Why 'YOU' Should be careful with what Bible you get.

Originally posted by Lee78

Originally posted by Indenu
Firstly, I'd like to say if there is another thread like this, feel free to delete or whatever the Moderators like to do.

The NKJV ( New King James Version ) which is showned above is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity. Use of number symbols ( like this 666 ) can be traced back to Pythagoras ( 582 B.C ), initiate into the Egyptian mysteries. The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley ( circa 1900 ) for the royal Arch ( Lucifer) for the 3rd degree of the York Order of Masonry the arms and feet, while repeating the names of the ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can be seen on satanic rock group albums like Led Zepplin, as well as on New Age bestsellers like The Aquarian Conspiracy.Remember Acts 17:29 "[W]e ought not to think that the Godhead is like (anything)... graven by art..."

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
Acts - NKJV ( New King James Version) - KJV ( Original King James Version )
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 13:8 - Sir - Lord

Matt. 18:26 - before him saying, Master - and worshipped him, saying, Lord

Matt. 20:20 - kneeling down - worshipping him

Gen. 22:8 - God will provide for himself the lamb - God will provide himself a lamb

John 8:35 - A son - The son

Col. 2:2 - The mystery of God, both of the Father and of the Christ - The mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ ( Trinity )

Matt. 8:19 - Teacher - Master

Matt. 19:16 - Good Teacher - Good Master

Isa 66:5 - Omit - he shall appear

Matt 23:8 - One is your Teacher, the Christ - one is your Master, even Christ

Matt. 23:10 - And do not be called Teachers for One is your Teacher, the Christ - Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NKJV COPIES JEHOVAH WITNESS VERSION
( Demotes Jesus Christ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts - NKJV - KJV

Acts 3:13 - His Servant Jesus - Hes Son Jesus

Acts 3:26 - His Servent Jesus - His Son Jesus

Acts 4:27 - Holy Servant Jesus - Holy Child Jesus

Acts 4:30 - Holy Servant Jesus - Holy Child Jesus

Col. 1:15 - the firstborn over all creation - the firstborn of every creature

Mark 2:15 - OMITTED - Jesus

Heb. 4:8 - Joshua - Jesus

Acts 7:45 - Joshua - Jesus

2 Thes 3:5 - Patience of Christ - Patient waiting for Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
( Demotes Trinity )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 17:29 - Divine Nature - Godhead

Phil. 4:20 - our God and Father - God and our Father

Rev. 1:6 His God and Father - God and his Father

Col. 3:17 - God the Father through Him - God and the Father by him

John 14:16 - Helper - Comforter

John 14:26 - Helper - Comforter

John 15:26 - Helper - Comforter

John 16:7 - Helper - Comforter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
( Works / Progressive Salvation )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cor. 11:1 - Imitate Christ - Followers of Christ

Rom. 3:3 - faithfulness - faith

Rom, 11:30,32 - disobedient... disobedience - not believed...unbelief

Rev. 19:8 - righteous acts of the saints - righteousness of saints

1 Cor. 1:18 - are being saved - are saved

2 Cor. 2:15 - are being saved - are saved

Eph. 2:8 - have been saved - are . . . saved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW KING JAMES Omissions

NKJV omits the word "Lord" 66 times
NKJV omits the word "God" 51 times
NKJV omits the word "heaven" 50 times
NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times
NKJV omits the word "blood" 23 times
NKJV omits the word "hell" 22 times
NKJV omits the word "Jehovah" entirely.
NKJV omits the word "new testament" entirely.
NKJV omits the word "damnation" entirely
NKJV omits the word "devils" entirely
NKJV ignored the KJV Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.
NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew ( ben Chayyim ) with the corrupt stuttgart edition ( Ben Asher) Old Testament.

( I'll do another post about NKJV, I dont want to bore anyone with something that they dont want to look at )

edit on 3-1-2012 by Indenu because: Needed to add what NKJV and KJV ment

Did you forget this?

It's not related to this topic, why add it in?

Be careful. Your soul depends upon it. Deuteronomy 4:2 and Revelation 22:18 state, do not change God's revelation.

