRETHREN", but the New Jerusalem has "HIS kinsfolk" while the St. Joseph NAB has "HIS brethren" <a name="118">

    In the Book of Job the NIV changes Job 7:20, and in 9:19 both the NASB, NIV change "me" to "him". Here the NIV footnote says to see the LXX, though the Hebrew says "ME", but even the LXX doesn't read "him" - I checked it out. The Hebrew translations as well as the RV, ASV read "who shall set ME a time to plead?" as does the KJB.

    Job 14:3 -"And doth thou open thine eyes upon such an one, and bringeth ME into judgment with thee?" So read the Hebrew texts as well as the 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Geneva Bible, Bishops's bible, Coverdale, the RV, ASV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, and the Holman Standard.

    But the NASB, NIV 1984 edition, and RSV change the "me" to "him". The NASB does not tell us where they got this reading from, but the NIV footnotes tell us it comes from the alleged LXX, the Vulgate and Syriac, but that the Hebrew says ME. Even Daniel Wallace, of the goofy NET version fame which often rejects the Hebrew readings, says in his footnotes: "The text clearly has “me” as the accusative; but many wish to emend it to say “him”." Likewise the Catholic Douay and St. Joseph change the Hebrew "me" to "him", just like the NASB, NIV, RSV.

    Now the new TNIV has come down the pike and it has even changed from the old NIV. The TNIV now reads: "will you bring THEM..." Then in a footnote it tells us this reading supposedly comes from the LXX, Syriac and the Vulgate, but the Hebrew reads ME. By the way, the TNIV footnote is false. The LXX and Syriac do not read "them" but "him". Oh, but wait! Now the New New International Version of 2011 is here, and guess what. They have once again changed their text.The NIV 1984 read: "Do you fix your eye on SUCH A ONE? Will you bring HIM before you for judgment?" BUT the new NIV 2011 now says: "Do you fix your eye on THEM? Will you bring THEM before you for judgment?" Then it footnotes that this reading comes from the Septuagint, Vulgate and Syriac, but the Hebrew reads ME.

    Job 15:23 "He wandereth abroad FOR BREAD, SAYING WHERE IS IT? he knoweth that the day of darkness is ready at his hand."

    This verse reads the same in the Jewish translations, based of course on the Hebrew texts. It is also the reading of the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, and ESV. The NIV, however, goes totally off the wall here and doesn't even tell you in their footnotes how they came up with their unique reading. The NIV 1982 edition says: "He wanders about - FOOD FOR VULTURES." You have to do a bit of research, but this corrupt reading comes from the Greek Septuagint; not the Hebrew texts. Oh, but wait! It's happened again! Now the new NIV of 2011 is here and it now reads: "He wanders about FOR FOOD LIKE A VULTURE." Tricky fellows, these NIV translators, huh?

    Job 22:17 Again the NIV, RSV, and ESV depart from the Hebrew texts. The KJB, as well as the NKJV, NASB say: "Which said unto God, Depart from us: and what can the Almighty do for THEM." The NKJV footnote says the Hebrew reads "them", but the Syriac and LXX read "us", and so read the NIV, ESV saying: "what can the Almighty do for (or, to) US?" The Catholic St.Joseph and New Jerusalem likewise read "do to US?" with a footnote that says the Hebrew reads "do to THEM".

    Job 27:18 Here we have another blunder found in the NASB. All Hebrew texts as well as the RV, ASV, NKJV, 1917, 1936 Jewish translations, Young's, Geneva, and the ESV (2001 English Standard Version) read: "He buildeth his house as a MOTH, and as a booth that the keeper maketh."

    The word is clearly "moth" (# 6211 gahsh) and is found 7 times in the Hebrew texts, as in Job 4:19 "are crushed before the moth", and 13:28 "as a garment that is moth eaten". However the RSV and the NASB read: "He has built his house like A SPIDER'S WEB." If you look in the NASB concordance you will see there is no number by their entry of "spider's web". That is because there is no such word in the Hebrew texts. The NASB does not tell you when they depart from the Hebrew texts, but the RSV has a footnote telling us to compare the Greek Septuagint and the Syriac, but the Hebrew reads "moth".

    Well, the LXX and the Syriac are interesting. The Greek LXX reads: "And his house is gone like moths, and like a spider's web", while Lamsa's translation of the Syriac has: "The wicked has built his house upon a spider's web."

