New Age Bible Versions

[Pete]

I am adding this edit 3 years later as I have come to believe that Gail Riplinger may not be the best messenger for this message. There are many other messengers that do not do it with so much accusation. But if you want to get an idea of her frustration, just go to a forum and visit the "King James Only" section and see what the folks are like that argue against Riplinger and the "Authorized Version" (unfortunately renamed the King James Version).

http://www.wayoflife.org/database/riplingerimagination.html
GAIL RIPLINGER'S FERTILE IMAGINATION

February 16, 1996 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; for instructions about subscribing and unsubscribing or changing addresses, see the information paragraph at the end of the article) -

In 1994 I was asked by many to critique a book titled New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger. I was keen to do so because she had recommended our ministry and we were getting letters from her readers. I wanted to see what type of book she had written. As I read the book and attempted to examine the documents she cited, I found that she frequently misused and twisted quotations by others. I wrote a review of the book and sent it first to Mrs. Riplinger. My cover letter was dated June 12, 1994. It consisted of one paragraph, as follows:

"Christian greetings in the lovely name of the Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. D.A. Waite in New Jersey suggested that I write to you about some problems I have found in your book New Age Bible Versions. Sometime back he asked me what I thought of the book and I told him that I had found some problems, but that I had only read a few pages. I started the book last year, but put it aside in December in order to give my full attention to completing our Way of Life Encyclopedia of the Bible & Christianity. Now that this project is complete, I have again picked up your book. I am finding lots of problems and errors, though, and I would like to know what you think of the enclosed. The Lord's blessing and grace be with you" (Letter from D.W. Cloud to Gail Riplinger, June 12,1994).

She has never replied to my correspondence, and I did not make another attempt to contact her. I printed the review in O Timothy, Volume 11, Issue 8, 1994, which was mailed out at the end of August of that year. I summarized my conclusion in regard to her book as follows:

"Let me say very plainly at the outset of this article, I do not believe New Age Bible Versions is a dangerous book; I believe it is an undependable book. I agree with Mrs. Riplinger that the multiplicity of modern versions has caused great spiritual damage. At the same time, I have decided I must warn our readers of the many errors we have found in New Age Bible Versions. ... Some might be thinking, 'Why are you defending the modern versions? Aren't they corrupt?' Yes, the modern versions are corrupt, and I am not defending them. I am against error, though, regardless of where it appears. We do not have the right to make false statements even about the devil himself. When our speaking and writing is filled with error of fact and is characterized by shoddy research and indefensible extremism, we discredit our entire position. I am not saying there is no good in New Age Bible Versions. The book contains many helpful insights and it documents the frightful corruption of the modern versions, but it also is filled with illogical and improper statements which have the effect of discrediting everything the author says that is true. There is no reason, friends, to promote a book like this when there are so many dependable volumes which defend the preserved Word of God and expose the error of the modern versions. We would recommend the following: Defending the King James Bible by D.A. Waite and Forever Settled by Jack Moorman. For a smaller overview we recommend Jack Moorman's Modern Bibles: The Dark Secret. [These are available from Bible for Today, 900 Park Ave., Collingswood, NJ 08108.]" (D.W. Cloud, :New Age Bible Versions: A Critique,” O Timothy, Volume 11, Issue 8, 1994).

Instead of addressing me personally and communicating with me about my concerns, Mrs. Riplinger included me in a subsequent book entitled Blind Guides. It was published in 1995. The section dealing with me includes a mockup of the O Timothy magazine banner, but instead of saying "O Timothy," it says "O Madmen." And instead of the excerpt from 1 Timothy 6:20, "keep that which is committed to thy trust," she has an excerpt from Psalm 52:4, "O thou deceitful tongue." The entire article is characterized by this type of vicious and malicious slander.

Mrs. Riplinger's "critique" begins with these edifying words: "Another David whose spiritual adulteries 'help the ungodly' (II Chron. 19:2 and II Sam. 12:14) is David Cloud. Like a thundercloud, his critique of the book is more noise than substance--simply another nebulous attempt to obscure the light. His torrential downpour of rhetoric, when examined, is as vaporous as a fog cloud. ... Cloud has hammered a framed picture of himself--his final authority--above the altar of his opinion, his newsletter."

It would be a waste of time to print more of it. I will let you in on a little secret, though. She is just as careless and undependable in Blind Guides as she was in New Age Bible Versions. Her supposed critique of my review misses the point consistently. As I read her review, I found myself asking, "Can she be serious here? Is she joking?" But no, she is not joking. The lady is very serious. She ignores what I said and erects a straw man which she handily and gleefully shreds apart. Her review is so incredibly wrong-minded I have no intention of responding to it. It would be like responding to a child who has told me that there is a man in the moon. How do you respond to nonsense? Any serious reply I would attempt to give would only bring forth more vitriolic nonsense. How can I take someone seriously who lies about me in such an incredible way--apparently with a straight face!

In reviewing Mrs. Riplinger's lengthy writings, we wonder what the Lord thinks of this woman who has taken it upon herself to teach, correct, mock, and rebuke men? Does the Bible not forbid this? I think it does. "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence" (1 Timothy 2:12).

One man who wrote to me about Mrs. Riplinger said, "It would be one thing if you were in the new version crowd, attacking her work because it exposed doctrinal heresy on your part. Her charges would then be founded on solid ground. But in everything I've read in recent months in O Timothy, as well as the materials I have purchased from [Way of Life Literature], nothing has indicated to me that you have anything but total dedication to the King James Bible, and its underlying texts."

This man is correct. I do have total dedication to the Authorized Version. I have not corrected or questioned one word of it. I have warned of those who do. The very fact that Mrs. Riplinger and some of her supporters have questioned my faith in the KJV and have mocked me as if I were some sort of unbeliever is evidence that they are incapable of making sound judgments. Mrs. Gail Riplinger has slandered the Editor of O Timothy magazine. The cover to her book Blind Guides claims, "G.A. Riplinger Exposes Critics of KJV." This Editor has never criticized the King James Bible, and for this woman to imply that I have is a wicked lie for which she could be sued for defamation.

END EDIT
_____________________

http://www.beholdthebeast.com/new_age_bible_versions.htm

Our authority comes from the Word of God. But what has happened even to that? The church has always been and will remain under Satanic attack. Satan's work is complete in Hollywood and Islam. Look for him to be in the church doing what he can to cart of Jesus' potential goods.

"NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS" - by G. A. Riplinger

"An exhaustive Documentation Exposing the Message, Men and Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the antichrist's One World Religion"

"The New Case Against The NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNV, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, & NEW CENTURY"
_______________________

Pete note
This book is almost 700 pages of excruciatingly meticulous documentary evidence, comparing verse after verse of the new Bible versions omissions, and in many cases catastrophic changes, as compared to the KJV (which is based on the Greek Textus Receptus). These new Bible versions sprang from a 19th century corrupt Greek text written by two individuals named Westcott and Hort, and have had to go through revision after revision, toward the KJV as a result of being exposed by the later papyri discovery.  Some of those doing the editing were spiritualists and new age cultists. 

The book opens with a piece written by Dr. Frank Logsdon, who wrote the preface to the New American Standard Bible.  In regard to "NEW AGE VERSIONS" he wrote:
___________________________________

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard,

... I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord ... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface ...

I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? ... I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...

When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended.  However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV.  Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV ... The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times .. The deletions are absolutely frightening ... there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? ...

I don't want anything to do with it ...
[T]he finest leaders that we have today .. haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived ... I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things ...

[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct.  How correct? 100% correct! ...

If you must stand against everyone else, stand."

Dr. Frank Logsdon
__________________________________

While Dr. Logsdon may have allowed his pendulum to swing a little to far the other way, in suggesting the KJV is 100% correct, I don't recall Riplinger making the same claim.

