New World Order Bible Versions

[BlackManINC]

This compelling documentary explores the rich textual history of the King James Bible and exposes the corrupt origins of the modern versions. Find out why the King James Bible is consistent with all previous English translations, while the modern versions are all dramatically different. The changes being made in the modern versions are not incidental. They are part of a satanic agenda to undermine key Biblical teachings and prepare the population for an all-inclusive one world religion.




New World Order Bible Versions :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

 

[zeke25]

This compelling documentary explores the rich textual history of the King James Bible and exposes the corrupt origins of the modern versions. Find out why the King James Bible is consistent with all previous English translations, while the modern versions are all dramatically different. The changes being made in the modern versions are not incidental. They are part of a satanic agenda to undermine key Biblical teachings and prepare the population for an all-inclusive one world religion.



New World Order Bible Versions :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=kFtI_mVOXbQ

No question that NWO Bible versions are being circulated. However, two of your primary pastors in this film are Steven L. Anderson and Roger Jimenez. It has not done them any good to stick with the KJV. Roger Jimenez preaches heresy and refuses correction. But of course, that is only a distraction to someone like myself who has some familiarity with these two men.

 

[Forsakenone]

Interesting video, thanks for sharing...

 

[BlackManINC]

Interesting video, thanks for sharing...

No problem

 

[Tex]

I can read Latin. And I have no allegiance to the pope.

The new bibles are better. KJV is outdated and torques the bible into poetry many times when that is not how it is written.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

"[N]ew bibles"? There is no new thing under the sun.

 

[Tex]

Sorry, I was inaccurate. Modern day translations, as opposed to KJV.

KJV is divinely inspired, but only if you're a 16th century scholar with a decent discernment to weed out the unnecessary poetry. To read it in any other sense gives the wrong interpretation.

 

[HammerStone]

Having looked at several versions of the Bible, you can very honestly say that they all have their great factors and then they all have their flaws. I watched this documentary and some of the things that are said are somewhat true, and then some of the other things said are not true. My issue with these videos is that we take verses in a vacuum and say that X modern version has removed something, but neglect to mention that it's still in there another 100-200 times.

The KJV itself suffers in Revelation 21 back (reverse translation) of most of it. I'm fine with noting that it's a great poetic version of the Bible using higher language, and I am even fine with stating that at points it does maintain more of the literary devices employed in the original Bible manuscripts. I am not fine with the absurd notion that it's the gold standard when much of the translation itself is reused from earlier translations.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Psalm 12:6, 7 tells us that God has preserved his pure word word for ever. If you believe God's promise, then we do have his pure preserved word. Is it found in the owned-by-men copyrighted 600+ modern per-versions of his word (resurrected from less than 1% of over 5300 manuscripts and autographs formerly rejected as corrupt), or is it found in God's vernacular (i.e. common) Bibles based on over 99% of 5300 manuscripts i.e. the KJB text type?

 

[Tex]

Psalm 12:6, 7 tells us that God has preserved his pure word word for ever. If you believe God's promise, then we do have his pure preserved word. Is it found in the owned-by-men copyrighted 600+ modern per-versions of his word (resurrected from less than 1% of over 5300 manuscripts and autographs formerly rejected as corrupt), or is it found in God's vernacular (i.e. common) Bibles based on over 99% of 5300 manuscripts i.e. the KJB text type?

Do some research. There is a lot of text not included in our bible due to gnostic heresies. The bible only has 66 books (and 73 plus additions if you're catholic), but there are many, many, many texts out there not in the bible that are about Christianity from the 1st or 2nd century. Some of these were even used in Christian churches until the strict canonization.

Even then, there are only about 3-4 places that are noticably different. 1 John 5:7 had a bad translation at one point, and earlier translations are different that later translations. The story of the woman being stoned for adultery is not in earlier translations. And many times omitted verses are because they are duplicates where it is reasonable to assume that scribes inserted extra scripture from another gospel for teaching purposes.

Here's a list. I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but here's where the NIV took out verses and why:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bible_verses_not_included_in_modern_translations

And honestly, if someone did tamper with scripture, I would like to omit the corruption. Don't say that it can't happen.

Yet, I haven't done much research on this specific topic. I know that others have done lots of research, and for the time being I'll rest on their expertise.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

1 John 5:7 had a bad translation at one point, and earlier translations are different that later translations.

Says who?

