It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New World Order Bible Versions

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 07:45 PM
link   
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:




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Do you think it's just the modern versions that are corrupted?



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Do you think it's just the modern versions that are corrupted?


Yes, that's what the video shows with the most popular modern "Bible" versions out there. The drastic changes and wholesale removal of entire verses are as clear as day.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 08:31 PM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

The Catholic church is the organization that brought you the Bible.

Why not trust theirs?

Douay-Rheims Bible -- the original English version pre-dates the King James, and doesn't have all of the errors that the King James Version has in it.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen
a reply to: BlackManINC

The Catholic church is the organization that brought you the Bible.

Why not trust theirs?

Douay-Rheims Bible -- the original English version pre-dates the King James, and doesn't have all of the errors that the King James Version has in it.


I always say this to Catholic-haters. Any Christian with a mainstream bible is recognizing Catholic authority simply by having faith in their books.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo


I always say this to Catholic-haters. Any Christian with a mainstream bible is recognizing Catholic authority simply by having faith in their books.

Yeah, they seem to miss that, for some reason.

Event as a Catholic, I have no problem with disagreeing with the Catholic church and its teaching, but it is beyond stupid to think that it makes sense that Martin Luther or John Calvin found the "true Christianity" 1500 years after Christ's mission. Any faith that denies what the early church fathers taught is on tenuous ground.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:21 PM
link   
The JW version is called THE NEW WORLD TRANSLATION, how much more NEW WORLD can you get!!??



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: BlackManINC

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
Do you think it's just the modern versions that are corrupted?


Yes, that's what the video shows with the most popular modern "Bible" versions out there. The drastic changes and wholesale removal of entire verses are as clear as day.


Well, they are all pretty insane and psychotic so I'd be happy to say they are all corrupt. I mean, all you have to do is read them to see that. No version of any holy book, anywhere is not insane.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: CRUSTY37

The New World Translation, from the Jehovah's Witnesses, deliberately mistranslated passages in the Bible to support the Jehovah's Witness theology. It isn't a translation worth comparing.



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I listened to this rather intriguing debate today, between Bart Ehrman and James White. The topic is regarding the importance of various translations and differences in manuscripts in determining if the Bible (or at least the NT) is the divinely inspired word of God, or not. The talk doesn't focus on any specific translation and mostly deals with the manuscripts our more modern translations are based off of. You may also find the debate interesting. Same subject as your OP except they aren't discussing a conspiracy to create a one world religion. Both Mr. Ehrman and Mr. White are respectful of each others point of view and do a good job discussing the subject, in my opinion.




edit on 7-8-2014 by WakeUpBeer because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I'll be listening to that later... thanks

I wonder why Dr. Ehrman is always called an Atheist?




posted on Aug, 7 2014 @ 10:33 PM
link   
WOW!! Boy do i agree with you on that! Thank you for the direct and simplistic response...

a reply to: adjensen



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: adjensen

The Catholic church is the organization that brought you the Bible.

Why not trust theirs?
Douay-Rheims Bible --

This line of argument is invalid, because the meaning of the term "Catholic church" changes halfway through, unannounced.
In the first half of the argument, it means the Mediterranean-wide community, based mainly in the Greek-speaking east, and controlled mainly in the Greek-speaking east, which put the original Bible together.
In the second half, it refers to the modern hierarchical community based on Rome which provided the Douai Bible.
The two sentences, in talking about the "catholic church", are talking about two different things, and that breaks the logical connection between them.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:24 AM
link   
I absolutely adore the beautiful New International Version (NIV).

Wait! New + International = NWO!

O_O

Eeep! We're all doomed!

(No, but seriously, it's really beautiful and a gentle translation.)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:29 AM
link   
a reply to: GENERAL EYES
I've heard that called "the Nearly Infallible Version".



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 05:40 AM
link   
a reply to: BlackManINC

Good vid, I have watched Pastor Anderson some on youtube. I personally disagree with Him on the timing of the Rapture, but He is a good teacher. I also think one should hesitate to claim that the KJV is a perfect copy of God's word. There are many concepts lost when you translate Hebrew and Greek to English. I agree with Him that the KJV is the most accurate translation, however I don't think its wrong to look into what the older manuscripts say. Also some of the verse that are just different wording shouldn't be cleared up by going ah lets look at which English version is most accurate if there is controversy in translation of the same verse a person should do research on the original language of that verse. Get many scholars opinions on what each word means, also reference strong's concordance.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:05 AM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Good vid, I have watched Pastor Anderson some on youtube. I personally disagree with Him on the timing of the Rapture, but He is a good teacher.

If he's preaching that there is a pre-trib rapture in which all the good people get sucked off planet earth and the bad ones are left behind to suffer .. then he's not a good teacher IMHO. That's not in scripture. In fact, a good case can be made for just the opposite, that the bad people get taken out and the remnant good remain.


That being said ... to the OP who is saying the King James version is 'it'. Really? It's been revised four times since 1769. The 1611 version of KJV had the apocrypha but now it doesn't. It's known that the KJV translators gave multiple translation possibilities and even made numerous notes about them. If this bible is so exact, then why the multiple translation possibilities? KJV has issues with translation of 'devils and demons'. Same with whom ye/whom he. Same with sin/sins. Robbers of temples becomes robbers of churches in the KJV. 'O Day Star' becomes the human nickname 'lucifer' in the KJV. And so on and so on.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 06:23 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

Pastor Anderson definitely doesn't teach a pre-trib rapture. Not really on topic, but I just wanted to throw that out there.

Pastor Anderson preaches the Bible, which doesn't even BEGIN to support a pre-trib rapture.
edit on 8-8-2014 by graphuto because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
a reply to: DISRAELI


This line of argument is invalid, because the meaning of the term "Catholic church" changes halfway through, unannounced.

That's debatable, depending on whether one thinks that the Orthodox Catholics left the Catholic church in 1054, or were kicked out, but the fact remains that the Bible didn't fall out of the sky -- Biblical canon was determined by the Catholic church, which maintains apostolic succession back to Peter. Though today we see "Eastern" and "Western" Christianity, in the first millennium, there was just Christianity, which was the Catholic church.

Origen? Catholic. Athanasius? Catholic. Augustine? Catholic.

King James didn't authorize the Bible.



posted on Aug, 8 2014 @ 07:41 AM
link   
The thing about the KJV is that back on those days bibles were translated from Latin (while latin versions were translated from other translations, some meaning got lost) to other languages, so, the KJV was translated directly from Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT) to English. On top of that they did it in a poetic manner.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join