Here's the full text of Dr. Logsdon's comments:
"New Bible Versions Tested
THE "NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE" Find out why the man that wrote the Preface for the NASB ended up repudiating it.
By Dr. S. Frank Logsdon"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15443244/Testimony-of-Dr-S-Frank-Logsdon-NRSV

Interestingly, the KJV is the only version that is in the public domain (except in England), and thus is the only one from which royalties are not made on the sales thereof.  By contrast, for example, Rupert Murdoch owns the NIV.  From "New Age Versions":  "Contrary to advertising claims, the new versions are more difficult to read than the KJV, according to research using the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicators."

Like most books that explore controversial subject matter you might find detractors who feel their ox got gored, and in this case most are typical of those who are confronted with an unpleasant truth.  They do what they can to shoot the messenger, and distort the truth, by manipulating snippets out of context. In this case, according to the author, they are also legally actionable for libel.  G.A. Riplinger's Response to James White's Criticism   If you come across a detractor, ask them if they've read the book. READ THIS BOOK AND JUDGE FOR YOURSELF.  I am fully confident that after doing so you will set aside all of your other Bible versions and stick with the good ole KJV.

Following is a quote from "New Age Bible Versions" regarding the minority Greek text from which the "new age" Bible versions are generated:
"Changes in both the Nestle's text and the critical apparatus have been made over the years.  The NASB is based loosely on Nestle's 23rd edition (1959), but the NASB Greek Interlinear is marketed with Nestle's 21st edition (1951).  In the recent Nestle's twenty-sixth edition (1979) the chameleon becomes a cobra with a whopping 712 changes in the Greek text.  These drastic changes were a response to the cry of scholars who saw the mounting evidence of the papyri discoveries stacking up on the side of the KJV.  Consequently, nearly 500 of these changes were 'white flags', retreating back to the pre-Westcott and Hort Textus Receptus readings.  Now every third page reflects some sort of back-to-the King James Version reading.  This about-face leaves Greek-o-philes footless, often armed only with their 1951 NASB-Nestle's Interlinear."

Following is a link to Way of Life Literature regarding this very important subject.
BIBLE DOCTRINES AFFECTED BY MODERN VERSIONS - by Paul L. Freeman

Try Yahoo searches (or just click on the ones that follow) like:

westcott hort ghostly guild
westcott hort new age
westcott hort spiritualists
westcott hort satanists
westcott hort hermes club
westcott hort blavatsky
westcott hort nestle
ubs hebrew kittel hitler

What about the United Bible Society corrupt Hebrew interlinear that Hitler's boy Gerhard Kittel (Occultist/Nazi War Criminal) had a hand in? 
What did Hitler select for bed time reading?  Madame Blavatski   
"Helena Petrovna Blavatsky integrated Hinduism and Buddhism with Western occultism to form Theosophy and founded the Theosophical Society in 1875. Her 3-volume tome, The Secret Doctrine, which was found on the night stand of Adolph Hitler, laid the foundation for the New Age Movement."
Who might she have been buddies with besides Satan?

[Pete]

Gail Riplinger answers Dr. James White's attack on New Age Bible Versions:

"The following article is taken from Blind Guides by G.A. Riplinger. Blind Guides is a scholarly and detailed response to the crtiques of Hunt, McMahon, Lalonde, Cloud, Morey, White, Hanagraaff, House, Passantinos, and others concerning Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions. Shows the dishonesty and complete disregard for the truth in the attack on the King James Bible. Very good reading.Used by permission.

Blind Guides and New Age Bible Versions is available from:

A.V. Publications
P.O. Box 280
Ararat, VA 24053

=============================================================== ===
The James White Controversy - Part 1
==================================================================
==================================================================
G.A. Riplinger's Response to James White's Criticism of New Age Bible Versions ==================================================================
WHITE'S LEGALLY ACTIONABLE LIES

    "Mrs. Riplinger never once mentions the fact that many of her confident statements about Westcott and Hort being 'spiritualists' are based upon pure speculation on her part...she is not referring in her statements to B.F. Westcott, the textual critic, but to W.W. Westcott, a London mortician...Did Mrs. Riplinger ever note this on Action 60's? Did she ever say, 'Now, what I'm saying about Westcott and Hort is in fact merely speculation on my part? No, she made her assertions directly and without qualifications."

White's purposeful misrepresentation here is legally actionable. It is clearly and plainly libelous. It is inconceivable that White, a college graduate, could read the citations from the cited books about the life of B.F. Westcott and his involvements, and conclude that all of these citations in the body of the book were references to W.W. Westcott. All citations and discussions in the text of New Age Bible Versions are about B.F. Westcott. A simple trip to each footnote will take the reader to the source proving this. Likewise, ALL comments made on Action 60's were about B.F. Westcott. His own esoteric activities have led researchers (I am not alone) to surmise that perhaps he may ALSO have been the person responsible for activities attributed to W.W. Westcott, the name put forth as a 'blind' by the Order of the Golden Dawn. This theory was mentioned in a footnote, but is totally parenthetical to the rest of the book and in no way relates to the body of the book.

JUST PLAIN LIES

White ALTERS a quote by Edwin Palmer to give his reader the impression that my Palmer citation is a "gross misuse of the words." Both Palmer and my quotation of him say "few clear and decisive texts" (p. 305, New Age Bible Versions and p. 143, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation). White places my quote next to his trumped up quote in a chart headed "What Dr. Palmer Actually Said." White adds the word "and" ("few and clear and decisive texts") to give the impression that I have grossly miscited the man. White's power to persuade lies not in his data, but in his altering of facts, like this, and his use of fierce invectives like "poison," "gross misuse," "alleged," "inexcusable," "misrepresenting," and "error." These words all appear on the one page in which White miscites Palmer.

It is easy for readers, in this busy non-reading culture, to skip over a few words and thoughts which are submerged in a welter of other words. To bring the views of new version editors out from hiding, I put the magnifying glass on those words which distill their thoughts. Palmer, for example, communicated his belief that he thinks the Bible has "FEW CLEAR AND DECISIVE TEXTS that declare that Jesus is God." He said this amidst this discussion of John 1:18, citing it as one of them. A Bible translator that only can find a few such texts strikes me as "chilling," to say the least. New Age Bible Versions followed Palmer's quote (p. 305) listing hundreds of places (pp. 302-383) which document that his NIV does have few compared to the many in the KJV.

White pretends the first five words of my Palmer quote don't exist. He focuses on the 'Jesus is God' portion pretending in his mind that it says 'Palmer doesn't think Jesus is God,' rather than READING "few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God." Palmer's ideas about the deity of Christ are not the topic of my discussion, nor Palmer's quote. The subject is texts and their number.

White's lie that "She attempts to paint Dr. Palmer as a closet Aryan..." proves: 1.) White cannot read the words on a printed page and 2.) he substitutes his own wild imaginations. If that won't convince his reader, he ALTERS Palmer's quote under his heading "What Dr. Palmer actually said" to give the impression that I have grievously misquoted him (e.g. "few and clear").

"THEY HAVE TAKEN AWAY MY LORD" (John 20:2)

White is lying once again. Regarding the fact, stated in New Age Bible Versions, that the KJV is the only version which consistently distinguishes Adonai as Lord, White bleats,

    "This kind of false statement is found all through New Age Bible Versions."

White whittles away at any notion that he is a researcher. New Age Bible Versions warned readers (pp. 375-376) that the KJV is the only Bible which consistently distinguishes between the Hebrew Adonai, as Lord, and JHVH, as LORD. White states that even if you take a "brief glance," as he calls it, at new versions, you will find "Of course, this is simply untrue." His "brief glance" missed the 291 times when the NIV, for example, substituted "Sovereign" for the Hebrew noun Adonai. The KJV, in all 291 of these instances, translates it "Lord." These instances (e.g. Gen. 15:2) where Adonai JHVH appear together, the KJV retains both proper names, not inserting 'new' words when the Hebrew text has the names of God. (Note the introduction by the NIV of just another Calvinistic term: Sovereign.) The "false statement," as White called it, was his, not mine.