...but here's where the NIV took out verses and why:

http://en.wikipedia....rn_translations

Says who?

Yes, the modern copyrighted versions of the Holy Bible are not the Holy Bible. They are owned by men whose permission must be obtained before you can quote from their invention. And yes, the copyrighted NIV is one of those from that pit, as it is sourced from the less-than-1% Alexandrian texts that were rejected as corrupt from antiquity but resurrected by two heretics, Westcott and Hort, in the mid-1800's.

And beware of anything Wikipedia has to offer.

For example,

Wikipedia exec admits popular website 'is not about truth'
[SIZE=10pt]As far as the latest study looking at Wikipedia's medical entries in general, the consensus is that Wikipedia is outdated at best, and blatantly dishonest at worst. Patients looking for accurate information about a particular health issue would do best to look elsewhere, discovered the researchers, as Wikipedia simply isn't the reliable information source that many people think it is.

"The present study demonstrated that most Wikipedia articles on the 10 most costly conditions in the United States contained assertions that are inconsistent with peer-reviewed sources," revealed the authors. "Because our standard was the peer-reviewed published literature, it can be argued that these assertions on Wikipedia represent factual errors."

Then again, Wikipedia has never been about publishing the truth, at least according to Dr. James Heilman, president of Wiki Project Med Foundation, the non-profit wing of Wikipedia that deals specifically with medical content. In his denial of the study's findings, Dr. Heilman admitted that Wikipedia is not a website for finding truth.

"Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability," admitted Dr. Heilman to BBC News.

This is a critical statement, as it reveals what Wikipedia is truly about. Since the site remains blatantly hostile to "alternative" and holistic medicine -- that is, anything that contradicts the corporate agenda spoon-fed to the masses -- it makes sense that an arbitrary standard of "verifiability" is upheld over actual truth.

"Health care professionals, trainees, and patients should use caution when using Wikipedia to answer questions regarding patient care," concluded the study. "Our findings reinforce the idea that physicians and medical students who currently use Wikipedia as a medical reference should be discouraged from doing so because of the potential for errors."

You can access the study in its entirety for free here:
JAOA.org.[/SIZE]

 

[Tex]

Yes, the modern copyrighted versions of the Holy Bible are not the Holy Bible.

Oh, translations aren't good enough? KJV is a translation. Should we only use the original Greek? Even the Latin was only made in 382 AD... When I read the Latin translation, it should say the same thing the KJV does, right? It doesn't.

Here's the problem: the KJV was translated from corrupted manuscripts.

So, we're fixing it. The KJV is still infalible, no worries. But it's easy to read the KJV wrong. Also, I hate reading it at all because the language is so out of date. I have a decent vocabulary, but half the time the words aren't even in an acceptable order.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

Oh, translations aren't good enough?

They're not "translations;" they're derivative works of the King James Bible, but changed in accordance with Derivative Copyright Law.

KJV is a translation.

It's never been about any "translation," although that is where worldly men place the emphasis so that worldly wanna-be "scholars" can acquire the wiggle room required to play their "textual criticism" games. The Majority Text (e.g. the KJB) itself mentions several "translations!" Rather, the issue is, do you believe God has kept his promise to preserve his pure word for ever (Psalm 12:6, 7)?

Should we only use the original Greek?

You wouldn't know which of dozens of the so-called "original Greek" it was if it was presented to you. You're simply repeating hearsay.

Here's the problem: the KJV was translated from corrupted manuscripts.

No, the modern copyrighted-by-men-for profit "versions" of the Majority Text (.e.g. the KJB) were. They are sourced from the less-than-one-percent of the 5000+ manuscripts that were rejected as corrupt. This handful of Alexandrian corrupted manuscripts were resurrected by two spiritualists, Westcott and Hort, who changed the traditional Greek text in well over eight thousand places using the Vaticanus manuscript and other corrupt texts. In 1881, this 1% minority text type supplanted the Majority Text with its almost two millennia standing. All modern versions, including your NIV, are their product.

