Jump to content
Online Baptist

Oldtimer

Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content Count

    366
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. 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
  2. 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. ;)
  3. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to 1Timothy115 in Baptism of the Holy Spirit!   
    My favorite verse when water comes up is Revelation 1:5-6.


    Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
    Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.

    The only way for sins to be covered is through Christ's rich pure blood.
  4. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from John81 in Baptism of the Holy Spirit!   
    It is a sad and scary thought!!

    I don't understand why the thief on the cross isn't used as an example, far more often, with regards to baptism and "works" in general.


    Luke 23: (KJV)


    42And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
    43And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise.

    Sitting here, words fail me with all that is encompassed within these two verses of scripture.
  5. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in Baptism of the Holy Spirit!   
    I agree as well.

    It's a shame the example of the theif on the cross which felt the conviction of the Holy Ghost, repented and was born again in Christ, being assured of Paradise with Christ by Jesus Himself, without being baptized, is not paid heed.

    Meanwhile, mutiple millions over the centuries have followed the doctrine of man, have been "baptized" as a baby or as an adult in some manner and have trusted that to get them to heaven.

    One has to wonder just how large the crowd will be that stands before Jesus claiming to be His only to hear Jesus tell them He never knew them before He sends them to an eternity in hell. What a sad and scary thought!
  6. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from swathdiver in Can a negative living enviroment cause a hinderance in ones spiritual life?   
    Growning in our spiritual life isn't always easy, regardless of our circumstances. Granted, some surroundings are better than others.

    Attending a local church for worship. study, and fellowship are a big help. As is finding your own "closet" for prayer and study. A quiet place to talk to God. Whether it's under a tree in the backyard, in your car (parked) listening to hymns, or at a desk in your bedroom. Find your special place (closet).

    If you haven't already read the Bible from cover to cover, now is a good time to do it. Here's the tool that I used to read it on line. This works well because I can choose the Bible version, and read as much as each day will allow. It's not the fixed type study which has a list of what to read each day. This also has a progress report that helps when dealing with some of those long books in the OT that are filled with names & numbers. There's about a 1 page commentary for each day's study . http://www.sbc.net/biblepathway/newuser.asp

    Add a daily devotion time to your schedule. Pick a time that works for you and stay with it. Many people use the time before they go to work, as they are fresh and it's a good way to start the day. There are a number of on-line sites with daily devotions. And there are printed ones, too.
    The one that I'm currently using is printed. My Utmost for His Highest. (Was given a leather bound copy.) Here's the link to the "classic" version. http://utmost.org/classic/today/ It's been "updated" here. http://utmost.org/
    Another available in print for a small donation is Our Daily Bread. Also, on line here: http://odb.org/

    During your devotion time, talk to God. This means prayer and praise. I use this term, as prayer shouldn't be, IMHO, a ritual or habit. In your quiet time, pray from your heart, not what you've heard others say. Not what you "think" the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit want to hear. You're simply acknowledging what the Godhead already knows that's in your heart. You're putting it into words, as you give thanks, ask for forgiveness, ask for guidance, asking for wisdom and understanding, lift up other's needs, etc. & etc.

    Lastly, be patient, as my pastor told me yesterday. Spiritual growth takes time. It moves at God's pace, not ours. We can't force it or rush it. Here's one of my favorite scriptures.

    Proverbs 2:3-6 KJB
    3Yea, if thou criest after knowledge, and liftest up thy voice for understanding;
    4If thou seekest her as silver, and searchest for her as for hid treasures;
    5Then shalt thou understand the fear of the LORD, and find the knowledge of God.
    6For the LORD giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding.
  7. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Doc Flay in the History Channel is not an authority on the gospel   
    I'm sad to say that It took me a while to realize these channels are just as worldly as the news media. They are modern day Horts, Westcotts, and Darwins, promoting their secular views. Views that often challenge the very existance of God, done with as much guile as the serpent in the garden.
  8. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in the History Channel is not an authority on the gospel   
    No doubt the History Channel isn't an authority on the Gospel or the Bible. They are not even an authority on history!

    The History Channel is run by liberals and the ungodly. They put forth all sorts of programs about how God might be an alien from another world, the Bible is a collection of myths stolen from other cultures, most of the stories in the Bible are about encounters with extraterestrials, etc.

    One should rely upon the History Channel for nothing. I've noticed MANY errors in their programs on WWI, WWII, American Civil War, Revolutionary War, ancient history and most especially anything dealing with the Bible.
  9. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from teylacarter91 in Another question I have.   
    Here's the Calvery Baptist Church's "King James Bible Declaration" which pretty much sums up why independent fundamental Baptist churches use the KJB. http://www.olneycalvarybaptist.com/index.php?p=1_34_King-James-Bible-...
    They also have this page, which goes into more depth. Why We use the KJB. http://www.olneycalvarybaptist.com/index.php?p=1_22_Why-We-Use-KJV

    This is one of the most detailed sites that I've found for comparisons of the KJB and other versions. http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

    Even more information:
    Fighting Back - Scroll down to the 10 reasons: http://www.av1611.org/KJV/fight.html

    The Bibles in your list and others, are IMHO, forerunners of the King James Bible. It's an interesting study of the history behind the KJB before and after the initial publication in May of 1611. Here's just one link of many. http://www.av1611.org/KJV/KJVhist.html that dive into this subject.