WHITE-OUT

By altering what the book says, a few strokes here, a few there--White turns the picture into a caricature. He says new version editors are called "cultists" (p. 345), Adoptionists (p. 345), and Aryans (pp. 304-305 et al.), yet checking those pages leads to no such distortions. The words "cultist" and "Arian" do not even occur. Page 345 simply said that in their quote (one quote) they are "expressing a view similar to that held by early Adoptionists. One quote that expresses a view similar to something is a far cry from a person being an Adoptionist. (If White is worried about anyone pointing their finger at new version citations and noting 'Adoptionism,' he might want to check Hasting's classic, The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics. It cites the new version text's (Sinaiticus) Shepherd of Hermas, as an early EXAMPLE of Adoptionism! See under heading: Adoptionism.)

He pretends the book "identifies anyone who was involved in the production of modern bibles...as non-Christians...who actually want everyone to worship Lucifer." Yet the book introduces the section on new version editors pointing out that there are "good men" who are "saved" who have been involved. Bold type (p. 431) and italics (p. 393), were used to draw the readers' attention to the fact that these editors were "unaware" and "unconsciously" harming the Bible.

White claims, "Orthodox Christian theologians are indiscriminately associated with heretics without any thought as to the consistency of such actions" [emphasis mine]. Was it "inconsistent" for Jesus to call Peter "Satan"? Did Jesus not recognize Peter's theological credentials? Did Jesus take Peter "out of context"? After all, Peter's recorded statement in the verses immediately preceding this were, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." How orthodox can you get! Could a Christian speak a word, as "revealed" by the Father, and the very next time they speak, be inspired by "Satan" himself? Jesus thought so. Many are forgetting the biblical example set by Jesus (Matt. 16). One moment Peter spoke what the "Father" "revealed" to him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This is highly "orthodox." The very next words recorded out of Peter's mouth led Jesus to say to Peter, "Get thee behind me Satan." Peter's revised version of verse 21 was Satanic. Evidently a true Christian can be in grave error. The charge of "out of context" could be leveled at Jesus, for Peter had just said something very orthodox.

The frail egos of new version editors and advocates seem to make them immune to correction. The man-centered and man-elevating theology of today is seen clearly in some responses to the book. The cry is not, "Why have new versions demoted our precious Lord?" but "Why have the editors been demoted?"

JAMES GAMES: JAMES WHITE MEETS VANNA WHITE

Can a Vanna White beat James at his own games? Evidently she can, as she proves daily that she can distinguish between the English letters T-H-E and H-I-S. It's embarrassing to have to explain kindergarten orthography and freshman Bible to an M.A., but Mr. White's shallow knowledge of the Bible makes it necessary.

Page 158 of New Age Bible Versions pointed out the fact that the phrase "take up the cross" has been completely omitted in the NIV and NASB. Yet James White tries to put readers in doubt, as the whites of his eyes bulge out and he shouts,

    "Mrs. Riplinger does want people to think that this phrase is deleted from the Bible on the basis of Mark 10:21, and she still does not deal honestly with the presence of the phrase in three other places in the modern version." [emphasis mine]

There is a $10,000 prize, if he can back up his lies. Readers of White won't applaud; even Vanna could prove him a fraud. He has put his credibility in question by confusing his own inability to read, with the honesty of the author he reads. The three places to which he points are references to "his cross," not "the cross" (Matt. 16:24, Luke 9:23, and Mark 8:34). These three parallel passages do not relate at all to those in Mark 10:21, Matt. 19:21, and Luke 18:22. The cross to which Jesus was referring in the former verses ("his cross") is that daily crucifixion of the fleshly and self-serving desires of the Christian. The phrase immediately preceding it says, "let him deny himself (and take up his cross)." The word "his," and its corresponding emphasis, also occurs in the verses which immediately follow it. Mark 15:21 was a foreshadowing of this daily crucifixion of the flesh as Simon was compelled to bear "his cross." The following other verses expound this theme.

    "I die daily" I Cor. 15:31
    "[T]ake up his cross daily" Luke 9:23
    "And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh..." Gal. 5:24
    "I am crucified with Christ" Gal. 2:20

On the other hand, "the cross," omitted in new versions in Mark 10:21, refers to "the cross of Jesus" (John 19:25), "the cross of Christ" (I Cor. 1:17), and "the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14). "The preaching of the cross is the power of God unto salvation" (I Cor. 1:18). Taking up "his cross" daily will not save a person. "The cross of Christ" will. It is only after we have taken our sins to the cross, that our redeemer can help each of us bear his own cross.

When someone like James White spends only a few days or even months writing a critique of a book which entailed six years of research, this reckless, broad brush approach results--painting its con artist into a corner. When Vanna turns to reveal the letters indicating the manuscripts which include Mark 10:21, as the KJV renders it, Mr. White turns white as a ghost. The vast majority of Greek MS have "take up the cross." These include the uncials A (E) F (G) H, K, M, N, S, U, V, W, X, Y, Gamma, Pi, Sigma, Phi, Omega, fam 13 and the majority of all cursives. It is in the Old Latin: (a)q, Syr: (pesh) sim harc, Cop: (sa-mss) bo-mss, Goth (Arm) (Eth). It is also extant in 047, 05, 0211, 0257. The few corrupt manuscripts which omit it are Aleph, B, C, D, Theta, Psi, 0274, pc, c, f, fz, g1, and Vulg.

Every word of God is important. The serpent added ONE word and changed the entire course of history. God said, thou "shalt surely die." The serpent added ONE word and said, "Ye shall NOT surely die." When Jesus FIRST met him in Luke 4:4, he brought this to his attention saying, "It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God." (New versions omit this last part.) Liberals have always said the Bible CONTAINS God's MESSAGE. The Bible however says that it is the very words of God. New versions and their advocates, like White, miss the importance of each individual word. They are rapidly moving into the liberal camp where the serpent adds a word here and there, or like Eve, drops a word ("freely"). Paul preached a sermon on the importance of one letter(s) (Gal. 3:16). Those who are not concerned that there are 64,000 words missing in the NIV would invariably overlook the distinction between words like "T-H-E" and "H-I-S." Since their NIV omits "but by EVERY word of God" (Luke 4:4), it's no wonder. White is wrong. The new versions do omit "take up the cross"! Verses that say "his cross" are no substitute. His accusation that I am not "honestly" dealing with the topic is legally actionable.

WHITE'S WHOPPER

White lies again saying I claim "Palmer denies the role of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation..." Nowhere in New Age Bible Versions do I make any comments at all about Palmer's notions about the incarnation. In fact, Palmer's quotes, seen in the book, do not mention or discuss the incarnation.

New Age Bible Versions is a study in semantics (the meaning of words). It devoted several pages to an analysis of the word 'begotten' and 'beget'. In trying to assess why the NIV would not fully translate the word monogenes (only begotten), the views and writings of several NIV translators were reviewed. The writings of Edwin Palmer reveal that he believes the term "begotten" refers to the Father begetting the Son in eternity past, as shown on p. 339. White's mad rush through the book missed this quote, evidently. Here, Palmer even notes that it is strange that the Bible doesn't also note that "the Holy Spirit was begotten by the Father." Palmer definitely has unique views about the word begotten. The definitive treatise on monogenes, by Buchsel, disagrees with Palmer and agrees with me, saying John 1:14 and 1:18 do not discuss any "eternal begetting".

The issue at hand is not who is correct, but what do NIV translators believe about the Greek term monogenes and the English word 'begotten'. (Paralleling Joseph Smith's quote next to Palmer's simply proves that both have views relating to the word 'beget' which exclude the Holy Ghost and thereby disconnect the term from the incarnation, as has historically been understood. See Adam Clarke's Commentary, The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, et al.) The law of first mention and the context of John 1:14,18 would lead anyone to note that the first use of 'beget' (Gen. 4:18) and 'begotten' (Gen. 5:4 and John 1:14) indicate it refers to flesh.)

