Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .8
Easy Reading
A Couple of years ago I had a Russelite (so called Jehovah’s Witness) at my front door trying to peddle his lies. I challenged him about his cults belief that the Lord Jesus Christ is not the 2nd person of the Godhead, on his admission of his cults low view of Christ I asked him to turn to John chapter 1 as I wanted to show him the following verse that clearly show the Deity of Christ.
‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’ John 1 v1
As he read I heard a word that I knew was not in the verse, he read ‘the word was a god’. His New World Translation had added the little word ‘a’ to the text to make the Lord Jesus a god among many and had given the word god a small ‘g’ rather than the capital ‘G’ we are all familiar with. At this point I said to him, ‘your Bible has added a word to alter the meaning of the verse, there are serious warnings in scripture to those who would do this’, to which he replied ‘I suppose your one of those King James readers?’ ‘I am’ I replied.
At this point Mr Russelite thought he had me and produced a question, which must have come from his ‘dealing with difficult people manual’. ‘Tell me’ he said with a wry smile ‘what is a Shambles?’ ‘It’s a meat market I replied.’ Disappointed he turned and left. He though he could shake my confidence in the KJV by highlighting a word which is not part of 21st Century Common Parlance.
‘It’s Archaic’ is a charge often laid at the door of the King James Version and grant it there are some words in the KJV that are not in common usage, but should we ‘throw the baby out with the bath water’ because it has a few old words? I have never found a word in the KJV yet (apart from proper nouns) which are not in the Oxford English Dictionary.
Maybe you have heard people say I prefer the New Versions, they are easier to read and easier to understand. I just can’t get my head around this archaic language of the KJV. Maybe you have uttered these very arguments your self. It all sounds very plausible, the only problem is if you really examine the language of the KJV and the language of the New Versions you will find that this argument does not stack up.
As I have already stated there are a number of words in the KJV that the average person will not be familiar with, words like Superfluity and Concupiscence. I am not going to tell you what these words mean go and look them up in a dictionary. As I was growing up and broadening my vocabulary I often had to look up the meaning of words in the dictionary, I did not throw away the book I was reading when I came to a word that I was unfamiliar with. Likewise if we are reading the Bible and come across a word we are unsure of do we throw it to the side and say I can’t read this? That would be lazy and laziness should never be an attitude of heart when we are studying God’s word.
‘Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.’ 2 Timothy 2 v15
So, are the modern versions really ‘easy reading’? Let’s consider the following.
Number 21v14, The Red Sea AV, Wahed in Suphah NIV, NASB, NCV, NLT, ESV & NKJV, I’m sure you remember the children’s chorus ‘How did Moses cross Wahed in Suphah.’
Leviticus 11 v30, Snail AV, Skink NIV, My garden’s full of skinks
2 Chronicles 2 v2, Told AV, Conscripted NIV, One syllable verses three
Ezra 8 v36, Lieutenants AV, Satraps NIV, NASB & NKJV, A familiar word of military rank replaced with an unknown word.
Isaiah 28 v 1, Fat AV, Verdant NKJV, Don’t be eating too many sweets Jonny you’ll get verdant
Amos 5 v21, Smell AV, Savour NKJV, Mmmm What’s that…savour, I mean smell?
Matthew 20 v2, For a penny a day AV, For a Denarius a day NIV, NASV, ESV & NKJV, There can be at times a place for transliteration; this is not one of those times. You’re supposed to be making it easier to understand guys!
Luke 10 v35, Repay AV, Reimburse NIV, Two syllables verses three
Luke 19 v13, Pound AV, Mina NIV, NASB, ESV & NKJV, There can be at times a place for transliteration; this is not one of those times. Your supposed to be making it easier…
Ephesians 4 V 16, Joint AV, Supporting Ligament NIV, It’s the Bible not Grey’s Anatomy
Hebrews 5 v10, Called AV, Designated NIV, NASB, 2 syllable verses 4.
These examples above are merely a scratch on the surface. The people behind the new versions are an academic elite and they have allowed their heady high-minded vocabulary to creep into the simple Word of God.
Not only does the AV use simpler language but it has a smaller vocabulary as well. The AV contains 790,685 words with a total vocabulary of 12784 words. The NIV on the other hand contains 726,109 words (64,576 less that the AV) with a total vocabulary of 14500 words. That means that to be able to read and understand the NIV you need to have a larger working vocabulary of some 1716 words.