King James' translators changed the word St. Jerome transcribed from the original writings (in 383 A.D) as
found in the first Bible, the Latin Vulgate.

Posting the English Translation of the Vulgate and to follow the word change in the KJV (1611). The reason the word priest is changed to elder, Protestantism rejects the New Covenant ministerial priesthood.

James 5:14

Douay-Rheims
Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the priests of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord.

King James Version (KJV)
Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:



www.drbo.org...

Originally posted by colbe
Be careful. Your soul depends upon it.

But depends on what? Believing in Jesus or being Catholic?

reply to post by Indenu


If you look at the image in the OP and the image i provided maybe then you will see.
Or maybe anyone else who sees the connection that all colours are made of the 3 primary colours. link1
additive color

nevermind



sorry i forgot to add the Color theory

You will see the connection....well maybe

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by colbe
Be careful. Your soul depends upon it.

But depends on what? Believing in Jesus or being Catholic?

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Everyone since Christ, 33 A.D. is one way or another dependent on the
Roman Catholic Church. The "beliefs" of Christ have all come from
the RCC. You can't say you believe in Christ and at the same time deny His Church.

reply to post by colbe


So you have to be Catholic? I mean, if that's the case it would help you just came right out and said it. You're saying people will go to Hell if they're not, but you phrase it in spin? You can't just say yes or no? What are you a news reporter? Where's the cold hard truth of the matter?

reply to post by tinfoilman


You are assuming I haven't read any bible aren't ya? I did say I grew up with Christianity, I did read the bible. It is a book written by the human hand just as every other book on this planet is. Take it with a grain of salt.

I've also read many other bible's not of the Christian variety. I've made my choices, and they do not include organized religion nor do they include believing an old book as being the word of "god".

Like I said once before, God, :-) she did give us brains to think with, use the one you have instead of following some book written by humans blindly.

:-) Go ahead and roll that dice you have, it's got like a thousand sides, perhaps you will be "lucky" and roll the "right one".

buh-bye

Harm None
Peace

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by tinfoilman

 

I've made my choices

That's cool yo. I didn't say you had to believe in it. I just said it's not as opposite to your own line thinking as most atheists believe. Sometimes they don't disagree with what it says, they disagree with what they think it says.

I was just pointing out that you and the Bible already agree with each other on that one issue, that you already know right from wrong. And that's why you'll be accountable at Judgment. I mean, you already know, it's not like someone didn't tell you right?

But I respect that you've made your choices though. I'm personally gonna just stick with the Bible though not because of choices I made, but because Jesus chose me. See, that's the thing. Jesus chose to save man and do the work for us. See, it's not about my choice. It's about God's choice.

And last I checked, no other God has chosen to save me. So, I should probably just stay in good with the one that already cared enough about me to die for me.

The new living and new international translations of the bible are also very dangerous to your mind, people are deceived by the term living, yes the living word of God, but his word is not living in the sense of changing, (ie. Constitution is a "living" document) his word is living as Christ lived and is living, the word is Jesus just as he is the bread of life and the bread of life is the word of God which he gave us. Alpha-Omega, never changing! I will return and give examples of opposing views and statements coming from the new living bible/new international version and the King James Translation. I personally only study a translation by Spiros Zodiates which I believe to be the truest translation of both Hebrew and Greek.

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by colbe

 

So you have to be Catholic? I mean, if that's the case it would help you just came right out and said it. You're saying people will go to Hell if they're not, but you phrase it in spin? You can't just say yes or no? What are you a news reporter? Where's the cold hard truth of the matter?

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

The administration at ATS asked everyone to show respect.

You're just here to mock the true faith. It's going to be difficult for you
in the near future if you do not change.

All goodness and grace comes from the Blessed Trinity. God, Jesus Christ, Second person of the Trinity established the Roman Catholic
Church. The fullness of God's grace is found in that Church. As I shared,
everything people know of Christ in the New Covenant comes from the Church.

tinfoilman, this maybe the year, 2012, the year of the Great Warning,
a 2nd Pentecost, this time for the entire world. You will have to choose
for the RCC or not, I hope you do. The "unity" of belief, Our Lord's desire
is going to happen.