White's own ignorance of such theological discussions leads him to make quantum leaps of logic and READ INTO the book notions and words that ARE NOT THERE. White erects straw men, then cites quotes by Palmer on the incarnation to dismantle his own contrived misreading of my book. Interestingly, however, it should be noted that in Palmer's quotes about the incarnation, he NEVER uses the term 'begotten' because he does not connect this word with the incarnation like most Christians do. That's WHY the NIV omits 'beget' from the Bible! The BOLD MISREPRESENTATION is White's; New Age Bible Versions does not assert that "Palmer denies the role of the Holy Ghost in the Incarnation." See you in "court" (Esther 6:4--7:10).

THE PALMERWORM DEVOURED THEM (AMOS 4:9)

    "There is a bird which is named the Phoenix...the only one...makes for itself a coffin of frankincense and myrrh...then dies. But as the flesh rots, a certain worm is engendered which is nurtured from the moisture of the dead creature and puts forth wings...It takes up that coffin where are the bones of its parent, and carrying them, it journeys...to the place called the City of the Sun."

This depraved pagan parody of the death, burial, and resurrection of our precious Saviour is given by NIV editor Richard Longenecker to 'help' us understand WHY the NIV translates John 1:14 and 1:18 as "One and Only" instead of "only BEGOTTEN" (see The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, pp. 119-126). He points also to such occult literature as the magical papyri's "One", Plato's (Critias) "one," and the Orphic Hymn's (gnostic) "only one". He cites numerous other early Greek writers, like Parmenides, head of the Eleatic School. He brought pantheism to the West after his trips to India and initiation into the Greek mysteries. Do we look to a pantheist and their god 'the One' to alter our view of God?

Longenecker chides the KJV's "begotten Son" because "it neglects the current [time of Christ] usage for the word." Current usage amongst PAGAN OCCULTISTS should not change how Christians use words! He and the NIV translators have broadened the "semantic range of meaning" (Longenecker p. 122) to include the broad way that leadeth to destruction. The translators of the King James Version were so highly educated that they not only knew of these Greek quotes, but knew who Parmenides was and what he taught. They wouldn't touch such pagan sources. Either the NIV translators are ignorant of the philosophies of those they cite, like Aeschylus, Plato and Parmenides, and the Orphic Hymms or they are sympathetic to such ideas. (The "begotten God" seen in John 1:18 in the NASB comes directly from lexical support from the occult tome The Trimorphic Proitenoia!)

Anyone who has spent years studying the resources used to generate the definitions seen in Greek lexicons will get a chuckle out of White's comment: "I explained that she was in error regarding the meaning of monogenes, and explained the actual meaning of the term." Even Longenecker admits the translation of monogenes [only begotten] and huios [Son] "have become bones of contention among Christians."

Real scholars like Buchsel (The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. IV, pp. 737-741) allot five entire pages of lexical evidence to the meaning of monogenes. Buchsel proves that White's "actual" definition of monogenes is only that of a few pagan philosophers. New version editors and advocates seem to pick the pagan lexical definition, time after time. (Imagine, for example, if 2000 years from now, a lexicographer reviewed our culture's use of the word "love." They would find the KJV's definition of 'charity' and Hugh Hefner's definition of 'sex'.)

White may not understand my response in Which Bible Is God's Word, but Buchsel does, and agrees with me. He says, "Though many will not accept this; he here understands the concept of sonship in terms of begetting."

[Pete]

Part 2 of The James White Controversy "
Part 3 of The James White Controversy
Part 4 of The James White Controversy
Part 5 of The James White Controversy
Part 6 of The James White Controversy
Part 7 of The James White Controversy

[City-on-a-Hill]

Hi Pete,

In the past; I have used the NASB which I enjoyed reading. Thanks for posting the important information concerning several "translations" of the Bible including the comments about the NASB.

More recently, I've been listening to CDs of Alexander Scourby's spoken audio of the King James Version.

I have recently purchased an edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible published by Toll Lege Press 2006-2007. The second Bible which I have been using is Noah Webster's "The Webster Bible" which was published by Baker Book House Company.

The publisher's preface of the Webster Bible states: "The "Webster Bible" as it came to be known, is a precise tailoring of the majestic King James Version especially for American readers. With reverent restraint, Webster produced an edition in which he preserved the integrity of the KJV but reshaped some phrases and updated some vocabulary - making it possible for Americans young and old, to read God's Word comfortably and understand its message clearly as never before." Despite the "glowing puffery" of the current publisher; what I wish to know is if the current work is the actual work of Webster unadorned with contemporary tampering?

Is Webster's work worthy of study or is it to be listed among those more recent Bibles of which the former posts address?

Is the current printing of the Geneva Bible worthy of the historic name it bears? Have there been alterations of which I should be aware or is it still a fine accurate translation?

Virtue, Liberty, and Independence
City-on-a-hill

[Peter]

Hi Pete,

In the past; I have used the NASB which I enjoyed reading. Thanks for posting the important information concerning several "translations" of the Bible including the comments about the NASB.

More recently, I've been listening to CDs of Alexander Scourby's spoken audio of the King James Version.

I have recently purchased an edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible published by Toll Lege Press 2006-2007. The second Bible which I have been using is Noah Webster's "The Webster Bible" which was published by Baker Book House Company.

The publisher's preface of the Webster Bible states: "The "Webster Bible" as it came to be known, is a precise tailoring of the majestic King James Version especially for American readers. With reverent restraint, Webster produced an edition in which he preserved the integrity of the KJV but reshaped some phrases and updated some vocabulary - making it possible for Americans young and old, to read God's Word comfortably and understand its message clearly as never before." Despite the "glowing puffery" of the current publisher; what I wish to know is if the current work is the actual work of Webster unadorned with contemporary tampering?

Is Webster's work worthy of study or is it to be listed among those more recent Bibles of which the former posts address?

Is the current printing of the Geneva Bible worthy of the historic name it bears? Have there been alterations of which I should be aware or is it still a fine accurate translation?

Virtue, Liberty, and Independence
City-on-a-hill

The modern versions talk the talk, but don't walk the walk, as you see how deceived Logsdon was even though he was fully involved in the production of one.
You really should read Riplingers tome. 800 pages worth. Available used for cheap at Amazon.
It is interesting to note that modern bibles are all privately owned. For example Rupert Murdoch owns the NIV and makes royalty income on each purchase.
The same reason you won't see any big banners promoting the KJV in Christian bookstores, as it is in the public domain everywhere, except England.

I use a KJV only and usually online as I am generally searching for a verse to copy and paste. Blue Letter Bible is default KJV. Used to be NKJV but they might have thought better of it:
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
When I want to go more in depth I use Olive Tree, but unfortunately theirs is NKJV default. But real handy drop down menu for Textus Receptus and Strong's definitions.
http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
Ever since I decided not to consult any other bibles, I really haven't needed any.
Sometimes I take a peek to see what they have to say in a study like this one:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/johns_eight_beasts.htm#daniel_7_17

Also the Blue Letter Bible offers a link to each verse that I use when linking up my sites and need specific reference.
The URL on the Olive Tree bible never changes, so it doesn't work for that.

I did a quick Yahoo and came up with this re Geneva:
http://www.kjv-asia.com/authorized_version_defence_geneva_or_king_james_bible.htm
I only glanced at it as my time is a little short. I am finishing up a YouTube channel for Skolfield's DVD series:
http://www.youtube.com/user/godvsallah

Based on the fleishman kinkaid reading level score the KJV is actually easier to read than the modern versions.

One important point is that the KJV was written in English that was already obsolete at the time as it was written because it was thought to do a better job translating the Koine Greek.
One reason, for example, was to salvage the plural "ye". There is no modern equivalent unless perhaps one used the term y'all.

Please forgive my lack of attention to the specifics of the two versions you mention, but I only use the KJV with the TR Greek interlinear, and Strong's definitions and find all of my questions answered there.