Not only should we consider the size of the vocabulary but also we should consider the nature of the vocabulary. The AV uses for the most part one or two syllable words while the new versions substitute complex multi-syllable words and phrases. When different Bible versions were tested using the Flesch-Kincaid research company’s Grade level indicator the AV came out tops for readability. Also, because the modern Bibles are copyrighted they each have to be significantly different than the others. In order to achieve the copyright the new translators have to get their thesaurus out and find more and more alternative words to say the same thing. The plain fact is this, the AV translators used all the simple common words like ‘repay’ so to be different the NIV had to use ‘reimburse’.
The message about the AV being obscure, confusing and incomprehensible as nothing more than advertising propaganda from publishing houses who want you to buy their ‘New Bibles’. Don’t believe their propaganda.
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Wednesday, 16 February 2011
Mistaken Identity
Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .7
Mistaken Identity
I wonder has someone ever mixed you up with another person? Perhaps a stranger in the street said hello to you and called you by another name? It could be embarrassing for the one making the mistake and funny to you. There are of course times when mistaken identity can be more serious. I can recall during the troubles in Northern Ireland from time to time you would hear of terrorists shooting someone dead to have it revealed later that they shot the wrong guy. Mistaken Identity!
We come across a case of mistaken identity in some of the modern versions of the Bible. In Isaiah chapter 14 were read of Satan’s fall from his exalted position in heaven. In the Hebrew text in this passage we find the use of the word ‘heylel’ and it is the only use of the word in the Hebrew Old Testament and is tranlated as 'Lucifer' in the AV.
הֵילֵל= heylel = light bearer, LUCIFER
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14 v12 AV
The AV translators rendered the word LUCIFER, which means what the word is saying, ‘light bearer’. This word Lucifer is derived from the Latin language and is similar to the Greek word ‘Lucas’ or the English name ‘Luke’. This word has in fact really become one of the names by which we identify Satan and worshippers of Satan are often referred to as Luciferians. However, if we are to look at the same scripture in the NIV for example we do not find the word Lucifer but we see the title ‘morning star’.
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! NIV Ditto NASB, CEV & NCV
Now this is where the case of mistaken identity becomes apparent. If you are a student of the Bible you will have come across this term ‘morning star’ before. In Revelation chapter 22 it is used as a description of the Lord Jesus Christ.
‘I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.’ Revelation 22 v16
Worse still the NIV agrees. So in the NIV in Revelation 22 the ‘morning star’ is clearly identifiable as the Lord Jesus but in Isaiah 14 the same person ‘morning star’ is identified as someone that fell from Heaven. So which is it? The NASB, CEV & NCV share in the confusion.
Some may argue that the use of the Latin based word ‘Lucifer’ to translate ‘heylel’ (which essentially means the same thing) by the AV translators was not the best choice. That may or may not be the case but now that the word Lucifer is so bound up with the person of Satan and the title ‘Morning Star’ is so bound up with the person of Christ it was unwise at best for the translators of these new versions to give both the Lord Jesus and Satan the same title. Once again I find myself wondering, is it a lack of wisdom or is there something more sinister going on.
I have found a friend in Jesus, He’s everything to me,
He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul;
The Lily of the Valley, in Him alone I see
All I need to cleanse and make me fully whole.
In sorrow He’s my comfort, in trouble He’s my stay;
He tells me every care on Him to roll.
He’s the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star,
He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul.
Mistaken Identity
I wonder has someone ever mixed you up with another person? Perhaps a stranger in the street said hello to you and called you by another name? It could be embarrassing for the one making the mistake and funny to you. There are of course times when mistaken identity can be more serious. I can recall during the troubles in Northern Ireland from time to time you would hear of terrorists shooting someone dead to have it revealed later that they shot the wrong guy. Mistaken Identity!
We come across a case of mistaken identity in some of the modern versions of the Bible. In Isaiah chapter 14 were read of Satan’s fall from his exalted position in heaven. In the Hebrew text in this passage we find the use of the word ‘heylel’ and it is the only use of the word in the Hebrew Old Testament and is tranlated as 'Lucifer' in the AV.
הֵילֵל= heylel = light bearer, LUCIFER
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! Isaiah 14 v12 AV
The AV translators rendered the word LUCIFER, which means what the word is saying, ‘light bearer’. This word Lucifer is derived from the Latin language and is similar to the Greek word ‘Lucas’ or the English name ‘Luke’. This word has in fact really become one of the names by which we identify Satan and worshippers of Satan are often referred to as Luciferians. However, if we are to look at the same scripture in the NIV for example we do not find the word Lucifer but we see the title ‘morning star’.
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! NIV Ditto NASB, CEV & NCV
Now this is where the case of mistaken identity becomes apparent. If you are a student of the Bible you will have come across this term ‘morning star’ before. In Revelation chapter 22 it is used as a description of the Lord Jesus Christ.