    In closing, I'm just a layman who's also being studing this subject over the last 18 months or so. Hope this helps, a bit.
  10. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Old Regular in Eternal Rewards   
    Uhmmm.....

    Old Fashioned
    Old Regular
    Oldtimer

    Is it a conincidence that all us "old" folks are posting in a row?

    Nope!

    Just 2 or 3 gathering in His name.
  11. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to John81 in Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?   
    It makes it so much more difficult speaking the truth and living the truth when so many take the watered down way and play the game as the enemy wants to play.

    How can Christian leaders call for companies to be or become "neutral" on issues such as homosexual "marriage"? By their very policies the company will either be promoting or standing against such sin. There is no neutral.

    Why, when speaking out against pornography do so many call it "adult entertainment"? If it's simply "adult entertainment", then what real complaint is there to make against adutls who find entertainment in the garbage? How effective is it to tell teens and younger that pornography is wicked sin, damaging to them, if we call it "adult entertainment", which implies that perhaps it's not for those their age, but once they are 18 it suddenly becomes just "entertianment"?

    Why do Christians go about talking so much about "luck", a pagan concept, rather than the blessings of God in their lives? I find it so refreshing when I hear on the news as they speak with folks who have been through something like a major storm and someone finally says "God blessed us" or "God saved us", rather than saying how "lucky" they are like most the others say.

    I've found many opportunities over the years to speak with folks about God simply because they heard me reference Him, such as saying something like, "Thanks to God", or "only because of God's blessing", rather than referring to pagan "luck".

    As Jerry said, this sort of thing extends to churches now naming and having events based upon that which the lost world indulges in. Does it really serve the Lord to cancel church services in order to hold a Superbowl Party at church?
  12. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from Old Regular in Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?   
    John, it's because we're slowly, but surely, being taught to be politically correct, at satan's direction.

    We shouldn't upset anyone by stating loudly and clearly that abortion is murder. We should be tolerant of other's beliefs. Tolerate is a code word for condone. If we don't condone, we are cast as hate mongers, racists, and a host of other negative labels that the "world" is applying to us. And the most frightening label to many is some form of committing "hate crimes". Even by verbally rejecting the actions of others. Thus, the freedom to speak out is being erroded on all fronts.

    TV preachers are telling us that we should love everybody. Love is a code word for "condone" their behavior. Local church pastors often don't want to offend anyone dropping money into the collection plate by not "condoning" their lifestyles.

    Christian symbols of faith are offensive to some others, so we shouldn't display them. Season's Greetings is the preferred way of acknowledging the birth of Christ. We're politically correct if we spend Sunday, April 8th, hunting eggs and eating chocolate rabbits.

    IMHO, far too few want to don the armour of God, as it's easier to stroll around in a T and shorts while being politically correct and fitting into today's society. Sadly, one day they are going to wake up and wonder what happened. How did we end up with a one world religion and one world government, just by being politically correct?
  13. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from irishman in Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?   
    John, it's because we're slowly, but surely, being taught to be politically correct, at satan's direction.

    We shouldn't upset anyone by stating loudly and clearly that abortion is murder. We should be tolerant of other's beliefs. Tolerate is a code word for condone. If we don't condone, we are cast as hate mongers, racists, and a host of other negative labels that the "world" is applying to us. And the most frightening label to many is some form of committing "hate crimes". Even by verbally rejecting the actions of others. Thus, the freedom to speak out is being erroded on all fronts.

    TV preachers are telling us that we should love everybody. Love is a code word for "condone" their behavior. Local church pastors often don't want to offend anyone dropping money into the collection plate by not "condoning" their lifestyles.

    Christian symbols of faith are offensive to some others, so we shouldn't display them. Season's Greetings is the preferred way of acknowledging the birth of Christ. We're politically correct if we spend Sunday, April 8th, hunting eggs and eating chocolate rabbits.

    IMHO, far too few want to don the armour of God, as it's easier to stroll around in a T and shorts while being politically correct and fitting into today's society. Sadly, one day they are going to wake up and wonder what happened. How did we end up with a one world religion and one world government, just by being politically correct?
  14. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from swathdiver in Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?   
    John, it's because we're slowly, but surely, being taught to be politically correct, at satan's direction.