    It is also of interest that the RSV has "spider's web", while the NRSV says: "he builds his house LIKE A NEST", and then the ESV, which is a revision of the previous two, goes back to "moth". The NIV adds a word not found in any text but it still is similar to the KJB reading with: "The house he builds is like a moth's cocoon." The Catholic New Jerusalem is like the NASB saying: "All he has built himself is A SPIDER'S WEB". Then it footnotes that "SPIDER" comes from the Greek and Syriac, but that the Hebrew reads "MOTH"! - just like the KJB has it.

    Psalm 18:13 "The LORD also thundered in the heavens, and the Highest gave his voice; HAIL STONES AND COALS OF FIRE." Bible versions that include the phrase "hail stones and coals of fire" are the Wycliffe, Coverdale, Bishops’, the Geneva Bible, Youngs, Darby, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the 2004 Judaica Press Tanach, the Complete Jewish Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV 1954, the NASB 1995, the 2001 ESV, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602 - 1995, Lamsa’s 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Modern Greek (not to be confused with the so called LXX) the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the NKJV 1982.

    However the NIV, NRSV 1989, NET version, and the 2003 Holman Standard omit these words, and then in a footnote tell us that some Hebrew mss. and the LXX omit these words, but they are found in most Hebrew manuscripts. Well, they are also found in the ancient Syriac versions too. The previous Douay version included these words, but the more modern Catholic versions (St.Joseph and New Jerusalem) omit them like the NIV and NET versions.

    As for the NIV, what is of interest is that the NIV Spanish edition, called Nueva Versión Internacional 1999, put out by the same people who give us the NIV English version (International Bible Society) has included the Hebrew words left out by the NIV English version. It reads: “En el cielo, ENTRE GRANIZOS Y CARBONES ENCENDIDOS, se oyó el trueno del Señor, resonó la voz del Altísimo.” Likewise the NIV French edition, called La Bible du Semeur 1999 (IBS) also includes the Hebrew words omitted by the American NIV.

    Notice also that the previous 1954 RSV included the words; then the NRSV 1989 omitted them, but then the revision of the revision of the revision “scientifically” put them back in again! This typifies what modern scholars call the “art and science of textual criticism” - mere guesswork and fickle change for change’s sake.

    Though I certainly do not trust the Dead Sea Scrolls, since they have been found to contain conflicting texts of radically different readings, plus an additional “15 apocryphal Psalms or similar compostions distributed among four manuscripts”, yet the DSS copy of Psalm 18 does include these Hebrew words that the NIV omits.
    Psalm 20:9 "Save, LORD: LET THE KING HEAR US when we call." This verse reads the same in the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Darby, Spanish, 1936 and 1917 Hebrew-English and other translations. The king can easily be seen as the anointed, or the Christ, who is the true king, whom God will hear, referred to in verse 6. Christ makes intercession for us, and God hears Him. Or it could be referring to the earthly king, who if he is a godly and compassionate ruler, will attend to the needs of the people when they come before him with their needs. In any case the Hebrew clearly reads this way.

    The NIV, and the ESV however, without a footnote, have this reading. "O LORD, SAVE THE KING! Answer us when we call!" It is of interest to note that the RSV also reads as does the NIV, but the RSV has a footnote telling us that the Greek LXX reads this way. I looked it up and it's true. But the RSV also states that the Hebrew reads as does the KJB, and also the others like the NASB and NKJV. So again, the NIV editors have forsaken the Hebrew masoretic text and followed the Greek LXX. The "old" NIV read: "O LORD, save the king", but the "new" NIV now has "LORD, give victory to the king!", but both readings are from the LXX, and not the Hebrew text. Likewise the Catholic Douay and New Jerusalem have "save the king", while the St. Joseph has "Lord, grant victory to the king", thus following the LXX and not the Hebrew, as do the NIVs here.

    Likewise the NIV has used the LXX, Syriac or Vulgate to alter Psalms 19:4; 22:31; 42:5; 44:4; 49:11; 109:10; 119:37; 145:5; but all of these verses read the same in the NASB and NKJV.

    In Psalm 22:31 along with the Hebrew texts we read: "THEY SHALL COME, and shall declare his righteousness...". So read the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, NET, and Holman.