‘I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.’ Revelation 22 v16
Worse still the NIV agrees. So in the NIV in Revelation 22 the ‘morning star’ is clearly identifiable as the Lord Jesus but in Isaiah 14 the same person ‘morning star’ is identified as someone that fell from Heaven. So which is it? The NASB, CEV & NCV share in the confusion.
Some may argue that the use of the Latin based word ‘Lucifer’ to translate ‘heylel’ (which essentially means the same thing) by the AV translators was not the best choice. That may or may not be the case but now that the word Lucifer is so bound up with the person of Satan and the title ‘Morning Star’ is so bound up with the person of Christ it was unwise at best for the translators of these new versions to give both the Lord Jesus and Satan the same title. Once again I find myself wondering, is it a lack of wisdom or is there something more sinister going on.
I have found a friend in Jesus, He’s everything to me,
He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul;
The Lily of the Valley, in Him alone I see
All I need to cleanse and make me fully whole.
In sorrow He’s my comfort, in trouble He’s my stay;
He tells me every care on Him to roll.
He’s the Lily of the Valley, the Bright and Morning Star,
He’s the fairest of ten thousand to my soul.
Wednesday, 9 February 2011
A Perfect Saviour
Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .6
A Perfect Saviour
I, this series of blogs I have already mentioned the importance of the truth that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ was sinless and perfect. In order for Him to be our Passover Lamb He had to be without spot and blemish. Once again in this area the modern bibles are found wanting.
The family into which the Lord Jesus was born was certainly a godly family, His mother Mary and Joseph followed the obligations of the Law of Moses and saw to it that the infant Jesus was circumcised and brought to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord. This particular instance is recorded for us in Luke chapter 2. In verse 22 of this chapter Luke tells us of Mary’s observation of the Law concerning purification.
‘And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;’
You will notice very clearly that the purification mentioned here relates to Mary and not to the Lord Jesus. It is ‘her purification’. We learn about this law in Leviticus 12
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. Leviticus 12 v1-4
You will notice in the verses above the continual reference to her, she and a woman. The new bibles agree with this rendering as they do the same as the AV and show clearly that this purification relates to the mother. However, in the rendering of Luke 2 v22 in the new bibles they do not refer to ‘her’ purification but rather ‘their’ purification. The clear suggestion is made that there was something impure about the infant Jesus.
‘When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.’ NIV
The NASB, NLT, ESV & NET do exactly the same and the Message and the NCV leave it unclear as to who the purification relates to. What an awful way to translate this verse, to even dare suggest that there is something impure about the spotless Lamb of God is terrible. Let us not forget the description of the Lord Jesus given by the writer to the Hebrews ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.’ I’m not sure what textual argument they use to justify this translation but it flies against the revelation in Leviticus.
As if this is not bad enough (and it is) may I show you another bizarre translation that makes our Blessed Saviour out to fickle at best or a liar at worst? I am speaking now about the translation of John 7 v8-10 in the some of new bibles. First of all let’s see what the AV has to say.
‘Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.’
On this occasion the Lord Jesus sent His brethren up to the feast in Jerusalem telling them that He was not going up yet, however, later in verse ten the ‘not up yet’(see below) of verse eight has passed and He goes up. That makes sense to me I have often sent people on ahead for whatever reason and meet them somewhere at a later time. When we come to consider some of the new bibles they do something different.
οὔπω = oupō = not yet
8You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." 9After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. ESV
In this story the Lord Jesus has told His brethren that He is not going up to the feast, but then He does go up. The ‘not yet’ has been dropped. Either He has changed His mind or He has told a lie. Which is it?
Changed His mind
That is a ridiculous suggestion. The Lord Jesus Christ is God, he does not change His mind. He is Immutable! If we had a fickle God who changed His mind then what hope have we of heaven? He might be in a mood to take us today but not tomorrow. No, no, God does not change His mind.
He is a Liar
This suggestion is also ridiculous. The Lord Jesus as God is perfectly righteous, He does not sin therefore He does not lie. But I’m afraid the poor translation given by the ESV paints Him as such. Please note the NLT, CEV & NASB all make this grave error.
I will certainly be avoiding bibles that cast any doubt on my Saviours character or make Him out to be in any way impure.
A Perfect Saviour
I, this series of blogs I have already mentioned the importance of the truth that our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ was sinless and perfect. In order for Him to be our Passover Lamb He had to be without spot and blemish. Once again in this area the modern bibles are found wanting.
The family into which the Lord Jesus was born was certainly a godly family, His mother Mary and Joseph followed the obligations of the Law of Moses and saw to it that the infant Jesus was circumcised and brought to Jerusalem to be presented to the Lord. This particular instance is recorded for us in Luke chapter 2. In verse 22 of this chapter Luke tells us of Mary’s observation of the Law concerning purification.