[dklord]

Pete,

You use KJV only? Why more specifically don't you use the NKJV? I understand the use of study materials, IE. Strongs, dictionaries, were at one time easier to use since they are keyed to the KJV bible. I have found the ASV 1901, the NASB95 as well as the ESV all helpful. Perhaps I have been led astray in the past. I sure don't want to use an inaccurate translation with a chance of being in error. 

Thank you, Pete.

In His service,

Don

[Peter]

Pete,

You use KJV only? Why more specifically don't you use the NKJV? I understand the use of study materials, IE. Strongs, dictionaries, were at one time easier to use since they are keyed to the KJV bible. I have found the ASV 1901, the NASB95 as well as the ESV all helpful. Perhaps I have been led astray in the past. I sure don't want to use an inaccurate translation with a chance of being in error. 

Thank you, Pete.

In His service,

Don

Yes the KJV is the only bible I use. I have found no need for another. However, I am not what some call a King James onliest, nor do I believe that translation to be error free ("day is as a thousand years" as opposed to a "time is as a thousand years" for example) so I do use the Textus Receptus Greek/English interlinear (from the Olive Tree website) extensively, along with Strongs.

And for kids the KJV is actually easier to read on the Flieshman Kincaid reading level test. A friend of mine's child has recited huge chunks of it and recites it.

I had originally set my NKJV aside some time before I read Gail Riplinger's book, when I noticed selective use of capitalization of the term antichrist. That was enough for me.

The plural "ye" had to be eliminated to use modern language and turned into an incorrect "you". The English language that the KJV was written in was obsolete even at the time it was written. Salvaging this plural was one of the reasons they used the older English.

I did a Yahoo search - difference between KJV and NKJV - and found
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=difference+between+kjv+nkjv&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

And found, for example: http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/reynolds-nkjv.html
"The instances in which the NKJV breaks with the original KJV by substituting wording identical to that of corrupted modern Bible versions are too numerous to be considered coincidence."

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

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

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

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

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

2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."

Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."

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

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

Old Testament examples include:

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

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

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

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

In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perve rted persons." "

And much more from that one site. Many others.

[Mike S]

Hi Pete - I generally use the NASB as my primary translation, and refer to others to get a larger picture of the meaning, including the KJV. I know there are omissions, rephrasings, etc. in the NASV and many of the other translations, but I keep that in mind as I read, referring to footnotes, and back to the KJV. As you pointed out, the NT was written in the Koine Greek, which was the common spoken Greek, not the Classic Greek that is prevelant in Greek literature. But it seems odd  that  an obsolete, formal-sounding language would yield a better, more accurate translation from the common Koine Greek than the common English would have. I personally find the language difficult to read, and prefer more modern texts.

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

You have presented a well thought out, thoroughly researched argument for the KJV, but this excerpt is irrelevant to your argument. This was Nebuccadnezzar speaking, not God. Ole' Nebbie was pagan, and would have said something such as this, since most pagans were pantheistic in their beliefs, so this is one case in which I think the NASB and others is more accurate.
Another passage where the KJV falls short is in 2 Chronicles 21:20-22:2.
"Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he regned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in tghe ciyt of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem." 
 Now, how can a man who is 40 years old when he dies have a son who is 42? I have heard some try to explain this by saying there must have been a 20 year gap in between Jehoram's reign and Ahaziah's. This is laughable given the situation. Judah needed a king right away with the Arabians killing people. Another said it was a different Ahaziah that it was referring to - totally unfounded, grasping at straws. The NASB and other translations from the Septuagent manuscript correct Ahaziah's age to 22 at the beginning of his reign. This makes much ore sense and I believe is the  accurate translation here. Having said all this, I am inclined to think that more than likely, the error in Ahziah's age in the KJV was a transcription error rather than a translational error. But the whole argument about which tranlation is the most accurate seems to me a moot point in light of 2 Peter 1:20-21 :"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." 
No matter what the translation, one has to know the languages the original texts were written in so he/she can corretly get at the meaning on his/her own. If, as we study, we pray to the Lord for correct interpretation, because there are different forms, tenses, and idioms that we haven't heard about, if the Lord is willing and our intentions and motives are right, then will he not reveal the the meaning of His word to us? As good as the best tranlation is, there are many people that misintepret it, primarily because they do not take time to pray for revelation, or actually study instead of simply reading the scripture. Case in point: I had never really bought into the pre-trib rapture concept, because I could not find support for it in scrpture. And the 7 year tribulatoin theory seemed a bit farfetched, even though I could not explain why. I was one of those who for a time, believed that one of the Roman emperors was the Antichrist, that most of the prophecies were fulfilled around 70 AD. Never considered that the Book of Revelation wasn't written until about 95 AD. , until I came across Ellis Skolfield. but even then, I held his book, The False Propheton my hard drive for over a year before I actually sat down and read it. His writings have opened my eyes to the truth about the end times. . It seems he, and ashamedly, not I, did what I mentioned above. Of course, not having had education in the field of Bible interpretation, I didn't know what i needed to know about all of that to be able to figure it out myself, and unfortunately, was not in tune with the Holy Spirit enough for him to help me, either.
God Bless - Mike

[Peter]

Hi Pete - I generally use the NASB as my primary translation, and refer to others to get a larger picture of the meaning, including the KJV. I know there are omissions, rephrasings, etc. in the NASV and many of the other translations, but I keep that in mind as I read, referring to footnotes,.....

The footnotes are more corrupt than the text. Particularly the ones that have been pointed out to me by the lost. That's why Muslims like fishing around in these corrupt versions too. Why wouldn't they be there to justify the rewrite? Read Logsdon's quote again. He wrote the preface. It should help you see the deception under which they all suffered.

...... and back to the KJV. As you pointed out, the NT was written in the Koine Greek, which was the common spoken Greek, not the Classic Greek that is prevelant in Greek literature. But it seems odd  that  an obsolete, formal-sounding language would yield a better, more accurate translation from the common Koine Greek than the common English would have. I personally find the language difficult to read, and prefer more modern texts.

It takes a little getting used to, but is that a compelling enough reason to select a bible based on a corrupt 19th century Greek text?

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

It should not be a surprise that it matches because it springs from the same corrupt modern Greek translations. (NIV owned by Rupert Murdoch)

.... actually have the latter reading in their texts.

You have presented a well thought out, thoroughly researched argument for the KJV, but this excerpt is irrelevant to your argument. This was Nebuccadnezzar speaking, not God. Ole' Nebbie was pagan, and would have said something such as this, since most pagans were pantheistic in their beliefs, so this is one case in which I think the NASB and others is more accurate.

Doesn't your suggestion presume that Nebbie was accustomed to seeing his pagan gods appear before him too? That this was not a unique circumstance?
Was the bible simply a collection of what men chose to write themselves, or were they inspired by God?
How about the hundreds of translators and scholars that assembled the Textus Receptus?
A version of the Tanach does a pretty bad job of interpretation of this verse too, but what can we expect of our sovereignely blinded Jewish brethren? Seems it would be too difficult of an admission.
http://islamchristianforum.com/index.php?topic=615.0

If our bible interpretations had been allowed to be steadily colored by presumption over the last 2,000 years would we even recognize the bible today? The answer is no, and that they weren't is confirmed by discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran in the late 1940s.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm

Further, the passage you selected was and Old Testament passage written in high Syriac to the Gentiles, but the book New Age Bible Versions regards the New Testament and the Koine Greek, and corrupt 19th century Greek texts that are the basis of modern New Testament versions. The NASB happens to be more accurate with this verse too:

Rev 1:9 I, John, your brother and fellow partaker in the tribulation and kingdom and perseverance {which are} in Jesus, was on the island called Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.