The underlined... Protestants choose to make a Catholic book, the Bible, their authority instead of the Church.

+ + +

Catechism of the Catholic Church
819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

reply to post by Sagittarian69


As a born-again Christian, I do not celebrate the Christmas or the Easter holidays. These are man's traditions created by the early church. I believe that church became the Roman Catholic Church. I do not attend church services on Sundays since Saturday IS the truth Sabbath.

I was given a 1611 edition of the King James Bible. It is supposed to be the truest translation of G-d's word. When I don't understand something, I ask the Holy Spirit to guide me through. He does.

Anything added to or taken away from ... false doctrine.

reply to post by Cuervo

but then I see them bicker over what version is correct. By that debate alone, the church is admitting that there have been errors made.

The different versions of Scripture are just translations. When the church bickers over which version, they're striving to find out which version best translates the original language texts. There will always be discussions about this because no text can be translated "cleanly".

Beyond that, no one will deny that within the extant manuscripts there are variations. Only 1% of these variations have any substance to them whatsoever though.

reply to post by NellahB

Anything added to or taken away from ... false doctrine.

The KJV has something added to it though. Revelation 16:5 in the KJV says:

And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus.

What I bolded was added to the text that the KJV is translated from.

The KJV is translated from a Greek text-critical edition which is called the Textus Receptus. This text was compiled by Erasmus. There were some five editions of this text produced and, if I recall correctly, the KJV is translated from the third edition, which was worked on by John Calvin's apprentice, Theodore Beza. Beza thought that in Revelation 16:5 he discovered an place in the text where a phrase had fallen out because the originals only read "which art, and wast". To Beza the phrase "and shalt be" had to be missing because in every other place in the Greek text of Revelation, it is present where the other two are; it also made no sense to him that no reference to the second coming would be made. So, Beza took it upon himself to just add the phrase to his edition of the TR, justifying it by saying that at some point in the future, more Greek manuscripts would be discovered that contain "and shalt be" in Revelation 16:5.

To this day, we've yet to discover a Greek text with that reading in Revelation 16:5.

Originally posted by octotom
reply to post by Cuervo

 

but then I see them bicker over what version is correct. By that debate alone, the church is admitting that there have been errors made.

The different versions of Scripture are just translations. When the church bickers over which version, they're striving to find out which version best translates the original language texts. There will always be discussions about this because no text can be translated "cleanly".

Beyond that, no one will deny that within the extant manuscripts there are variations. Only 1% of these variations have any substance to them whatsoever though.

The problem is, over time, you have translations of translations. The other problem is that people will make HUGE decisions based on translations. From King David's various acts of genocide to Hitler and his merry band of Christians to Phelps and his Westboro church, these are all people who are following translations of the bible.

There are parts of the bible that every Christian will agree upon. Those are the only things that should actually be taken seriously.

The rest is ambiguous and should be viewed as novelty at the most. Certainly you should not act upon nor judge people based on words that people cannot agree upon.

reply to post by Cuervo

The problem is, over time, you have translations of translations.

While there are some translations of the Bible based on a translation (some Catholic translations are based on the Vulgate for example), the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming majority of Bible translations today are not translations of translations. The original languages of the Bible are Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These are the languages that the Bible is translated from today. It is a common misconception, for example, that the Bible was translated to Greek, then Latin, then German, then English.

The other problem is that people will make HUGE decisions based on translations. From King David's various acts of genocide to Hitler and his merry band of Christians to Phelps and his Westboro church, these are all people who are following translations of the bible.

Of course, there are also people that make good decisions based on the Bible. Truth be told, those that do horrendous things typically just use the Bible as a justification for what they do. In other words, they take biblical passages out of context.

There are parts of the bible that every Christian will agree upon. Those are the only things that should actually be taken seriously.

The rest is ambiguous and should be viewed as novelty at the most. Certainly you should not act upon nor judge people based on words that people cannot agree upon.