‘And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;’
You will notice very clearly that the purification mentioned here relates to Mary and not to the Lord Jesus. It is ‘her purification’. We learn about this law in Leviticus 12
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean. 3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled. Leviticus 12 v1-4
You will notice in the verses above the continual reference to her, she and a woman. The new bibles agree with this rendering as they do the same as the AV and show clearly that this purification relates to the mother. However, in the rendering of Luke 2 v22 in the new bibles they do not refer to ‘her’ purification but rather ‘their’ purification. The clear suggestion is made that there was something impure about the infant Jesus.
‘When the time of their purification according to the Law of Moses had been completed, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord.’ NIV
The NASB, NLT, ESV & NET do exactly the same and the Message and the NCV leave it unclear as to who the purification relates to. What an awful way to translate this verse, to even dare suggest that there is something impure about the spotless Lamb of God is terrible. Let us not forget the description of the Lord Jesus given by the writer to the Hebrews ‘holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners.’ I’m not sure what textual argument they use to justify this translation but it flies against the revelation in Leviticus.
As if this is not bad enough (and it is) may I show you another bizarre translation that makes our Blessed Saviour out to fickle at best or a liar at worst? I am speaking now about the translation of John 7 v8-10 in the some of new bibles. First of all let’s see what the AV has to say.
‘Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 9When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. 10But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.’
On this occasion the Lord Jesus sent His brethren up to the feast in Jerusalem telling them that He was not going up yet, however, later in verse ten the ‘not up yet’(see below) of verse eight has passed and He goes up. That makes sense to me I have often sent people on ahead for whatever reason and meet them somewhere at a later time. When we come to consider some of the new bibles they do something different.
οὔπω = oupō = not yet
8You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come." 9After saying this, he remained in Galilee. 10But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private. ESV
In this story the Lord Jesus has told His brethren that He is not going up to the feast, but then He does go up. The ‘not yet’ has been dropped. Either He has changed His mind or He has told a lie. Which is it?
Changed His mind
That is a ridiculous suggestion. The Lord Jesus Christ is God, he does not change His mind. He is Immutable! If we had a fickle God who changed His mind then what hope have we of heaven? He might be in a mood to take us today but not tomorrow. No, no, God does not change His mind.
He is a Liar
This suggestion is also ridiculous. The Lord Jesus as God is perfectly righteous, He does not sin therefore He does not lie. But I’m afraid the poor translation given by the ESV paints Him as such. Please note the NLT, CEV & NASB all make this grave error.
I will certainly be avoiding bibles that cast any doubt on my Saviours character or make Him out to be in any way impure.
Wednesday, 2 February 2011
Sodomite Scriptures
Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .5
Sodomite Scriptures
I’m sure the homosexual lobby must hate the Authorised Version of the Bible, of all the versions available it is the most unambiguous in it’s language of condemnation regarding this particular sexual perversion. Sad to say the same cannot be said of the ‘New Bibles’.
The first time the scriptures mentions the vile practice of men being sexually involved with other men is found in Genesis chapter 19. The Holy Spirit had already indicated in chapter 13 verse 13 that ‘the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly’, but it is not until chapter 19 that we understand why the LORD had come to make such a statement.
Because of their vile practice God had determined to judge the city severely but before the fires of judgement could fall God sent two angels into the city to remove righteous Lot out of the situation. Knowing the streets of Sodom were no place for strangers to be at night Lot compelled the two angels to come into his house. Word soon spread amongst homosexuals of the city that a bit of ‘fresh meat’ had arrived. A large crowd of sex-crazed homosexuals began to beat at the door of Lot’s house demanding that he send out the men (as they supposed) so that they might have carnal knowledge of them. Even after the angels had smitten them with blindness they continued to scrabble at the doors seeking to fulfil their filthy lusts.
As this particular sin was so closely related to the geographically location of Sodom the practice itself and those who practiced this vile sin were labelled Sodomites.
In Deuteronomy chapter 23 v17 we read the following command.
‘There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.’ AV
The Modern Bibles have changed the word ‘sodomite’ to something else. The NIV says ‘Shrine Prostitute’, the ESV & NASB says ‘Cult Prostitute’, the NLT & NCV says ‘Temple Prostitute’, the NKJV says ‘A perverted one’ and the Message renders it ‘A Sacred Prostitute’.
In 1st Kings 14 verse 24 we read.