    We shouldn't upset anyone by stating loudly and clearly that abortion is murder. We should be tolerant of other's beliefs. Tolerate is a code word for condone. If we don't condone, we are cast as hate mongers, racists, and a host of other negative labels that the "world" is applying to us. And the most frightening label to many is some form of committing "hate crimes". Even by verbally rejecting the actions of others. Thus, the freedom to speak out is being erroded on all fronts.

    TV preachers are telling us that we should love everybody. Love is a code word for "condone" their behavior. Local church pastors often don't want to offend anyone dropping money into the collection plate by not "condoning" their lifestyles.

    Christian symbols of faith are offensive to some others, so we shouldn't display them. Season's Greetings is the preferred way of acknowledging the birth of Christ. We're politically correct if we spend Sunday, April 8th, hunting eggs and eating chocolate rabbits.

    IMHO, far too few want to don the armour of God, as it's easier to stroll around in a T and shorts while being politically correct and fitting into today's society. Sadly, one day they are going to wake up and wonder what happened. How did we end up with a one world religion and one world government, just by being politically correct?
  15. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from John81 in Why do we use wimpy, enemy friendly terms?   
    John, it's because we're slowly, but surely, being taught to be politically correct, at satan's direction.

    We shouldn't upset anyone by stating loudly and clearly that abortion is murder. We should be tolerant of other's beliefs. Tolerate is a code word for condone. If we don't condone, we are cast as hate mongers, racists, and a host of other negative labels that the "world" is applying to us. And the most frightening label to many is some form of committing "hate crimes". Even by verbally rejecting the actions of others. Thus, the freedom to speak out is being erroded on all fronts.

    TV preachers are telling us that we should love everybody. Love is a code word for "condone" their behavior. Local church pastors often don't want to offend anyone dropping money into the collection plate by not "condoning" their lifestyles.

    Christian symbols of faith are offensive to some others, so we shouldn't display them. Season's Greetings is the preferred way of acknowledging the birth of Christ. We're politically correct if we spend Sunday, April 8th, hunting eggs and eating chocolate rabbits.

    IMHO, far too few want to don the armour of God, as it's easier to stroll around in a T and shorts while being politically correct and fitting into today's society. Sadly, one day they are going to wake up and wonder what happened. How did we end up with a one world religion and one world government, just by being politically correct?
  16. Thanks
    Oldtimer reacted to Wilchbla in Electronic devices in church   
    Carring a bible in the open where people can see you can be a character builder for a Christian. People will know exactly what it is and who you are (i.e a "bible thumper") and it's one of the easiest ways to find out who among your group who loves the bible and who doesn't. It will also embolden other Christians who may be to afraid to profess their faith for fear of being picked on or ostracized. If I see a person carry a bible, say to work, I'll be more likely to strike up a conversation about the things of God than if he/she didn't. And you'll be surprised how much courage others Christians who may work with you will start to show. You can't get this with an electronic device. Not that I'm against having these things. I have an bible app on my phone that I highly recommend. But they shouldn't replace the book itself.

    And as in church I want to go to a church where everyone has the bible out. There's nothing like that in the world.
  17. Thanks
    Oldtimer got a reaction from John81 in Did 'The Great Society' Ruin Society?   
    Born of depression era parents, grew up on a small share-cropper farm, without modern conveniences. When I married at age 21, my parents still didn't have running water or an indoor toilet. Remember well when electricity came to our farm. Prior to that Mama cooked on a wood cookstove and we ate supper by oil lamp light. That was back in the early 50's. Remember that specifically because to hear the news, we'd go outside and listen to the radio in Dad's 1950 model car.

    Since I've been old enough to be "aware", I've watched the change in society with the implementation of "social programs". IMHO, the "Great Society" did its part to ruin society. Plus, looking back into history, the New Deal and "a chicken in every pot" has brought us to ruin. Yes, ruin. We (society) just aren't admitting it, yet. The stats posted earlier are just some of the indicators of what our "entitled" and "me" society has brought us to this point.

    Often, when reading the Bible, I see parallels between what's happening today and what brought down God's wrath on the Hebrews. Often, too, wonder if we're in the end times. Naturally, there's no way of knowing if this is indeed the end times or we're simply going to experience a fall similar to those in the past suffered by others who turned from our Creator.

    The other day I was thinking about how few people around me can truely count their blessings. If they've never lived without air conditioning or a flushing toilet, those aren't blessings to them. If they've never had to split firewood for a kitchen stove, a microwave isn't a blessing. One more... If they've never had to grow, dig, and peel their own potatoes, it isn't a blessing to pick up French fries at a drive through window. Today, instead of being thankful for the conveniences of this age, so many demand them as a right. Society must ensure that no one has to go without _________ that didn't exist 50-100 years ago.

    In closing, when society provides, the recepients must conform to what society dictates, not what God expects from each one. Anyone want a bite from an apple?
×
×
  • Create New...