Why I use the Authorised Version, Reason .12
A Strange Symbol
As a result of the ‘supposed’ conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine a vast amount of Pagan Culture infiltrated the Church. Up to that point Christianity was generally persecuted and despised in Roman Culture. However, when the Emperor claimed to embrace this ‘New Religion’ Christianity suddenly became the ‘coolest’ new thing. If the Emperor was a Christian then everyone wanted to be a Christian. Sadly this growth in Church membership was not of the Holy Ghost and these pagan people brought their pagan beliefs and practices into the Church.
Examples of this can be found in Christian Festivals like Christmas and Easter. Easter is only a few weeks away and many will exchange Easter Eggs. I remember as a child in School being told that Easter Eggs were a symbol of the stone that was rolled away from the tomb in which Jesus was temporarily buried. This of course in nonsense, the egg symbol is right out of Babylonian Pagan religion and represents the Birth of the Pagan Deity Tammuz. Even the word Easter is right of Paganism for it is a reference to the pagan Deity Ishtar.
Another Pagan Deity who made an entrance into Christendom was Semiramis the mother of the aforementioned Tammuz. Semiramis and Tammuz are represented in the symbol of a mother and child and there are historical records from throughout the world of this mother and child religion being carried on for thousands of years. When this was Christianised Semiramis became Mary the Mother of Jesus and Tammuz became the infant Jesus. The ancient followers of Tammuz paid homage to their god by wearing a 'letter T' on a chain around their necks. This too was Christianised and became the Cross symbol which so many Christians wear today. If you want to find out more about this ‘Pagan Invasion’ I would recommend Hislop’s book ‘Two Babylons’. As I am aware of this Pagan influence I personally choose not to represent my Christianity in symbolism but I am not going to fall out with someone who does. Rather than focusing on symbols we ought to focus on God’s Word. That is God’s way of communicating to His people, through words not symbols.
There is one symbol in particular that I want to mention that has a common history with those mentioned above. This symbol predates the birth of Christ and was and remains a pagan religious symbol. In fact it would seem to be a symbol that the New Age Movement has adopted for itself and appears to be using as a Message Symbol. This symbol too was brought into Christendom along with all the other pagan garbage and is now said to represent the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You may be familiar with it as it is found on the spine or cover of many copies of the New King James Version of the Bible.
A Strange Symbol
As a result of the ‘supposed’ conversion of the Roman Emperor Constantine a vast amount of Pagan Culture infiltrated the Church. Up to that point Christianity was generally persecuted and despised in Roman Culture. However, when the Emperor claimed to embrace this ‘New Religion’ Christianity suddenly became the ‘coolest’ new thing. If the Emperor was a Christian then everyone wanted to be a Christian. Sadly this growth in Church membership was not of the Holy Ghost and these pagan people brought their pagan beliefs and practices into the Church.
Examples of this can be found in Christian Festivals like Christmas and Easter. Easter is only a few weeks away and many will exchange Easter Eggs. I remember as a child in School being told that Easter Eggs were a symbol of the stone that was rolled away from the tomb in which Jesus was temporarily buried. This of course in nonsense, the egg symbol is right out of Babylonian Pagan religion and represents the Birth of the Pagan Deity Tammuz. Even the word Easter is right of Paganism for it is a reference to the pagan Deity Ishtar.
Another Pagan Deity who made an entrance into Christendom was Semiramis the mother of the aforementioned Tammuz. Semiramis and Tammuz are represented in the symbol of a mother and child and there are historical records from throughout the world of this mother and child religion being carried on for thousands of years. When this was Christianised Semiramis became Mary the Mother of Jesus and Tammuz became the infant Jesus. The ancient followers of Tammuz paid homage to their god by wearing a 'letter T' on a chain around their necks. This too was Christianised and became the Cross symbol which so many Christians wear today. If you want to find out more about this ‘Pagan Invasion’ I would recommend Hislop’s book ‘Two Babylons’. As I am aware of this Pagan influence I personally choose not to represent my Christianity in symbolism but I am not going to fall out with someone who does. Rather than focusing on symbols we ought to focus on God’s Word. That is God’s way of communicating to His people, through words not symbols.
There is one symbol in particular that I want to mention that has a common history with those mentioned above. This symbol predates the birth of Christ and was and remains a pagan religious symbol. In fact it would seem to be a symbol that the New Age Movement has adopted for itself and appears to be using as a Message Symbol. This symbol too was brought into Christendom along with all the other pagan garbage and is now said to represent the Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You may be familiar with it as it is found on the spine or cover of many copies of the New King James Version of the Bible.
Inside the front cover to the NKJV the publishers say that the Logo is ‘The triquetra (from a Latin word meaning “three-cornered”) is an ancient symbol for the Trinity. It comprises three interwoven arcs, distinct yet equal and inseparable, symbolising that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct yet equal persons and indivisibly One God.’ As I have mentioned already God communicates to us by Words, He does not communicate to us through symbolism or images, or pictures, or icons, or art of any kind. The Apostle Paul when preaching to pagans in Athens taught them this truth saying. ‘Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device’ Acts 17 v 29. Therefore we ought not, as God’s people, use symbols like crosses, fish or even the triquetra to represent our God.