‘And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.’ AV
The Modern Bibles have changed the word ‘sodomite’ to something else. The NIV & NLT says ‘Shrine Prostitute’, the ESV & NASB says ‘Cult Prostitute’, the NCV says ‘Male Prostitutes’, the NKJV says ‘Perverted Persons’ and the Message renders it ‘ Sacred Prostitute’.
None of the changes in the ‘New Bibles’ reflect the idea of Sodomy. It has been airbrushed out.
In the New Testament in Marks Gospel the Lord Jesus when commissioning His disciples said these words to them.
'And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.' Mark 6 v11 AV
Notice how the second half of the verse has gone missing in the NIV
‘And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them’ Mark 6 v11 NIV... ditto ESV, NCV, NASB, NLT & The Message
The reference to the judgment of Sodom has been removed with a stroke.
I just wonder does the NIV’s airbrushing of Sodomy out of the Bible have anything to do with the fact that the NIV translation committee had homosexuals in their ranks. One such member is Dr Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. If you don’t believe me read her official website the quote below is taken from the homepage of Virginia Mollenkott’s official website.
‘Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has lectured widely on lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights and has also been active in the transgender cause, authoring Omnigender (revised and updated version published in 2007), and serving as co-author of Transgender Journeys (2003).’
I don’t know about you but I don’t want to be reading a Bible translation that has the paw-prints of homosexuals all over it.
Sodomite Scriptures
I’m sure the homosexual lobby must hate the Authorised Version of the Bible, of all the versions available it is the most unambiguous in it’s language of condemnation regarding this particular sexual perversion. Sad to say the same cannot be said of the ‘New Bibles’.
The first time the scriptures mentions the vile practice of men being sexually involved with other men is found in Genesis chapter 19. The Holy Spirit had already indicated in chapter 13 verse 13 that ‘the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly’, but it is not until chapter 19 that we understand why the LORD had come to make such a statement.
Because of their vile practice God had determined to judge the city severely but before the fires of judgement could fall God sent two angels into the city to remove righteous Lot out of the situation. Knowing the streets of Sodom were no place for strangers to be at night Lot compelled the two angels to come into his house. Word soon spread amongst homosexuals of the city that a bit of ‘fresh meat’ had arrived. A large crowd of sex-crazed homosexuals began to beat at the door of Lot’s house demanding that he send out the men (as they supposed) so that they might have carnal knowledge of them. Even after the angels had smitten them with blindness they continued to scrabble at the doors seeking to fulfil their filthy lusts.
As this particular sin was so closely related to the geographically location of Sodom the practice itself and those who practiced this vile sin were labelled Sodomites.
In Deuteronomy chapter 23 v17 we read the following command.
‘There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.’ AV
The Modern Bibles have changed the word ‘sodomite’ to something else. The NIV says ‘Shrine Prostitute’, the ESV & NASB says ‘Cult Prostitute’, the NLT & NCV says ‘Temple Prostitute’, the NKJV says ‘A perverted one’ and the Message renders it ‘A Sacred Prostitute’.
In 1st Kings 14 verse 24 we read.
‘And there were also sodomites in the land: and they did according to all the abominations of the nations which the LORD cast out before the children of Israel.’ AV
The Modern Bibles have changed the word ‘sodomite’ to something else. The NIV & NLT says ‘Shrine Prostitute’, the ESV & NASB says ‘Cult Prostitute’, the NCV says ‘Male Prostitutes’, the NKJV says ‘Perverted Persons’ and the Message renders it ‘ Sacred Prostitute’.
None of the changes in the ‘New Bibles’ reflect the idea of Sodomy. It has been airbrushed out.
In the New Testament in Marks Gospel the Lord Jesus when commissioning His disciples said these words to them.
'And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear you, when ye depart thence, shake off the dust under your feet for a testimony against them. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.' Mark 6 v11 AV
Notice how the second half of the verse has gone missing in the NIV
‘And if any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them’ Mark 6 v11 NIV... ditto ESV, NCV, NASB, NLT & The Message
The reference to the judgment of Sodom has been removed with a stroke.
I just wonder does the NIV’s airbrushing of Sodomy out of the Bible have anything to do with the fact that the NIV translation committee had homosexuals in their ranks. One such member is Dr Virginia Ramey Mollenkott. If you don’t believe me read her official website the quote below is taken from the homepage of Virginia Mollenkott’s official website.
‘Dr. Virginia Ramey Mollenkott has lectured widely on lesbian, gay, and bisexual rights and has also been active in the transgender cause, authoring Omnigender (revised and updated version published in 2007), and serving as co-author of Transgender Journeys (2003).’
I don’t know about you but I don’t want to be reading a Bible translation that has the paw-prints of homosexuals all over it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