(Greek/English Interlinear (tr) NT) Revelation 1:9 |  egw  <1473> {I}  iwannhV  <2491> {JOHN,}  o  <3588> {WHO}  kai  <2532> {ALSO}  adelfoV  <80> {BROTHER}  umwn  <5216> {YOUR}  kai  <2532> {AND}  sugkoinwnoV  <4791> {FELLOW PARTAKER}  en  <1722> {IN}  th  <3588> {THE}  qliyei  <2347> {TRIBULATION}  kai  <2532> {AND}  en  <1722> {IN}  th  <3588> {THE}  basileia  <932> {KINGDOM}  kai  <2532> {AND}  upomonh  <5281> {ENDURANCE}  ihsou  <2424> {OF JESUS}  cristou  <5547> {CHRIST,}....

But just because it happens to include the definite article "the" (that occurs in the Textus Receptus) I don't find that to be a compelling reason for me to use a bible based on a corrupt Greek text written by two spiritualists that are recognized as being the fathers of the New Age Movement, and friends of Madame Blavatsky. That's why I use the KJV, and in conjunction with the Textus Receptus. I also find modern versions accommodate doctrinal leaps as when they selectively capitalize the term antichrist and such.

Another passage where the KJV falls short is in 2 Chronicles 21:20-22:2.
"Thirty and two years old was he (Jehoram) when he began to reign, and he regned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired. Howbeit they buried him in tghe ciyt of David, but not in the sepulchres of the kings. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead; for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned. Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign and he reigned one year in Jerusalem."  
 Now, how can a man who is 40 years old when he dies have a son who is 42? I have heard some try to explain this by saying there must have been a 20 year gap in between Jehoram's reign and Ahaziah's. This is laughable given the situation. Judah needed a king right away with the Arabians killing people. Another said it was a different Ahaziah that it was referring to - totally unfounded, grasping at straws. The NASB and other translations from the Septuagent manuscript correct Ahaziah's age to 22 at the beginning of his reign. This makes much ore sense and I believe is the  accurate translation here. Having said all this, I am inclined to think that more than likely, the error in Ahziah's age in the KJV was a transcription error rather than a translational error. But the whole argument about which tranlation is the most accurate seems to me a moot point in light of 2 Peter 1:20-21 :"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation, For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man; but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."  
No matter what the translation, one has to know the languages the original texts were written in so he/she can corretly get at the meaning on his/her own. If, as we study, we pray to the Lord for correct interpretation, because there are different forms, tenses, and idioms that we haven't heard about, if the Lord is willing and our intentions and motives are right, then will he not reveal the the meaning of His word to us?

Having spent years in Christian chat rooms I understand the danger in this. While what you say is true, and Jesus gives an example when He offers the reason He spoke in parables, for example, there are far too many that reach unsound conclusions, but believe they must be true because they are deceived into believing they are "guided" to the conclusion.

Jeremiah 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

That's why scripture says to:

1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

I highly recommend you read New Age Bible Versions and then decide if you want to continue in a seriously compromised bible. You can pick up a used copy at Amazon for 7-8$ including shipping.

As good as the best tranlation is, there are many people that misintepret it, primarily because they do not take time to pray for revelation, or actually study instead of simply reading the scripture. Case in point: I had never really bought into the pre-trib rapture concept, because I could not find support for it in scrpture. And the 7 year tribulatoin theory seemed a bit farfetched, even though I could not explain why. I was one of those who for a time, believed that one of the Roman emperors was the Antichrist, that most of the prophecies were fulfilled around 70 AD. Never considered that the Book of Revelation wasn't written until about 95 AD. , until I came across Ellis Skolfield. but even then, I held his book, The False Propheton my hard drive for over a year before I actually sat down and read it. His writings have opened my eyes to the truth about the end times. . It seems he, and ashamedly, not I, did what I mentioned above.

Certainly one of the most valuable things the book offers is a lesson in how to study scripture (or any other document) using sound hermeneutic principles.

 

Of course, not having had education in the field of Bible interpretation, I didn't know what i needed to know about all of that to be able to figure it out myself, and unfortunately, was not in tune with the Holy Spirit enough for him to help me, either.
God Bless - Mike

Seventy nine year old Ellis Skolfield was raised in the Scriptures on his mother's knee as missionaries in the Philippines in his earliest years.  In the early 1950's he attended Columbia Bible College, with studies focused in eschatology and Biblical archaeology and is considerably knowledgeable in regard to the relationship of history and scripture. He was pastor of a Church for many years, and then later went into the world and became an international award winning entrepreneur in graphic design/printing.  Eventually he sold the business and was later called to return to the Scriptures where he engaged in a multi-year solo full time study of Dan/Rev - setting aside commentaries - using only the Bible to define and explain itself.  As a result, for nearly 30 years, he has written about the central role of Islam in end-time prophecy.  The False Prophet is the fruit of that study.
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/the_false_prophet.htm

[Peter]

More recently, I've been listening to CDs of Alexander Scourby's spoken audio of the King James Version.

I guess I missed this. That is what my GoBible has on it, and I love the job Scourby does. For those that aren't accustomed to the KJV this might be a good way to get your feet wet. My mind tends to not wander as much as when I straight read the KJV, however most of my reading is in the form of word and phrase searches and then reading them in their contexts. Having a mission tends to keep me a lot more focused.
http://www.audio-bible.com/bible/bible.html

[Mike S]

Hey guys -
After considering your replies and seeing some other info comparing verses between the translations, I have come to the conclusion that I need to go back to the KJV as my primary Bible. I will refer to other translations, but only to see if they might increase my understanding of a word or phrase. I will always keep this foraging in deference to the KJV, and will disregard any passages in the other translations where omissions occur, or where the wording leaves the interpretation lacking as compared with the KJV. Early this morning, I downloaded the computer software, Bible Explorer, free of charge, and paid about $20 for 8 additional reference books. There were lots of free references in addition to the ones that came with the program. One of the Bibles included is Young's Literal Translation, so I can get as close to the original Hebrew and Greek as my lack of knowledge of the languages will allow. Of course, I could always e-mail my daughter, who is taking both Greek and Hebrew in college.
Her Major is Biblical Studies, with Minors in Greek and education. I marvel at her high level of intelligence, and praise God for her decision to follow His will for her life in a Christian vocation. Her desire is to teach Bible in a Christian school. If God closes all the doors to that, I'm sure she will figure out what He has in store for her. She has no desire to preach or pastor a church, as her beliefs are quite conservative. (I'm thankful for that). Boy did I get off topic!
But I was very happy to brag a little bit about my daughter!

[Peter]

Hey guys -
After considering your replies and seeing some other info comparing verses between the translations, I have come to the conclusion that I need to go back to the KJV as my primary Bible. I will refer to other translations, but only to see if they might increase my understanding of a word or phrase. I will always keep this foraging in deference to the KJV, and will disregard any passages in the other translations where omissions occur, or where the wording leaves the interpretation lacking as compared with the KJV. Early this morning, I downloaded the computer software, Bible Explorer, free of charge, and paid about $20 for 8 additional reference books. There were lots of free references in addition to the ones that came with the program. One of the Bibles included is Young's Literal Translation, so I can get as close to the original Hebrew and Greek as my lack of knowledge of the languages will allow. Of course, I could always e-mail my daughter, who is taking both Greek and Hebrew in college.
Her Major is Biblical Studies, with Minors in Greek and education. I marvel at her high level of intelligence, and praise God for her decision to follow His will for her life in a Christian vocation. Her desire is to teach Bible in a Christian school. If God closes all the doors to that, I'm sure she will figure out what He has in store for her. She has no desire to preach or pastor a church, as her beliefs are quite conservative. (I'm thankful for that). Boy did I get off topic!
But I was very happy to brag a little bit about my daughter!

Congrats on that bright daughter and may God continue to bless her.
Again, another great source is: http://www.olivetree.com/cgi-bin/EnglishBible.htm
For the upper left drop-down menu for selecting Strong's definitions, and the TR (textus receptus) Greek-English interlinear.