    However the previous RSV, NRSV and now the NIV and TNIV omit the words "they shall come". The NRSV informs us in their footnote to consult the LXX for this omission, but also tells us that the Hebrew reads: "They shall come". Of course the NRSV also changes the Hebrew text in verse 29 where it says: "and none can keep alive his own soul" (RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and Holman) for "AND I SHALL LIVE FOR HIM". The NRSV then tells us to consult the LXX, Vulgate, and Syriac for this completely different reading, but that the Hebrew reads as the KJB and others, including the revised ESV, now have it. So, at present, the NIV is the only newest version that continues to omit the words "THEY SHALL COME" from the Hebrew texts and follows the omission of the LXX here.

    Psalm 60:4 "Thou hast given a banner to them that fear thee, THAT IT MAY BE DISPLAYED BECAUSE OF THE TRUTH. Selah."

    So read the Hebrew texts as well as the following Bible translations: Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, KJB , Youngs', Darby, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and the Complete Jewish Bible.
    The Spanish Reina Valera 1995 is the same as the KJB with "Has dado a los que te temen bandera que alcen por causa de la verdad. Selah".

    However, the NIV reads: - "But for those who fear you, you have raised a banner TO BE UNFURLED AGAINST THE BOW." The RSV, NRSV, ESV read much the same with: "Thou hast set up a banner for those who fear thee, TO RALLY TO IT FROM THE BOW.", but then in the RSV, NRSV footnotes tell us this totally different reading comes from "the Greek LXX, the Syriac and Jerome, but the Hebrew says 'Truth'."

    Well, not even their footnote is totally accurate. The copy of the Greek LXX I have says "given a TOKEN...that they might FLEE FROM THE BOW", while Lamsa's translation of the Syriac says the opposite with: "Thou hast wrought a miracle to them that reverence thee, so that they need NOT FLEE FROM THE BOW."

    The Holman Standard basically keeps with this NIV perversion and says: "You have given a signal flag to those who fear You, so that THEY CAN FLEE BEFORE THE ARCHERS." These new bogus bibles are significant in that TRUTH has disappeared, and God's people are now fleeing before the enemy!! Guess which other "bibles" also read like the NIV here...You got it. The Catholic Douay, St. Joseph and New Jerusalem all reject the Hebrew and read "let them escape out of the range of the BOW."

    In Psalms 145:13 the NIV adds 15 words to the standard Hebrew text. These additional words are not found in the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, Hebrew Names Version or any Jewish translation. The NIV adds "The LORD is faithful to all his promises and loving toward all he has made." See my article on this verse here -
    http://brandplucked....ersemissing.htm

    Here are two examples from the Psalms that illustrate what the NIV is doing.
    In Psalm 72:5 we read: "THEY SHALL FEAR THEE as long as the sun and moon endure, throughout all generations."

    . This is the reading of the KJB, Revised Version, ASV, NASB, NKJV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Spanish, Young's, Darby's, Geneva, and the 2001 revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version.

    The NIV 1982 edition, however reads: "HE WILL ENDURE as long as the sun..." The new 2011 NIV changed this slightly and now says "MAY HE ENDURE as long as the sun". This is also the reading of the liberal RSV and NRSV, though the new ESV has again gone back to the KJB and Hebrew reading. But the footnotes found in the NIV, RSV, and NRSV all tell us that the reading of HE WILL ENDURE comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew reads "they shall fear thee". Likewise the Catholic Douay, St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem all read: "HE WILL ENDURE" (New Jerusalem) OR "MAY HE ENDURE" (St. Joseph). Then the New Jerusalem footnotes that this reading comes from the Greek - "he will endure", whereas the Hebrew reads "they will fear you". It's right there in black and white.
    So why did the NIV change the clear Hebrew reading? Doesn't the Hebrew make sense? Didn't God inspire the words of the Old Testament in Hebrew and not in Greek, Syriac or Latin?

    The second example is found in Psalm 73:7. There the Psalmist is speaking of the foolish and wicked who prosper in this world. He says of them: "THEIR EYES STAND OUT WITH FATNESS: they have more than heart could wish."

