Bible Prophesy End Time Marker

reply to post by Locoman8


That's completely false:

NKJV VS. KJV

The NKJV uses a great deal from the received text manuscripts, but also uses verses from the perverted Alexandrian Greek. The NKJV will even state the resources used.

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by Blue_Jay33


. I am convinced that Obama has a big role in end-time prophecy.
His name actually means "lightening from the sky" or something along those lines.
You know the reference of Lucifer being cast down to earth as lightening comes down from the sky? ...

trying to clear up stuff:

Rev 13:13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men ...

~or~

Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.


but, i recall that Barrack is a form of 'Blessed One' [barracka]
now i don't hava an idea what Obama might mean...

(could you be clearer on just what name means 'Lightning' )


[edit on 13-10-2009 by St Udio]

reply to post by St Udio


"Barak" means "lightning" in Hebrew, ... it was also the name of a military commander in the Old Testament.
www.behindthename.com...


Abdul Barakat is Muslim Arabic for "Servant of the Blessed" in reference to Allah, since "the Blessed" is a name of Allah.
www.babynamesworld.com...…
In Hebrew, blessing would be "Baruch." Barak is a different word, with different letters

"Barek" is of Arabic origin, and means "noble."
www.thinkbabynames.com...…


al Baraq is the name of Muhammad's winged horse from his dreams to spread Islam

he will be true to his name.

In Hebrew, barak means: Lightning, a flash of light. The name is borne in the Old Testament by the son of Abinoam who waged a successful war campaign against Jabin at the urging of the prophetess Deborah


Basically the meanings of Barack are as follows:

Arabic/muslim: Baruch (blessed), Barek (noble), al Baraq (lightening, Mohammad's winged horse).

Hebrew: Barak (lightening)

So the agreement between the two languages is "Barak" and "Baraq" which both mean "lightening" or "flash of light."



Now, Obama is harder to find because most end their search with the origins being in the Kenyan tribe Obama's family is from. But there are hebrew origins with obama.

'ohel bamah'; tent of (the) height

'bamah, bam-maw'; from an unused root (meaning to be high); an elevation, height, high place, wave



So, from this information Barack Obama:

Barak Ohel Bamah in hebrew= Lightening from the sky; flash of light in the heights; lightening from heaven, etc.


Scripture:
Luke 10:18 He said to them, "I saw Satan having fallen like lightning from heaven."

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The NKJV mainly uses the KJV translated in modern english. The KJV even uses the different texts that NKJV uses. The problem is the KJV mistranslates many portions of scripture that the NKJV or other new versions correct. The best thing to do is use multiple translations to get a good understanding of what's really being said. Fact is, some translations are translated better and more accurate than others. The KJV may be translated more accurate in a certain area of scripture than the NKJV or NIV. But it can be said the other way around too. You can't put your heart to a single english translation. Only the original written texts from the hand of the authors can be used directly and none of them exist anymore.... or at least are not found. We have to go by these other texts that the scribes wrote from these original texts and trust it is accurate.

reply to post by Locoman8


Dude you don't even know the history of the KJV or the modern translations, I'm not trying to insult you, but I have done a great deal of study trying to decide which Bible to use as the Word of God. The KJV only uses the Textus Receptus Greek, none other, all modern translations use the 'minority text'. People assume there are mistranslations in the KJV because they are comparing it to the minority text, for which it was never translated from to begin with. Not, many modern translations are great translations, but they are translated from a Greek text that was rejected by the first century church because it came from Origen's cult Christian group in Alexandria Egypt.

So, they are in fact very accurate translations, but they are translated from a corrupt Greek text. Does this make sense? I'll post some info on the histories of the modern translations if you would like.

History of Bible manuscripts


[edit on 13-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by Locoman8



"A BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN TRANSLATIONS:

"Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit: but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit." —Matt. 7:17-18

Note the roots of corruption.

I. Justin Martyr (100 A.D.)

A. He was born a pagan, and died in the robes of a pagan priest.

B. He was the first to mix Gnosticism with Christianity. Gnosticism was a heretical doctrine which taught that Christ was created by God the Father. Funk and Wagnall's Standard Dictionary defines Gnosticism as "A philosophical and religious system (first to sixth century) teaching that knowledge rather than faith was the key to salvation." Many scholars today place their knowledge above faith in God's word.