[resistingrexmundi]

I had a friend recommend E-sword to me. I haven't tried it yet but he says you can instantly compare verses from different translations and save them on your clipboard as you find the ones you want.

[Mike S]

I had E-Sword on an older computer. It did just that. Bible Explorer 4 is the free version of NavPress's wordSearch. I have put 6 translations side by side, and not sure if there is a limit. You can also put up a commentary, Bible Dictionary, or other reference alongside the scripture. Got a lot of free Bible versions and references, and paid $20 for another 8 or so, which means I have over 40 titles in my library. One of 'em is a Spanish Bible, and I don't know how I missed that when I selected it for downloading , but  figure I might can use it to learn Spanish. 

[Peter]

I was just about to remove the Frank Logsdon quote from my site pending verification, based on the chat (in a forum that will remain unnamed) that follows,  but decided to do a quick web search first. Blessedly I found the link at the end of this post on the first page of the search engine rankings. Since there are people's reputations at stake I thought I would include the other side of the story.
I wrote in regard to New Age Bible Versions:

The book opens with a piece written by Dr. Frank Logsdon, who wrote the preface to the New American Standard Bible.

To which was replied:

No, he did not. A blatant lie.

Then my text continued:

In regard to "NEW AGE VERSIONS" he wrote:
___________________________________

"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard,

... I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord ... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface ...

I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? ... I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them ...

When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV ... The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times .. The deletions are absolutely frightening ... there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this? ...

I don't want anything to do with it ...
[T]he finest leaders that we have today .. haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it ... That's how easily one can be deceived ... I'm going to talk to him [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things ...

[Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct! ...

If you must stand against everyone else, stand."

Dr. Frank Logsdon

To which was further replied:

To this day, there is no evidence that he ever wrote ANY of that. Assuming he ever did, that is a LOT of elipsis. Whether he wrote it or Riplinger did, it is all lies. Here is the official statement from the Lockman Foundation:

     The Board of Directors of The Lockman Foundation launched the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE translation work in the late 1950′s following the completion of the AMPLIFIED NEW TESTAMENT. Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon was acquainted with Dewey Lockman, president of The Lockman Foundation, prior to Mr. Lockman’s death in 1974. Mr. Logsdon was never a member of the Board of Directors, nor was he an employee of The Lockman Foundation. Mr. Logsdon had no authority to hire employees or translators for the Foundation, to set policy, to vote, to hold office, to incur expenses, etc. He cannot be considered “co-founder” of the NASB, nor part of The Lockman Foundation, nor part of the NASB translation team, nor did he write the forward of the NASB. According to our records, he was present at board meetings on two occasions — once to hear a travel report; and once to deliver an “inspirational thought.”

Mr. Logsdon last wrote to Mr. Lockman in fall of 1973 that he was moving to Florida. Mr. Lockman replied that he was surprised and saddened by his decision to leave the area. Mr. Lockman passed away in January of 1974, and no further correspondence was exchanged between Frank Logsdon and The Lockman Foundation. He resided in Florida until his passing some years ago.

The grass withers, the flower fades; but the word of our God stands forever. Isaiah 40:8 (NASB)

Please don't take my word for that. Contact the Lockman Foundation. They will verify that the above is their official statement.

This is somewhat of a "Logsdon said" "Lockman Foundation said". But who stands to loose economically from profits on that pop-bible version?

The following is from Logsdon's:

"New Bible Versions Tested
THE "NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE" Find out why the man that wrote the Preface for the NASB ended up repudiating it.
By Dr. S. Frank Logsdon"

A couple of excerpts from Dr. Logsdon's testimony follow. It didn't copy and paste very well so I will try to repair the omissions and word sticking together etc., but best to read it at the link at the bottom of this post:

"The New American Standard Version

Back in 1956-57 Mr. F. Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation [contacted me. He was] one of the dearest friends we've ever had for 25 years, a big man, some 300 pounds, snow white hair, one of the most terrific businessmen I have ever met. I always said he was like Nehemiah; he was building a wall. You couldn't get in his way when he had his mind on something; he went right to it; he couldn't be daunted. I never say anything like it; most unusual man. I spend weeks and weeks and weeks in their home, real close friends of the family. Well, he discovered that the copyright [on the American Standard Version of 1901] was just as loose as a fumbled ball on a football field. Nobody wanted it. The publishers didn't want it. It didn't get anywhere. Mr. Lockman got in touch with me and said, "Would you and Ann come out and spend some weeks with us, and we'll work on a feasibility report; I can pick up the copyright to the 1901 if it seems advisable."Well, up to that time I thought the Westcott and Hort was the text. You were intelligent if you believed the Westcott and Hort. Some of the finest people in the world believed in that Greek text, the finest leaders that we have today. You'd be surprised, if I told you, you wouldn't believe it. They haven't gone into it just as I hadn't gone into it; [they're] just taking it for granted. At any rate we went out and started on a feasibility report, and I encouraged him to go ahead with it. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord, because I encouraged him to go ahead with it. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped to interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words. I got one of the fifty deluxe copies which were printed; mine was number seven, with a light blue cover. But it was rather big and I couldn't carry it with me, and I never really looked at it. I just took for granted that it was done as we started it, you know, until some friends across the country began to learn that I had some part in it and they started saying, "What about this, what about that?"


"But I finally got to the place where I said, "Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?" Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult of my life, I think. I wrote to my friend Dewey, and I said, "Dewey, I don't want to add to your problems," (He had lost his wife some three years before; I was there for the funeral; also a doctor had made a mistake in operating on a cataract and he had lost the sight of one eye and had to have an operation on the other one; he had a slight heart attack; had sugar diabetes; a man seventy-four years of age) "but I can no longer ignore these criticism I am hearing and I can't refute them. The only thing I can do-and dear Brother, I haven't a thing against you and I can witness at the judgment of Christ and before men wherever I go that you were 100 percent sincere," (he wasn't schooled in language or anything; he was just a business man; he did it for the money; he did it conscientiously; he wanted it absolutely right and he thought it was right; I guess nobody pointed out some of these things to him). "I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. "I have a copy of the letter. I have his letter. I've shown it to some people. The Roberts saw it; Mike saw it. He stated that he was bowled over, he was shocked beyond words. He said that was putting it mildly, but he said, "I will write you in three weeks, and I still love you. To me you're going to be Franklin, my friend, throughout the course." And he said, "I'll write you in three weeks.""

I'm afraid I've already included too much. Folks can read the Logsdon's testimony for themselves at this link.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15443244/Testimony-of-Dr-S-Frank-Logsdon-NRSV

[Peter]

Few things make more of a case for the King James bible than the lies, false accusations against brethren, and mean-spiritedness of its detractors.

[Mike S]

Few things make more of a case for the King James bible than the lies, false accusations against brethren, and mean-spiritedness of its detractors.

While I don't doubt that this is true, have you seen the tone of many in the KJV only crowd? They too can be downright venomous. Some even question the salvation of anyonewho uses the modern versions.

[Peter]

Few things make more of a case for the King James bible than the lies, false accusations against brethren, and mean-spiritedness of its detractors.

While I don't doubt that this is true, have you seen the tone of many in the KJV only crowd? They too can be downright venomous. Some even question the salvation of anyonewho uses the modern versions.

Certainly couldn't agree based on that one forum's section. Also comparing the writings of both sides (not chat conversations), the KJOs seem a bit more Christian. The section in that forum that is called KJO, would more accurately be called anti-king James predators. Take a look.

[Mike S]

Few things make more of a case for the King James bible than the lies, false accusations against brethren, and mean-spiritedness of its detractors.

While I don't doubt that this is true, have you seen the tone of many in the KJV only crowd? They too can be downright venomous. Some even question the salvation of anyonewho uses the modern versions.

Certainly couldn't agree based on that one forum's section. Also comparing the writings of both sides (not chat conversations), the KJOs seem a bit more Christian. The section in that forum that is called KJO, would more accurately be called anti-king James predators. Take a look.

