Slidell Louisiana (LA)
Kennedale Texas (TX)
Listing of Fundamental, King-James-Only Baptist Churches
DAYSPONSORS KJAB Christian Radio is a is a listener supported Gospel Radio Station. As a non-commercial station we are dependent on the gifts of God's ...
Missionaries to the Island of Madagascar
Is the word "unicorn" an erroneous translation in the King James Bible? The English word unicorn occurs nine times in the KJB, and is found in Numbers 23:22; 24:8; Deut. 33:17; Job 39:9,10; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 92:10; and Isaiah 34:7. It is translated from the Hebrew word reem, which comes from a verb used only once, and found in Zechariah 14:10 "Jerusalem, and â€˜it shall be lifted up' and inhabited in her place." This animal is characterized by something lifted up or high and in a prominent position. It is very strong - "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn." Num. 23:22. It is also used in a symbolic way in our Lord's prophetic prayer as recorded in Psalms 22:21 "Save me from the lion's mouth: for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns." There was no literal lion present when Christ died, but Satan, as a roaring lion, was present, for it was his hour and the power of darkness. There were no literal unicorns present either, but they symbolically or spiritually were present and assisted our Lord Jesus in His greatest hour of need. This animal was untamable, as can be seen in Job 39:9 - 12, where God asks Job "Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib? Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee? Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him? Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" This passage shows that the unicorn, whatever it was, could not be tamed at all, nor used in farming to plow the fields like an ox can. This, as well as other verses soon to be discussed, shows that many modern versions, like the NKJV, NIV, and NASB, are incorrect in their rendering of this word as "wild ox". The wild ox is nothing more than a "wild guess" and pure speculation on the part of the modern bible editors. A wild ox is like a wild horse. It can be tamed, by castration or placing a yoke on its neck, and bind him with his band in the furrow to bring home thy seed. God's question to Job is intended to produce a definite NO, not a â€˜Yeah, I can do that.'Those who criticize the KJB's unicorns try to muster a group of "scholars" who give their opinion as to what this animal was. But listen carfully to their words. Henry Morris - "The Hebrew word translated unicorn is believed by most Hebrew scholars to refer to the huge and fierce aurochs, or wild ox now extinct." W. L. Alexander (Pulpit Commentary) "the reem is supposed to be the aurochs, an animal of the bovine species, allied to the buffalo, now extinct." Charles Spurgeon wrote "The unicorn may have been some gigantic ox or buffalo now unknown and perhaps extinct." William Houghon "we think that there can be no doubt (how is that for certainty !) that some species of wild ox is intended."Eastons' Bible dictionary says: "The exact reference of the word is doubtful. Some have supposed it to be the buffalo, others the white antelope called by the Arabs rim. Most probably, however, the word denotes Bos Primigenius, which is now extinct."All of this is pure speculation. The fact is the modern bible translators do not know what this animal was, and many of them say that whatever it might have been, it is now extinct. Wild oxen still exist, and they can be tamed and domesticated. In fact some bibles like Darby and the Spanish of 1960 translate this word as "buffalo", while the Douay Rheims sometimes has "rhinoceros" and other times "unicorns". Young's 'literal' translation shows that he simply did not know what the animal in question referred to, so he merely transliterated the Hebrew word, and did not translate it at all. His version consistently reads "the rheem".I recently discovered something that I think is very interesting of quite enlightening about how modern scholars are changing the definitions that words once had. I have in my study two different printings of the well known Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon. One is from 1887 and the other one is from 1976, which was a reprint of the 9th edition of 1940. The more modern Liddell and Scott defines the word monokeros as "a wild ox". However the 1887 edition gives only one definition of the word - A UNICORN!!!. Now, it should be obvious that Liddell and Scott themselves were not alive in 1976 so that they could suddenly change their minds about what this word meant. So who changed the definition of this word for future generations?Unicorn means literally, "one - horned"; it was a one horned animal. Daniel Webster's Dictionary of 1828 defined unicorn as "an animal with one