We shouldn't throw things away just because people can't agree on the meaning of something. We can't even agree 100% on what the US Constitution says, or many laws, yet I doubt many would say that it needs to be rid of. When people come to the Bible, they often bring their Western European/theological presuppositions to a text that doesn't necessarily have that frame of mind, thus people disagree. People need to discuss these disagreements so things can be hammered out.

There is a first Bible, the Latin Vulgate. The Douay-Rheims Bible is the
English translation of the Latin Vulgate. Why bother with translations
that add or take away from the original?

www.drbo.org...

_ _ _ _ _

Pope Damasus assembled the first list of books of the Bible at the Roman Council in 382 A.D. He commissioned St. Jerome to translate the original Greek and Hebrew texts into Latin, which became known as the Latin Vulgate Bible and was declared by the Church to be the only authentic and official version, in 1546.

The DR New Testament was first published by the English College at Rheims in 1582 A.D. The DR Old Testament was first published by the English College at Douay in 1609 A.D. The first King James Version was not published until 1611. This online DRV contains all 73 books, including the seven Deutero-Canonical books (erroneously called Apocrypha by Protestants). These seven books were included in the 1611 KJV, but not in later KJV Bibles.

St. Jerome considered the seven Deutero-Canonical books to be NOT inspired by God, but he was commissioned by Pope Damasus to translate all 73 books into Latin. Pope Damasus considered the 7 DC books to be inspired by God. Later in 1946, after the finding of the dead-sea scrolls, it was discovered that these 7 DC books were used by the Jews in Alexandria, even in their services. This verifies that Pope Damasus was correct.

reply to post by colbe


I'm not here to mock anyone. It may very well be the true faith. I said I wasn't taking sides. I just wanted make sure of your opinion if non-Catholics could be saved. But you never really answered me. That's cool though, you don't have to answer if you don't want to, or don't know for sure.

reply to post by colbe


But I do have one other question. If only the church can interpret scripture. Why do you post scripture in your posts to prove your point?

If only the church has the final say on what it REALLY says, well then that means it's just gibberish to you and me and we wouldn't even have to waste time talking about it or what the right translation is because we shouldn't probably be reading it anyway. We might interpret it wrong. We'd get nothing from it because we couldn't be sure we had read it correctly.

Doesn't matter what it said. All that would matter is what the church authority SAID it said. If that's the case, why bother even posting it? Why not just tell us what the church says about it. That's all that really matters anyway right?

Originally posted by Indenu
reply to post by Sagittarian69

 

Todays new international version - TNIV
New international version - NIV
New american Standard Bible - NASB
Holman Christian Standard Bible - HCSB
English Standard Verison - ESV
New Revised Standard Version - NRSV
Revised Standard Version - RSV
New King James Version - NKJV

All the ones you have to be careful of.

edit on 3-1-2012 by Indenu because: Forgot to add a line

Yes, all of you Christians better watch out! Read in the wrong book and something bad might happen. Do you hear yourselves? Of all of the many bibles, which one did God himself write, with his own hand? That is the only one I would even consider taking to heart. All these others, and I mean ALL, were written by men, men with an agenda. Here is one for you, one that hasn't been changed a thousand times over the years:
ARADIA or the Gospel of the Witches

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by colbe

 

But I do have one other question. If only the church can interpret scripture. Why do you post scripture in your posts to prove your point?

If only the church has the final say on what it REALLY says, well then that means it's just gibberish to you and me and we wouldn't even have to waste time talking about it or what the right translation is because we shouldn't probably be reading it anyway. We might interpret it wrong. We'd get nothing from it because we couldn't be sure we had read it correctly.

Doesn't matter what it said. All that would matter is what the church authority SAID it said. If that's the case, why bother even posting it? Why not just tell us what the church says about it. That's all that really matters anyway right?

edit on 5-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

Hello tinfoilman,

God gave the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church that gave us the
Bible. Makes sense.

I post the Church, her interpretation of Scripture. How would I know,
and is pretty prideful. The lamo, God the Holy Spirit guides each person into their own interpretation of Scripture.

The fruit = 38,000 Protestant sects.


take care,

colbe