    This is the reading of not only the KJV, NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, but also of the RSV, NRSV and the ESV versions. However the NIV says: "FROM THEIR CALLOUS HEARTS COMES INIQUITY". Then in a footnote the NIV tells us this reading comes from the SYRIAC, but that the Hebrew says "their eyes bulge with fat." Likewise the Catholic St. Joseph says: "OUT OF THEIR CRASSNESS COMES INIQUITY".

    Again, why would the "good, godly, evangelical scholars" who worked on the NIV change the text, if the Hebrew clearly makes sense and there is no doubt about what it says?

    Also of note is the totally changed meaning of verse 9 where we read: "THEY SET THEIR MOUTH AGAINST THE HEAVENS, and their tongue walketh through the earth."

    These wicked people speak against God, blaspheme heavenly truths and talk only of earthly interests. "They set their mouth against the heavens" is the reading or meaning of even the NASB, RSV, ASV, NRSV, RV, ESV, and NKJV. Yet the NIV actually says: "Their mouths LAY CLAIM TO HEAVEN, and their tongues take possession of the earth." Likewise the New Jerusalem says: "THEIR MOUTH CLAIMS HEAVEN FOR THEMSELVES."

    Psalm 105:21-22 "He made him lord of his house, and ruler of all his substance: TO BIND his princes at his pleasure; and to teach his senators wisdom."
    "to bind his princes" -So read the Hebrew texts, as well as the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Geneva Bible, NKJV, ESV, Darby, Green's MKJV, Holman Standard, and Young's. The NASB says: "to imprison", and even Wallace's NET version reads: "giving him authority to IMPRISON his officials." Then he footnotes: "Heb “to BIND his officials."

    However the NIV joins the liberal RSV, NRSV and says: "TO INSTRUCT his princes as he pleased." This time the NIV doesn't tell us in their footnotes why they changed the text, but the RSV, NRSV and ESV tell us that "to instruct" comes from the so called LXX, the Syriac, and Jerome, but that the Hebrew reads "to bind". Again notice that the 2001 ESV has gone back to the Hebrew reading instead of the previous RSV rejection of the Hebrew text.

    However the Catholic versions (Douay, St.Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem all unite in saying: "TO INSTRUCT HIS PRINCES AS HE SAW FIT", and then the New Jerusalem footnotes that the Hebrew reads "to bind"!!!

    There is a distinct pattern easily seen if one studies the different bible versions. The King James Old Testament is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text and the New Testament on the traditional Greek text. When the RV and ASV came out, they significantly changed the Greek text of the New Testament but kept the Masoretic text intact. Then the liberal RSV appeared with the same corrupted Greek text of the apostates Westcott and Hort, but also with many of the same changes in the Hebrew text that now appear in the NASB, ESV, modern Catholic Versions and the ever worsening NIV.

    118:13 "THOU HAST THRUST SORE AT ME that I might fall: but the LORD helped me."

    The Hebrew reading here is clearly THOU, or "you" as some modern versions have it. THOU is the reading of the Geneva Bible, Bishops' bible, the KJB, RV, ASV, Young's, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, and Hebrew Names Bible. The "thou hast thrust sore at me" is addressed to each of the many enemies who compassed Israel about like bees.

    The NKJV, NASB, and Holman Standard read: "YOU pushed me violently..."
    However the NIV, RSV and ESV all reject the Hebrew reading and follow the LXX and Syriac. The NIV reads: "I WAS PUSHED BACK..." Though the ESV also follows the LXX and Syriac, yet in their footnote the ESV informs us: "Hebrew You (that is, the enemy) pushed me hard."

    The NIV departs from the Hebrew Scriptures well over 100 times and follows the Syriac, LXX, Vulgate or some other source. They usually tell you this in their footnotes, but not this time. However if you consult either the RSV or the ESV, they tell you in a footnote that the Hebrew reads "You" but the reading of "I" comes from the LXX and the Syriac.

    Psalm 119:37 KJB - “Turn away mine eyes from beholding vanity; and quicken thou me IN THY WAY.”

    So read the Majority of all Hebrew manuscripts as well as Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the RV 1985, ASV 1901, Darby, Youngs, the NASB 1995, ESV 2001, Holman Standard 2003, NKJV, the so called Greek Septuagint, Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, Luther’s German 1545, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, the Italian Diodati 1602, 1991, the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910, Ostervald 1996 and the Portuguese Almeida.