horn; the monoceros. This name is often applied to the rhinoceros." There have been fossils found, and are now in museums, of a giant one horned beast or dinosaur. There are also the unicorn bird, the unicorn fish, the unicorn moth, the unicorn shell, plant, root and the unicorn constellation. So several things, both plants and animals have the word unicorn attached to them to describe some physical characteristic.There are even historical accounts of the unicorn. In 416 BC, the Greek physician Ctesias set out to attend to the Persian King Darius II, where he spent 18 years. He later wrote a book called Indica, in which he said: "There are in India certain wild asses which are a large as horses, and larger. They have a horn on the forehead which is about eighteen inches in length."Pliny the Elder, in the first century AD, describes "an exceedingly wild beast called the Monoceros (one - horned)...It makes a deep lowing noise, and one black horn two cubits long projects from the middle of its forehead. This animal, they say, cannot be taken alive." Aristotle frequently mentioned the unicorn. He said in one passage: "I have found that wild asses as large as horses are to be found in India. It has a horn on the brow, about one cubit and a half in length.." Julius Caesar said they could be found in the Hercynian Forest, and Alexander the Great is said to have seen one before attempting to invade a certain territory, and took it as a sign not to attack, because the land was protected. Are these reports true? I do not know, but I mention them only to show that there are many conflicting views as to what this animal was and in what form it existed.Justin Martyr writes concerning the unicorn in Psalm 22. In his book "Dialogue with Trypho" this early church fathers says: "And what follows of the Psalm,--'But Thou, Lord, do not remove Thine assistance from me; give heed to help me. Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from THE HORNS OF THE UNICORNS,'--was also information and prediction of the events which should befall Him. For I have already proved that He was the only-begotten of the Father of all things, being begotten in a peculiar manner Word and Power by Him, and having afterwards become man through the Virgin, as we have learned from the memoirs. Moreover, it is similarly foretold that He would die by crucifixion. For the passage, 'Deliver my soul from the sword, and my only-begotten from the hand of the dog; save me from the lion's mouth, and my humility from the horns of the UNICORNS,' is indicative of the suffering by which He should die, i.e., by crucifixion. For the 'horns of the, unicorns,' I have already explained to you, are the figure of the cross only."In chapter 16 Justin Martyr continues his reference to the unicorn, saying: "And God by Moses shows in another way the force of the mystery of the cross, when He said in the blessing wherewith Joseph was blessed, â€˜From the blessing of the Lord is his land; for the seasons of heaven, and for the dews, and for the deep springs from beneath,... Let him be glorified among his brethren; his beauty is like the firstling of a bullock; his horns the horns of an UNICORN: with these shall he push the nations from one end of the earth to another.' Now, no one could say or prove that the horns of an UNICORN represent any other fact or figure than the type which portrays the cross. For the one beam is placed upright, from which the highest extremity is raised up into a horn, when the other beam is fitted on to it, and the ends appear on both sides as horns joined on to the one horn. And the part which is fixed in the centre, on which are suspended those who are crucified, also stands out like a horn; and it also looks like a horn conjoined and fixed with the other horns."The King James Bible is not at all alone in translating this specific Hebrew word as unicorn. In fact the word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale's Bible 1535, Taverner's Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition "unicornio", the French Martin 1744 "licornes", Luther's German 1545 and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 "einhornshomer", the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament "monokeros"(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby's translation of 1870, the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster's translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa's 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York.The Greek Septuagint (LXX). Regardless of when you think this Greek translation of the Old Testament was made or by whom, this version is chock-full of satyrs, devils, dragons, and unicorns. The word unicorns is found in Numberbs 23:22; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9; Psalms 22:21; 29:6; 78:69, and 92:10.One other verse