Maybe you haven't seen much of the KJO crowd on Facebook. That was what I was referring to.

[Peter]

Few things make more of a case for the King James bible than the lies, false accusations against brethren, and mean-spiritedness of its detractors.

While I don't doubt that this is true, have you seen the tone of many in the KJV only crowd? They too can be downright venomous. Some even question the salvation of anyonewho uses the modern versions.

Certainly couldn't agree based on that one forum's section. Also comparing the writings of both sides (not chat conversations), the KJOs seem a bit more Christian. The section in that forum that is called KJO, would more accurately be called anti-king James predators. Take a look.

Maybe you haven't seen much of the KJO crowd on Facebook. That was what I was referring to.

Hey Mike, sorry for the delay as I was out of town.
I don't do facebook as I am spread a little too thin. Is there a specific person or place on facebook?

[Peter]

I set my NKJV aside years ago, when I saw that the term "antichrist" was selectively capitalized.
I noticed even worse today when I went for examples of versions for Daniel 12:7, for the benefit of a person in another forum that had claimed

"Of course it doesn't fit "my doctrine". It doesn't fit anyones doctrine who understands that the reason for the kingdoms was to bring the eventuality of shattering the holy people. Sheesh, that shattering happened at the end of the Old Covenant age."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Dan&c=12&v=7&t=KJV#vrsn/7

KJV    
And I heard the man clothed in linen, which [was] upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that [it shall be] for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these [things] shall be finished.


Tanach
Daniel 12:7 And I heard the man clad in linen, who was above the waters of the river, and he raised his right hand and his left hand to the heavens, and he swore by the Life of the world, that in the time of [two] times and a half, and when they have ended shattering the strength of the holy people, all these will end.


NKJV    
Then I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and half a time; and when the power of the holy people has been completely shattered, all these things shall be finished.

THE EXACT OPPOSITE! As they say, the devil is in the details!


NLT    
The man dressed in linen, who was standing above the river, raised both his hands toward heaven and took a solemn oath by the One who lives forever, saying, "It will go on for a time, times, and half a time. When the shattering of the holy people has finally come to an end, all these things will have happened."


NIV    
The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, lifted his right hand and his left hand toward heaven, and I heard him swear by him who lives forever, saying, "It will be for a time, times and half a time.* When the power of the holy people has been finally broken, all these things will be completed."
Footnote:
* Or a year, two years and half a year

Rupert Murdoch's pop-bible has backwards too!


ESV    
And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream; he raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven and swore by him who lives forever that it would be for a time, times, and half a time, and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be finished.


NASB    
I heard the man dressed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, *as he raised his right hand and his left toward heaven, and swore by Him who lives forever that it would be for a *time, *times, and half a *time; and as soon as *they finish shattering the *power of the holy people, all these events will be completed.

NASB slightly more ambiguous, but could be construed to be understood like other pop-bibles


RSV    
The man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the stream, raised his right hand and his left hand toward heaven; and I heard him swear by him who lives for ever that it would be for a time, two times, and half a time; and that when the shattering of the power of the holy people comes to an end all these things would be accomplished.


ASV    
And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.


YLT    
And I hear the one clothed in linen, who [is] upon the waters of the flood, and he doth lift up his right hand and his left unto the heavens, and sweareth by Him who is living to the age, that, `After a time, times, and a half, and at the completion of the scattering of the power of the holy people, finished are all these.'


DBY    
And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river; and he held up his right hand and his left hand unto the heavens, and swore by him that liveth for ever that it is for a time, times, and a half; and when the scattering of the power of the holy people shall be accomplished, all these things shall be finished.


WEB    
And I heard the man clothed in linen, who [was] upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by him that liveth for ever, that [it shall be] for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these [things] shall be finished.


HNV    
I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand to heaven, and swore by him who lives forever that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when they have made an end of breaking in pieces the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

No small matter when we see how some pop-bible versions advanced that poster's anti-Zionism and anti-semitism.

Hebrew/English interlinear
12:7  and·I-am-hearing
the·man
being-clothed-of
the·linens
who
from·above
to·waters-of
the·waterway
and·he-is-holding-high
right-hand-of·him
and·left-hand-of·him
&
the·heavens
and·he-is-swearing
in·life-of
e·oulm
the·eon
that
for·appointed-time
&
appointed-times
and·half
and·as·to-be-concluded-of
to-shatter-of
hand-of
&
people-of
holiness
they-shall-be-concluded
all-of
these

[PeteWaldo]

From another forum's post:

The majority of ALL "new" translations are brought to you by: Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort....(affectionately known as Westcott and Hort). The demonstrable corrupt Manuscripts they used (all originated in Alexandria, Home of the Gnostics):

* Codex Alexandrinus: found around 1630 brought to England.  A fifth Century Manuscript containing the Entire New Testament.

* Codex Siniaticus: found early 1800's by German Scholar Constantin von Tischendorf discovered it in a trash can in St Catherine's Monastery @ the Traditional Mt Sinai.  Dated around 350 AD, is one of the 2 Oldest manuscripts of the Greek New Testament.

* Codex Vaticanus: in the Vatican Library since @ least 1481 but not made available to scholars until the middle of the 19th Century.  Dated around 325 AD, complete Greek New Testament.

*** There are over 3,000 confirmed contradictions between the Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the FOUR GOSPELS alone!! ***
 

All modern translations have their Primary Source documents buried in those 3 codices including the NIV. Others... If you are reading these Bibles, I would suggest to STOP what you are doing this second and conduct an IN-DEPTH study of Westcott and Hort and "your" Bible's source documents......
(NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word Translation).
 

Last 12 Verses of Mark (16:9-20) Most Modern Translations there will be a marginal notation that these verses were added later and question the authenticity. They are not found in the 3 codices.
 

In 150 AD, several Centuries before these codices,  Irenaeus quotes these verses in his commentary!  ahhh, Houston we have a problem.

2nd Century AD Hypolatus also comments on these verses.
 

Lets take a brief stop to have a listen (From their own lips)...
 

Hort;  April 3 1860,
"But the book which has engaged me the most is Darwin.  What may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with.  My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable".
F.J Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1, p. 146

In a Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Westcott wrote,
"No one now I suppose hold that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history- I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did".
Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 69
 

Hort said,
"I am now inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants".
F.J.A Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1, p. 78
 

Westcott wrote,
"Christians are themselves in a true sense 'Christs'.
B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John, p. 73
 

Hort, Letter to F.D. Maurice...
"Finally St. Paul's mysterious words 'without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins'- I have labored so utterly to apprehend in any measure what this idea is, that I hope you will deepen and widen the hints you have already given.  I am quite conscious that I have given but a few distinct objections to the common belief, (redemption through the blood of the Lamb) in what I have written, but so indeed it must be; language cannot accurately define the twinge of shrinking horror which mixes with my thought when I hear the popular notion asserted".

Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F. J. A. Vol 1, p. 122
 

Hort write to Westcott,
" I have been persuaded for many years the Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common and their causes and results".

F. J. A. Life of Hort, Vol 2, p. 50
 

Hort speaking to 1 Peter 1:4 'reserved in heaven':
"It is hardly necessary to say that this whole local language is figurative folly".
F.J.A, The First Epistle to Peter, p. 39

Westcott wrote,
"How certainly I should have been claimed a heretic".
B.F. Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p. 233

You said it!!  I would suggest you do your own Due Diligence with these 2 gentleman and come to your own conclusion....it won't take long.

Start here:
Ghostly Guild
Hermes Club
The Eranus Club....with Arthur Balfour
F.J.A Hort, The First Epistle of Peter, p. 39
Arthur Fenton Hort, Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, vol 1
F.J.A. Hort, Life of Hort, Vol 1 and 2
B.F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Wescott
B.F. Westcott, The Epistles of St. John
B.F. Westcott, The Epistle to the Hebrews
 

If you want to be quick, just investigate their relationship with Helena Blavatsky (Mother of Theosophy).