"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" —Rom. 10:17

C. Historian Dr. Benjamin G. Wilkinson wrote, "In the teachings of Justin Martyr, we begin to see how muddy the stream of pure Christian doctrine was running among the heretical seats fifty years after the death of the apostle John."

("Which Bible?". ed. Dr. David 0. Fuller, Grand Rapids International Pub., Grand Rapids, Mica., 49501, p. 191)

II. Tatian (150 A.D.)

A. He was a disciple of Justin Martyr.

B. Like Martyr, he also embraced Gnosticism.

C. Tatian wrote a harmony of the gospels using the Christian Scriptures and the Gnostic gospels, thus omitting Scripture (such as John 8:1-11; and Mark 16.9-20).

D. His. "Harmony of the Gospels" was so corrupt that the Bishop of Syria threw out 200 copies.

III. Clement of Alexandria (200 A.D.)

A. Clement was a disciple of Tatian (Remember Luke 6:40-"The disciple is not above his master: but everyone that is perfect shall be as his master.")

B. Clement taught that there was no real heaven or hell, no blood atonement of Christ, and no infallible Bible.

C. He used the Gnostic Scriptures to teach his students.

D. He founded the school of Theology in Alexandria Egypt.

IV. Origen (184-254 A.D.)

A. Origen was a disciple of Clement of Alexandria.

B. He held to the same doctrine as Clement, plus he taught baptism was necessary for babies to gain salvation.

C. Origen stated, "The Scriptures are of little use to those who understand them as they are written." (Ibid. p. 192).

D. Dr. Wilkinson stated, "When we come to Origen, we speak the name of him who did the most of all to create and give direction to the forces of apostasy down through the centuries." (Ibid.).

E. Origen was one of the first textual critics. His textual work in both the N.T. and the O.T. (the "Hexapla") was the basis for two of the most corrupt manuscripts used by the Roman Catholic Church. (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus).

F. Origen developed a method of Biblical interpretation which is called "allegorization". Origen believed the Bible was only a set of stories that illustrate truth, but not literal facts. He believed Christ to be created and subordinate to the Father (the same as Jehovah's Witnesses), the pre-existence of the soul before birth (the same as the Mormons), and the final restoration of all spirits (Universal Salvation). (see Dr. Earle Cairns "Christianity Through The Centuries", Zondervan Publishing House, p. 122).

V. Eusebius (260-340 A.D.)

A. He was trained at Origen's school in Alexandria.

B. Eusebius was the editor of two Greek manuscripts (mss.) named Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. These two mss. were discredited and abandoned by early Christians as being corrupt. ("Which Bible?" p. 139,143).

These are Roman Catholic mss. and were not used by Protestant Christians until 1881. These two mss. are the basis for Roman Catholic Bibles and every major English translation of the Bible since 1901. These mss. were not the ones used for the King James Bible.

C. Eusebius was Roman Catholic in his doctrine (see his book, "Ecclesiastical History", Vols. 1-5).

D. He was commissioned by Emperor Constantine to make 50 copies of Scripture for the Roman church. Eusebius copied the Gnostic Scriptures and Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

VI. Jerome (340-420 A.D.)

A. Like Eusebius, Jerome was Roman Catholic in doctrine.

B. Jerome translated the Greek mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus into Latin (called Jerome's Latin Vulgate). This was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

C. The ms. Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican library, while the ms. Sinaiticus was abandoned in a Catholic monastery, and they were not used for the next 1,500 years.

VII. Tischendorf (1869)

A. He was the first Protestant to find and use the mss. of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

B. Tischendorf was a liberal theologian.

VIII. Westcott and Hort (1881)

A. They used Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to produce a new Greek N.T.. This Greek N.T. is not the same as the one used for the KJB nor during the Reformation.

B. Their Greek N.T. was the basis for the Revised Version (RV) of 1881 and the basic Greek text for all modern translations such as the RSV, TEV, NASV, N.TV, etc.

C. The Greek text of Westcott and Hort (W & H) differs from the Greek text of the King James Bible (the Received Text) 5,788 times, or 10% of the text. (For examples, see the section "A Brief Comparison of Bible translations".)