that puts the lie to the modern versions use of "wild ox", besides the reference in Job, is Psalms 92:10. â€˜But my HORN shalt thou exalt like the HORN of AN UNICORN." The NASB, NIV, NKJV read: "You have exalted my HORN like THAT OF A WILD OX." Now, I ask you a simple question. How many horns does a wild ox have? Not one, but two.Psalm 92:10 Wycliffe 1395 - And myn horn schal be reisid as an vnicorn; and myn eelde in plenteuouse merci.Bishop's Bible 1568 - But my horne shalbe exalted lyke the horne of an vnicorne: for I am annoynted with excellent oyle.Coverdale 1535 - But my horne shalbe exalted like the horne of an Vnicorne, & shal be anoynted with fresh oyle.Geneva Bible 1599 - But thou shalt exalt mine horne, like the vnicornes, and I shalbe anoynted with fresh oyle.Third Millenium Bible 1998 - But my horn shalt Thou exalt like the horn of a unicorn; I shall be anointed with fresh oil.Some would criticize the KJB in Deut. 33:17 where Moses is blessing Israel. He says: "His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his HORNS are like the HORNS OF UNICORNS: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth." The Oxford and Cambridge KJB editions say in the marginal note: Hebrew - unicorn. This is a masculine singular absolute noun. Yet it is rendered as a plural "unicorns" not only by the KJB but also by Websters Bible, the Third Millenium Bible and the 21st Century KJB. Those who criticze the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural are showing their selective use of the Hebrew language.All Bible translations frequently translate a singular masculine absolute noun as a plural. In this same book of Deuteronomy, in just the first 10 chapters, the NKJV, NIV and NASB do this very thing. Deut. 8:15 "nachash" & "aqrab" (singular nouns) are translated by all as "serpents & scorpions", in Deut. 1:19, 20 "har" is mountains in the NKJV, Deut 1:1, 2:37 "bahar" and "har" as hills or mountains in NKJV, KJB, and NIV. Deut. 1:23, 35 and in many many other places "ish" as "men"; Dt. 3:3 "sarid" as survivors in NIV, NKJV; Deut. 5:15 "ebed" slaves in NIV, Deut. 7:9 "dowr" generations in NIV & NKJV; Deut. 8:8 "rimmown" as pomegranates in NASB, NIV and NKJV; Deut. 9:ll, 18, 25 "layil" as "nights" in NASB, NIV and NKJV; and Deut. 10:19 "gare" as strangers or aliens in NIV, NKJV, and NASB.So the person who tries to attack the KJB for rendering a singular noun as a plural, just doesn't know what he is talking about. Because of the "horns" plural, the KJB has made the singular noun as plural in the context. There are many words like this in English which can be either singular or plural like: deer, sheep, moose, elk, fish and trout etc.By the way, some have tried to blame the rendering of unicorn on the alleged KJB translator's use of the so called Greek Septuagint. However, the translators marginal note in Deut. 33:17 clearly says: "Hebrew - unicorn", not "LXX - unicorn". The King James Bible translators clearly believed that the Hebrew word itself means unicorn. You can differ if you like from their beliefs, but don't try to blame this reading on the supposed use of the Greek Septuagint.The historic rabbinic commentary (Ibn Ezra, Radaq, Rashi, Saadi Gaon et. al.) views on Deuteronomy 33:17, and the re'em question in general support the King James reading in Deuteronomy. As an example Radaq (Kimchi) is considered, historically, as the single most important Hebrew linguist and grammatical expert.http://britam.org/proof3.htmlRabbi David Kimchi (Safer HaShorashim, RAEM): His horns are like the horns of unicorns (Deuteronomy 33:17). "It is intended to mean that his horns are like the horns of (several) unicorns for the Raem has only one horn."The Unicorn was a one horned animal of some kind. I don't think we know for sure what it was, but it was not a wild ox as the NKJV, NASB, NIV have it. It could not be tamed (Job 39: 9, 10) and Psalm 92:10 is speaking of a one horned animal, while the "wild ox" of the NKJV, NIV, NASB has two horns; not just one.One definite possibility is the Indian rhinoceros, of which there are still about 2000 alive today. They used to cover large areas, but are now limited to India and Nepal. They weigh about 4,500 pounds, can run at over 20 miles an hour; they have one large horn on the snout and their scientific name is Rhinoceros UNICORNIS.In the original 16ll edition of the KJB, the editors placed "or Rhinoceros" in the margin of Isaiah 34:7 where it reads: "And the unicorns shall come down with them." It is still in the modern editions of the KJB. So the KJB editors were not ignorant of the possibility of the unicorn being a rhinoceros. I do not know, nor does any one else but God, what the unicorn was or is.It was a one horned animal of great strength; it could not be tamed, and it is always used in a good and positive sense in Scripture. The KJB is not in error by translating this word as unicorn, but the modern versions are just taking a wild guess with their "wild oxen" and the other scriptures show their wild guess to be wrong. Will Kinney