    However the NIV has: “Turn my eyes away from worthless things; preserve my life ACCORDING TO YOUR WORD.” Then in a footnote it tells us that this variant reading comes from “Two manuscripts of the Masoretic Text and Dead Sea Scrolls; most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text life in your way”. Here the previous Catholic versions like the Douay and even the St. Joseph have "quicken me IN THY WAY" (Douay) but the 1985 New Jerusalem says: "BY YOUR WORD give me life", and then footnotes that the Masoretic text reads "in your WAY".

    Likewise Daniel Wallace and company’s NET version has rejected the Traditional Hebrew Masoretic texts and says: “Turn my eyes away from what is worthless! Revive me WITH YOUR WORD.” Then the NET version footnote is completely misleading in that it now says “Hebrew - by your word”, without informing us that the vast majority of the Hebrew texts do not say “by your word” but “in thy WAY”.

    However IF the NIV, NET editors put so much reliance on the Dead Sea Scrolls, why didn’t they follow the DSS in this exact same verse where instead of “quicken thou me” (preserve my life - NIV; revive me - NET), the DSS reads “BE GRACIOUS TO ME”? [see The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - Abegg, Flint & Ulrich] Why pick the DSS reading for part of the verse but not for the other part? And why don’t all the other modern day “scholars” (read:Bible Agnostics) see it the same way? Hey, it’s every man for himself bible versionism. Nothing is sure!

    Psalm 145:5 - “I WILL speak of the glorious honour of thy majesty, and of thy wondrous works.“

    The Hebrew Masoretic text clearly says “I” will speak, or it can be translated as “I” will mediitate, and so read all the Jewish translations like the JPS 1917 version, the Complete Jewish Bible and the Hebrew Names Bible, as well as Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman Standard.

    However the NIV rejects the Hebrew reading of “I” and says: “THEY WILL SPEAK of the glorious splendor of your majesty, AND I WILL MEDITATE on your wonderful works.” Thus adding another subject and verb and changing the “I” will speak to “THEY will speak”. The Catholic St. Joseph and the New Jerusalem also follow the reading found in the NIV. Then they tell us in their footnotes that these changes come from the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Syriac. However I have a copy of Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac and it says: “I will speak” just like the King James Bible and the Hebrew texts.

    Then in Psalm 145:12 the Hebrew and the King James Bible read: “To make known to the sons of men HIS mighty acts, and the glorious majesty of HIS kingdom.
    So read the Hebrew texts as well as Bishops’ Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, Hebrew Names Bible, the Reviised Version, American Standard Version, NKJV, Youngs and Darby.

    However the NASB, NIV change the Hebrew texts, which read HIS mighty acts and HIS kingdom, to THY mighty acts and THY kindom (NASB 1977) or YOUR mighty acts and YOUR kingdom (NIV). Other versions that reject these two Hebrew readings of “HIS” and substitute either THY or YOUR are the RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the Holman Standard. Most of these versions, like the NASB, just footnote that the literal Hebrew is HIS. This time neither the NIV nor the NASB tell us why they made this change in the text, but we learn it from the NRSV. The NRSV footnotes that the literal Hebrew reads HIS, but the LXX and the Syriac read YOUR. That is where the NASB, RSV, ESV and NIV got it from. The Catholic versions also read this way saying "YOUR kingship and YOUR might" instead of the Hebrew and KJBs "HIS mighty acts...HIS kingdom"

    NIV - “so that all men may know of YOUR mighty acts and the glorious splendor of YOUR kingdom.”

    To see Part Two of this study - The Vatican Versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET reject the Hebrew text click here -
    http://brandplucked....jecthebrew2.htm


    May I also suggest you take a serious look at this article that shows numerous examples proving the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc are the new Vatican Versions.

    It is called - Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new "Catholic" bibles

    “Mystery, Babylon the Great, The Mother of Harlots and Abominations of the Earth..is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit...Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins” Revelation 17:5; 18:2-4
    http://brandplucked....om/articles.htm
  25. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to Salyan in what is the green number?   
    You see by the bottom of each post where there is a 'like this' button? Every 'like' you get gives you a green point. I personally try to use it only when I strongly agree with a post, or think it is extremely well written, rather than just 'liking' anything that makes me laugh - feels more important that way. ;)
  • Member Statistics

    6,088
    Total Members
    2,124
    Most Online
    shlomo
    Newest Member
    shlomo
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...