D. Since all modern translations are based on the work of W & H, it would do us well to know the theology of these two men.

WESTCOTT: "I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry (Mary-worship) bears witness."

"No one now, I suppose, holds 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."

HORT: "Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common."

"Protestantism is only parenthetical and temporary."

"The pure Romish view (Catholic) seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical."

"Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue."

These men did not hold to sound doctrine; instead they have turned, "...away their ears from the truth, and she be turned unto fables." —2 Tim. 4:4

NOTE: Where the KJB and the Catholic Bible (such as the New American Bible) differ, the NIV and the NASV agree with the Catholic Bible. The Bible says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: —2 Corinthians 2:17a. The prophet Amos wrote, "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord God, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the Lord." —Amos 8:11"


The King James Controversey

*bold text added in edit*





[edit on 13-10-2009 by NOTurTypical]

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Drifting off topic but anyway....

I have a huge original KJV, I like it because it actually uses God's name in Psalm 83:13. Any bible that uses God's name is good. Sadly the NKJV has taken it out. I prefer not to use the KJV because of the archaic and Shakespearean type old English that it uses.

I really like the Amplified Bible, just a personal preference.
But I have six bibles at home and use numerous others online.

But to topic....

I think it is very interesting that Obama has such a huge vote of confidence for pursuing peace in the future, the domestic issue's like health care and the economy are a distracting smokescreen. If he can take care of those two things sufficiently, I believe he will turn all his resources into pursuing peace or something that looks like peace to those who don't know any better. Remember if the majority buys it and the media proclaims it with Obama, we will be there.

Actually when you mediate about it, we live in very exciting times as regards bible prophesy.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


You are my friend, and I agree the moderns remove God numerous times, Jesus numerous times,.. and I'm saddened to a degree because you didn't click/read my link.

Do it brother, it won't take long.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


In reference to BlueJay, I will get right back on topic but have to correct my "NotYourTypical" friend on a few points with the NKJV. As noted by BlueJay, I agree with the whole "name of the LORD" thing but it is minor and I am well aware of how to determine where the tetragramation is located. LORD in all caps is YHWH.

Now you need to understand that not a single bit of the NKJV is translated from the minority text. As I was reading the preface to my NKJV bible, I read the part for what texts were used in translating. It is noted in there that 99% of the NKJV is translated from the Recieved Text. Where the Critical and Majority Texts are used, it is noted in the center column references. Also note that 85% of the NT text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.

The NKJV took it's translation straight from the original KJV and compared the Recieved Text with other variants to find agreement when possible. Where the NKJV differes is in the english language. Instead of "thou" "thee" "thy", it uses "You" "Your" "My", etc... It uses modern english but keeps the tradtional style of the Authorized version. You can literally take a NKJV bible and listen to KJV text and follow along with extreme ease because nothing changes as far as context goes. Only translation corrections and clarifications are what really differ beyond the language of the two versions. How shallow-minded you must be to assume the NKJV is automatically a W & H translation or minority text translation. I don't mean to be rude but do some better research. The NKJV is just as.. if not more reliable than the KJV. I say more reliable because of the correction in mistranslations like "easter" in Acts 12:4 which should read "passover". That's just one of many corrections made. God be with you and peace my friend. I hope we can be friends even though we disagree. BlueJay is a good friend of mine here and we disagee on many things. Peace be with you.

reply to post by Locoman8


I respectfully have to object, the 'Alexandrian text' is corrupt, it was rejected by the Christians at Antioch because it was a perversion of the Gospel.

So why use a a Bible that is 85% correct to the received text when we have a perfectly good Word of God that is 100% correct to the Received Text?? That to me make no sense as a Christian.

The KJV is rated at a 5th grade level, the NKJV is rated at a 6th grade level, so again the KJV is easier to read. Furthermore there is a specific reason why the translators of the KJV used "Thee" and "Thou" etc, they didn't walk the streets in England in 1611 using those words in common talk.

Reasons for Thee and Thou

So my position is, why use a harder to read book, KJV is rated at a 5th grade level compared to a 6th grade level for the NKJV. And secondly why use a Bible that is translated 85% from the Received Text and 15% from rejected manuscripts when we have a perfectly good, infallible KJV that is 100% translated from the Received Text?