You don't need to be a scholar to tell which Bible is the true one. God never intended His words of truth to be known or understood only by the scholars. They don't agree among themselves as to which text to follow or how to render it in English once they agree as to the text - as it witnessed by the conflicting NAS, NIV and NKJV. Jesus tells us "Beware of the scribes..." and in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 "It is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?" There is an easy way for every Christian to test the multitude of conflicting Bible versions flooding the market today. Are they a true or a false witness? Mark 14:56 tells us: "For many bare false witness against him, but their witness agreed not together." In a court of law a false witness will sometimes or even usually tell the truth, but he betrays himself as a false witness by saying something either false, contradictory or absurd. So it is with the NKJV, NASB, NIV and all the other modern Bible versions competing for your money and your mind. So Christian friend, I ask you to sit for a little while in the jury box, listen to the testimonies, and determine which one is telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Example #1 What is your righteousness before a holy and just God? Is it your own works or the imputed righteousness of our precious Lord Jesus Christ? The imputed righteousness of Christ is illustrated and clearly taught in the King James Bible of 1611. In the beginning, after Adam and Eve had sinned and hid themselves from God because they were naked, we are told in Genesis 3:21: "Unto Adam also and to is wife did the LORD God make coats of skin, and clothed them." An innocent animal was slain, and its coat was made a covering for the naked, guilty pair. God has to cover us; we cannot cover ourselves acceptably before Him. Isaiah 61:10 beautifully expresses this truth: "I will greatly rejoice in the Lord, my soul shall be joyful in my God; for he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness...as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels." Zechariah 3:1-4 illustrates the same truth. Satan stood at the right hand of Joshua the high priest to resist him. The Lord rebuked Satan. The Bible tells us that: "Joshua was clothed with filthy garments." But God said: "Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment." In Matthew 22 our Saviour gives us a parable about a wedding where the guests were bidden to the feast. But the king saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment. "And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless." Then the man was bound hand and foot and cast into outer darkness. You and I have no righteousness of our own doing. "All our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" -Isaiah 64:6. But praise our God for his wonderful Son, Jesus Christ. "For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." 2 Corinthians 5:21. "and be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith." Philippians 3:9. All the preceding information was given to show the true doctrine so that the false teaching of the new versions will be seen more clearly. Revelation 19:7-9 tells us again of the wedding feast. V.7 "the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; FOR THE FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS." This last phrase is consistent with the rest of Scripture that it is not our righteousness that makes us acceptable unto God, but the robe of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Versions that read just like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, Greenâ€™s interlinear, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Daniel Webster's of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 (el lino fino son las justificaciones de los santos), the 1744 French Martin - ("ce fin lin dÃ©signe la justice des Saints."), Luther's 1545 German Bible, Darby's translation, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJB version, and even the 2002 paraphrase called The Message which reads: "She was given a bridal gown of bright and shining linen. The linen is the righteousness of the saints." However, the Catholic Douay, New American (St. Joseph of 1970), and the Jehovah Witness Bibles read in a similar way to many modern versions. St. Joseph: "the linen dress is THE VIRTUOUS DEEDS of God's saints." The NKJV, NASB, ISV (2003 International Standard Version), the 2001 ESV (English Standard Version), the brand new Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, â€œthe fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.