 

[zeke25]

I thought this excerpt was of interest to this discussion. It is taken from http://www.orthodoxlutheran.org/pdf/Modernbibleversions.pdf

Now we have said that 99.9% of those 5000+ manuscripts agree with each other almost
perfectly, but what about the other .1%??? These are commonly called the MINORITY TEXTS, but
they are also known to many as the corrupted manuscripts. For much unlike the 5000+, these five
manuscripts are radically different. They do not even agree with each other. Their names are as
follows:
Codex Vatican B
Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph)
Codex Alexandrian (A)
Codex Ephraemi C
Codex Bezae (D)
If we are to understand the foundation of the NIV, it is critical to understand that the NIV is translated
from these five manuscripts above which do not agree with one another.

Westcott and Hort were the original textual critics of their day. Though they no longer live, their
legacy lives on in the form of a corrupted Greek text. The influence of their methods blackens and
corrupts every modern translation of the Bible available (NIV, NASB, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV,
CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, NEW CENTURY, and the New Word
Translation). Readers of these new Bibles are quite unaware that they are reading the translation of a
corrupt text. Without thinking or looking deeper into the matter, they blindly assume that every Bible
is the same. They assume some are just more easy to read than others. But we must remember that
Bibles are translated by men, and thus corruption is possible. Westcott and Hort did what was
unthinkable.....they picked through five Greek texts which did not agree with each other, and came up
with a new revised Greek version of the Bible. All modern Bibles of the day have therefore not been
translated from the 5000+ Majority text, but from the 5 disagreeing witnesses. Which Bible do you
think is more reliable? Isn't it better to trust that God preserved His Word in the 5000+ witnesses rather
than the five witnesses who do not agree with each other? The KJV is a straight translation from the
Majority text. The NIV (and others) is taken from the five Minority texts, which do not agree. We
don't even know what part of which text they used and where! The consensus however is they favored
the Aleph and B text more than the others.

......

I have not undertaken to investigate these claims. But I have investigated the beliefs of Westcott & Hort and those beliefs are anything but Christian. Perhaps you (whomever cares) could go to the website given and decide for yourself if it has any validity.

It was written by Pastor Tobin Pederson of the Luthern Churches of the Reformation. This may be a surprise to some that a reformed clergyman would support the position shown here.

 

[Tex]

@S4C

If that's what you want to believe, I guess that's your choice.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

@Tex,

What is it specifically that you are referring to? Explain yourself, before you attempt to summarily dismiss, lest you look like a fool.

 

[Tex]

If you wish to believe that newer translations are worse than the KJV, you are free to your beliefs, regardless of how ignorant they may be. I leave you with that.

 

[sojourner4Christ]

If that's what you want to believe, I guess that's your choice.

and

If you wish to believe...regardless of how ignorant...

What I (or you) may "believe" is irrelevant to the truth.

There are many levels at which the deception of modern versions can be exposed.

In this instance, I will pick one that will make this incredibly simple for you.

Modern versions of the Holy Bible are protected by copyright law. Permission must be obtained from, and fees paid to, the men who claim to own these derivative works. And different publishers have different terms.

"To be copyrightable, a derivative work must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright purposes." -- Derivative Copyright Law (partial)

Conversely, the King James Bible is the only Bible not bound by a copyright. No author or publisher receives a royalty because God is the author.

The word of God is not bound (II Timothy 2:9) -- but your NIV is.

Simple enough?

 

[zeke25]

Tex, Why is someone ignorant because they do not buy into your point of view? Especially since you have not backed your point of view and the other person has?

If you wish to believe that newer translations are worse than the KJV, you are free to your beliefs, regardless of how ignorant they may be. I leave you with that.

You also said, "So, we're fixing it." You must be pretty important. How are you involved in fixing it? Are you on a translation committee?

There has been a lot of evidence presented here, but all you can do is say that you read Latin. Oh yeah, and that you will trust in other men since you haven't done the research yourself. Why were you persuaded to go with the minority text instead of the majority text? An answer with substance would be nice instead of a brush off.

 

[FHII]

I can read Latin. And I have no allegiance to the pope.

The new bibles are better. KJV is outdated and torques the bible into poetry many times when that is not how it is written.

No, Tex.... I've been through this with you before. It is NOT outdated. You don't like the old English it tends to use, fine. I get that. Personally, I have no problem with it. And no, it doesn't torque the Bible into poetry. I will grant you sometimes it does come off as poetic, but it was not the intention.

I really don't understand your point of view when you say it's infallible, divinely inspired but only if.... Wrong. God doesn't change and he is the same yesterday, today and forever. His word continues in every generation. If it was inspired by God in 1611, it's still inspired by God today.