In my opinion there is no good reason to use a Bible that is even 1% corrupt, let alone 15%.

reply to post by Locoman8


Secodly, of course we can be friends even with a disagreement, anyone who professes Christ is Lord is my friend. However, during a disagreement we should be able to learn from eachother, and I'm assuming you didn't read the link I presented to you earlier because many of your above statements have been answered in this link I presented several posts up on the page.

Please read this page, yes, as a friend to friend who disagrees.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I didn't say the NKJV was completely Majority Text which is a text that finds 85% of similarity to most texts. I said the NKJV uses the Recieved text and only parallels the other texts in an occasion that the meanings are the same but the interpretation is easier to understand. Also, a 5th grade reading level for the KJV? Do you realize how much harder it is to understand the old english of the KJV vs. the modern english of the NKJV? Good example of this is in the ten commandments:

KJV: Thou shall not kill.
NKJV: You shall not kill.

It's much easier to read the modern english because that's what we speak in today's world. I don't get how the old version with virtually unused language (old english) is at a 5th grade level when the NKJV of modern english is read with so much ease and understanding. And why do you think it's called the "NEW King James Version"? Because it was translated from the Authorized King James Version with very minor changes where needed for translation correction.

reply to post by Locoman8


Simply because today we use "You" to indicate a number of people, or a single person. Whereas the Greek has a different word for "You" as plural addressed to a group, and "You" singular addressed to a single person.

So in order to maintain the difference in Greek between a plural "You" and the singular "You" a different word must be used. In English we have one word for both, but the Greeks did not.

And just understanding this clears up a great deal of confusion.

Now as far as the readability test, here it is:

"The Flesch-Kincaid research company's Grade Level Indicator betrays the strictly black and white nature of the issue showing the new version's true colors. The KJV ranks easier in 23 out of 26 comparisons. (Their formula is: (.39 x average number of words per sentence) + (11.8 x average number of syllables per word) - (15.59) = grade level. The first chapter of the first and last books of both the Old and New Testaments were compared. (All complete sentences, whether terminating in a period, colon, or semi-colon, and all incomplete phrases ending in a period, were calculated as 'sentences'.)

Is the KJV harder to understand?


The KJV was rated at a grade level of 5.8, and the NKJV was rated at a level of 6.9. many of these concern are addressed in KJV Myths and Facts.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


This is getting off-topic but I'll leave you with this though and question....

So it's easier to read something just because it has less sylables and less words to read? How about the difficulty of each word? Was that taken into consideration at all? And how can an accurate grade average be determined by just compareing 2 chapters in the entire bible? Also, what are the few translations that scored better than the KJV? That is it. I'm only saying not to put your entire heart into the KJV. I use multiple translations but use the NKJV instead of the KJV in most cases for doctrine reading. Now back to the end-times discussions.

I apologize Bluejay, for hijacking your thread to argue a point about translations. Also, what did you think of my Obama=lightening from the sky post?

reply to post by Locoman8

It's much easier to read the modern english because that's what we speak in today's world. I don't get how the old version with virtually unused language (old english) is at a 5th grade level when the NKJV of modern english is read with so much ease and understanding. And why do you think it's called the "NEW King James Version"? Because it was translated from the Authorized King James Version with very minor changes where needed for translation correction.

This point is indisputable, and although all my core beliefs are originally based on the old KJV. Many christians I know have moved away from it because of this, including myself.

One of the best books ever that studied the accuracy of bibles is

Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament

by Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D.

The author is detailed and specific - nothing vague or nebulous about his approach. The Greek original is shown (in "interlinear" English), and the 9 are lined up for comparison. The criteria and conclusions are explained in detail, in layman's terminology that is easy to follow (in just a very few places the book lapses into technical jargon that I had to struggle with). The author must be credited with bringing us non-Greek-speaking Bible adherents one step closer to the Greek manuscripts upon which all modern New Testament translations are based. The 9 translations discussed are the King James (or Authorized Version), the Amplified Bible, the Living Bible, the New American Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New International Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New World Translation, and Today's English Version. The verses chosen for analysis are so clearly explained that any translation could be tested, so the book will be of equal benefit to those who might favor another less popular translation.

I have only read sections of it so far, but this is good reading for any Christian that is serious about bible study and accurate knowledge of truth.