â€ (or "the fine linen is the righteous deeds of God's people"). The Holman Standard reads: "For the fine linen represents the righteous acts of the saints." That is the Catholic doctrine of works salvation and it is now taught in the NKJ, NIV, and NASB too. If our righteous acts or rignteous deeds are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered, don't you think?. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same truth in this verse. So which one is right? For a further development of the theology of this verse as it stands in the King James Bible please see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Rev19-8.html (technical notes: The NASB concordance renders the word dikaioma as justification, requirements, ordinances, regulations and righteous acts. It is from the verb "to declare righteous". The context and Biblical consistency of doctrine must determine the meaning in a given text. If it be argued that the word is plural, so, I've been told, is righteousness in Isaiah 61:10. There are many words in the N.T. which are plural but are rendered as singular in English. Mt. 6:1 heaven, Mt.14:6 birthday, Mt. 16:7 bread, Mt. 22:2 marriage, John 1:13 blood, Acts 13:22 will, Acts. 19:19 price etc. Plus each saint, and there are many, has his own robe, thus many robes composed of the only one kind of righteousness which is Christ's. Example #2 God is sovereign and in control of his universe. Daniel 2:21 "he changeth the times and the seasons". Acts 1:7 "It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power,"; Acts 17:31 "he hath appointed a day (already done) in the which he will judge the world in righteousness"; Rev. 9:15 "And the four angels were loosed, which were prepared for an hour, and a day, and a month, and a year, for to slay the third part of men." God alone is in control of time, even to the very hour. John 7:30: "Then they sought to take him; but no man laid hands on him, because his hour was not yet come." The KJV along with Tyndale, Geneva, Douay, Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, Young's, and the Spanish Reina Valera correctly translate 2 Peter 3:11,12 "Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God..." Tyndale,Geneva, Webster, KJV 21, TMB=KJV, Douay - hasten towards; Young - hasting to; Span. apresurÃ¡ndoos para la venida, while the RV, ASV have -earnestly desiring. But something has definitely changed in the new "bibles". The NKJV & NASB have "hastening the coming" and the NIV has "speed its coming". We cannot hurry up Gods timetable or affect it in any way. The new versions teach the opposite and contradict the rest of Scripture. For a further development and explanation of the theology of this verse as it stands in the King James Bible please see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html Example #3 In 2 Sam.14, Joab enlists the help of a wise woman to change David's attitude toward his son Absalom. David apparently received the woman's message as from the Lord, because he allowed Absalom to return to Jerusalem. Part of the message is v.14; "For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON." In other words, we all die, regardless of wealth or social position. The Geneva Bible, Youngs translation, and the 1917 Jewish Pub. Co. of America Version all agree with the KJV. However, the NKJV, NASB, & NIV say "God does not take away life." This is a false statement. It contradicts 2 Sam. 12:15 just two chapters before where the Lord struck the child and he died. 1 Sam. 2:6 says: "The Lord killeth, and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up..." and God himself testifies in Deut. 32:39; "I kill, and I make alive." This is not a case of the NKJV or NAS honestly examining the Hebrew, because both have rendered the same words in other places just as the KJV has them here. Why change what this wise woman said from the truth into a lie? For a further explanation of this verse please see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/2Sam14.html Example #4 A false witness can say something so utterly ridiculous that you know he is lying. Let's look at the NAS - the rapidly fading star of the scholarly types. Is it possible to deceive God? He knows our every thought and the words before they come out of our mouths. Of course, you say, no one can deceive God. Stupid statement #1 . Psalms 78 tells us of Israel's rebellion and sin against their God and of his continued compassion towards them. One of the people's many recorded sins is found in v.36: "they did FLATTER him with their mouth, and lied unto him with their tongue." We can flatter God - say all kinds of nice things about him yet not really mean them. God is not fooled by mans false words of adoration. The ASV, NIV, NKJV, Darby, Geneva, RSV and NRSV all agree with the KJV that they flattered God. But the NAS says they DECEIVED him. That my Christian friend is an impossibility. I hope you aren't deceived into thinking the NASB is the true Bible. Stupid statement #2. Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god." Stupid statement #3. Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really? Example #5 As a false witness will contradict himself, so too will a false bible. Hebrews 3 tells of the children of Israel who didn't believe God and hardened their hearts so as not to enter the promised land. Verse 16 says; "For some, when they had heard, did provoke; howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses." Tyndale, Geneva, Young and Reina Valera of 1602 agree with the KJV. However the NKJV,NIV & NAS say: "For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt by Moses?" You would naturally answer "Yes, it was all" to the new versions. But that is a lie, a contradiction and contrary to the whole sense of the passage. Joshua and Caleb believed God and eventually did enter the promised land along with thousands of the children of the parents who refused to believe God. The whole point of the passage is to believe God and enter into his rest. Be like Caleb and Joshua. Example #6 Who is in control of the world? Is it God or Satan? Jesus Christ said: "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Mat.28:18. The Lord's prayer in Mat. 6:13 ends with :"For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever, Amen." This phrase is in brackets in the NAS and removed in the NIV. Jesus either said it or he didn't, they can't all be right. In Ephesians 1:20-22 it is said of Christ that God "raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under his feet." Daniel 4:17,25,26 tell us that "the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will." II Cron. 20:6: "O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?" Satan is a liar from the beginning. When he told Jesus, during the temptation, that all the kingdoms of the world were his and that he gave them to whomsoever he would, he was lying. His statement directly contradicts Daniel 4:17 and the other Scriptures. But the NIV, NAS and NKJ have bought Satan's lie and are passing it off on to God's children. In 1 John 5:19 the KJV along with the Geneva, Tyndale, Youngs and the Spanish of 1602 say: "And we know that we are of God, and THE WHOLE WORLD LIETH IN WICKEDNESS." We live in a fallen world; it lies in sin; but God is still in control and ruling even though it may not appear that way. But the eye of faith sees his sovereignty and rejoices in this confidence. However the NIV says: "The whole world is under the control of the evil one." (Before you rush to your school boy Greek, check out your own version on the presence or lack of the definite article.) The NASB has "the whole world lies in the power of the evil one." The NKJV tries to strike a medium with its: "lies under the sway of the wicked one" but it is also wrong when it calls Satan the "ruler of this world" in John 16:11. For further discussion of who rules the world, please see: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/riddle.html Example #7 Words and Numbers I believe God is very serious about his words and those who would tamper with them. Deut.4:2: "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." Proverbs 30:5,6 "Every word of God is pure...Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Also Rev. 22:18,19. The NAS and the NIV are both grievously guilty of adding to, diminishing from and changing the words of God. This is not just my opinion, but documented facts from their own "bibles" and concordances. I will give just a few of the many examples I have found. In Judges 16:13,14 the NAS & NIV add 33 extra words to the text, which are not found in any Hebrew manuscripts, but according to the NIV footnote are found in some Greek copies. In II Sam. 13:34 the NIV adds another 21 words from the Greek. They are not found in the NAS. And again the NIV adds another 15 words to Psalm 145:13 from the Syriac - which are not in the NAS. In Gen. 4:8 NIV adds from the Greek: "let us go out into the field." I have found well over 40 examples in the NASB and more than 80 in the NIV where they do not follow the Hebrew text but go with the Greek, Syriac, Targum etc. Here are documented facts about some of the many places where versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard and other modern Bible versions reject the inspired Hebrew texts. See http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html and http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html 2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. All Hebrew texts, plus the Revised Version, the ASV, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish, NKJV, and even the RSV & NRSV say 42. Yet the NAS & NIV change this number to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. This information is in a footnote in the Scofield NIV of 1984. It is recorded in 2 Kings 8:26 that he was 22 years old. There is a rather easy solution to this apparent contradiction. Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab - 2 Cron.22:7. Ahaziah was son in law to Ahab - 2 Kings 8:27. So if you count how long each king related to Ahab reigned, you come up with exactly the 42nd year as a son of Ahab (related by marriage) when Ahaziah began to reign, though physically he was only 22. Ahab 1 Kings 16;29 -22 years reigned, Jehoram of Israel 12 years 2 Kings 3:1 and Jehoram of Judah 8 years 2 Chron. 21:5. Thus 22 + 12 + 8 =42. The new versions are based on unbelief. They say "This is a scribal error." They don't believe God has preserved his word without error. They do not have an inspired, inerrant Bible in their hands. Ask them and you will see. For a more in depth discussion of the 22 versus 42 "problem" please see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html A riddle is found within a riddle in Judges 14:12-18. Verse 15 says "it came to pass on the SEVENTH day". This is in all Hebrew texts, ASV,Geneva, Young, Darby, Douay, NKJ (but with misleading footnote) and Spanish. The NIV changes this to the FOURTH day with a footnote that says some LXX, Syriac 4th; Hebrew 7th. NAS also has FOURTH but no footnote. NAS NIV still have a contradiction because of v.17, 18. Can you solve the riddle? Hints: Could any days have intervened between v12 and v.15? And what would the first 7th day of v. 15 have meant to the Jewish Samson? There is no need to doubt God's Holy word. Get the KJV Holy Bible and stick with it. I have also developed a fuller explanation of the riddle within a riddle found here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/riddle.html One last example dealing with numbers - though I have many more. In 1 Samuel 13:1 the KJV, NKJV, Geneva and Spanish say: "Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel..." The NAS says: "Saul was 40 years old when he began to reign and he reigned 32 years over Israel." The NIV has: "Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty two years." Gleason Archer, one of the translators of the NIV, says in his book Bible Difficulties on page 171 that the Hebrew text here has been lost. How is that for God preserving his word?! The NAS & NIV not only disagree with each other but contradict Acts 13:21 where we are told that Saul reigned for 40 years. The Hebrew text is not lost. Check out the concordances of NAS- NIV and you will see they have at times translated the words "one" and "year" just as the KJV. For further development of the truth of this verse as it stands in the King James Bible, please see my article here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/wdslost.html "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it." The NIV complete concordance tells us that they have not translated THOUSANDS of Hebrew and Greek words. Here are just a few examples. Zechariah 1:7 NIV omits "saying". The NIV number for this word is #606. Their own concordance tells us they have "not translated" this word 878 times. Zech. 1:11 "Behold" is gone. NIV #2180 not translated 550 times. Zech 1:18 omits "mine eyes" #6524 36 times not translated; "saw" and "behold" also are gone from this same verse. "Children" #1201 not translated 237 times; Zech. 8:17 omits "in your hearts", Zech. 8:19 omits the word "fast" 3 of the 4 times it occurs in this verse. Zech. 9:1 omits "burden". All of these words are in the NAS, NKJ, and of course the KJV. The NIV has over 64,000 fewer words in it than the KJV. It does not translate the words "it came to pass" (also, to be, happen, occur) #2118 887 times. The words "I pray thee" #5228 in NIV are not translated 297 times out of the 405 times it occurs in the Hebrew text. See how the omission of this simple phrase changes a request into a demand. In Exodus 33:18 Moses speaks to God: "And he said, I beseech thee, shew me thy glory." NIV: "Then Moses said, 'Now show me your glory.'" This type of "bible" may appeal to the blab it and grab it crowd, but it is not the pure word of God. The NAS 95 Update version omits almost 8000 words from the Greek and Hebrew texts which were previously in the NAS 1977 edition. Perhaps they reason we don't talk in that old fashioned way any more, so let's update the language to a more modern usage. But I ask you, if this book is indeed Gods holy words of truth, and he wrote it in this manner, what or who gives the modern scholars the right to edit Gods word? Thank you for your time and attention. May God give you the grace and humility to come to the correct verdict and the only correct version. Through the electing grace of God, washed in the blood of the Lamb, a brother in Christ Jesus our Lord, Will Kinney
Powered by Ekklesia-Online