On the other hand Pagan religion and the occult is loaded with images and symbolism. We could mention pentagrams, goats heads, serpents, lightning bolts and even the triquetra as images associated with Paganism and the Occult. The Bible of the modern New Age Movement is Marilyn Ferguson’s ‘The Aquarian Conspiracy’ and the front coverof that book displays the triquetra.
On the other hand Pagan religion and the occult is loaded with images and symbolism. We could mention pentagrams, goats heads, serpents, lightning bolts and even the triquetra as images associated with Paganism and the Occult. The Bible of the modern New Age Movement is Marilyn Ferguson’s ‘The Aquarian Conspiracy’ and the front coverof that book displays the triquetra.
Other uses of this symbol in the occult are to be found on our television screens. A US Television series about three sisters who are witches called ‘Charmed’ uses the triquetra. The following image is of the sisters’ spell-book; notice the triquetra on the front cover.
It seems everywhere I look in the modern world this symbol is to be found. I feel this is significant because occultists use imagery to communicate and as it were to ‘mark their stuff’. The Northern Ireland Political Party the SDLP use this symbol as their party logo.
In the UK we all received forms through our letter boxes in the past few weeks from the government who are carrying out a Census of the whole population. To my mind the symbol at the bottom of the envelope is a derivation of the triquetra.
Another derivation of the triquetra is the symbol used by the South African white supremacy party the AWB.
Christian author Constance Cumbey certainly associated the triquetra with the Occult New Age Movement. On the front cover of his excellent book ‘The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow’ a number of Occult symbols are illustrated, among them the triquetra.
So what am I saying? I’m I saying the NKJV of the Bible is an Occult Bible? Certainly not! However, as I have contended in my recent blogs Satan is interested in Bible translation. I think Satan will try and influence whenever and wherever he can. Could it be that the inclusion of the triquetra on the spine of the NKJV is Satan’s way of letting his minions know that he has had some influence here? To be frank I don’t know. I cannot judge and I do not have perfect knowledge as to why this pagan symbol is on the spine or cover of the NKJV. I cannot judge the intentions of motives of the publisher. All I Know is it worries me greatly.
With regard to this series of blogs, I feel after a dozen blogs the time has come to draw to a close. I have enjoyed preparing the blogs and I trust you have found them thought provoking and interesting even if you have not always agreed with my point of view. Praise God for our hard won freedoms of liberty and free speech. There are so many topics and issues, which are important and relevant to the 21st Century Church that I will now focus my attention on other matters. That is not to say that I will never return to this topic, I very well may, but for the moment I have other things on my mind that I desire to share with the readers of this blog.
With regard to this series of blogs, I feel after a dozen blogs the time has come to draw to a close. I have enjoyed preparing the blogs and I trust you have found them thought provoking and interesting even if you have not always agreed with my point of view. Praise God for our hard won freedoms of liberty and free speech. There are so many topics and issues, which are important and relevant to the 21st Century Church that I will now focus my attention on other matters. That is not to say that I will never return to this topic, I very well may, but for the moment I have other things on my mind that I desire to share with the readers of this blog.
May God bless those readers who are His and save those who know Him not!
Maurice, the symbol is most definitely of the occult in its origin. No doubt there will be those who put up all sorts of excuses for it being used on the NKJV bibles but the fact remains - it IS a pagan symbol.
ReplyDeleteMay I say that you have gone about your reasoning in the right way over the past number of weeks; you have explained your concerns and given your points of view clearly and graciously. I believe you are right to raise the issue of the symbol at this stage, following all your other articles in connection with translation issues. The roots and uses of this symbol over the centuries is a study in itself; suffice to say, for the purposes of this blog, why would anyone even consider using it as branding for a bible translation? It raises major concerns.
Thank you once again for all of your posts.
God bless,
Peter
I agree, we need to be careful about using terms, signs and celebrations that have had pagan connections. Christmas, Easter, the cross, the fish, the triquetra or whatever.
ReplyDeleteI think we are more justified in use of the symbols - the cross, fish, triquetra - than the celebrations. Christmas and Easter convey lots of faulty meanings for the uninformed. They are directly connected to pagan festivals.
But the signs are just that - signs. We use groups of letters to the same effect - squiggles that convey concepts. The signs can be used by anyone to convey the meaning they attach to them.
So is a NKJV Bible signalling a pagan meaning in its use of the triquetra? Or an AV Bible if it uses the cross? Or in its use of 'Easter' instead of Passover in Acts 12? No.
The NKJV uses the sign associated with the Triune God of the Bible. The AV uses the sign associated with the death of Christ. Its use of 'Easter', while a poor choice, is no more than an expression of its Anglican nature. King James had ordered it to conform to the (Anglican) church's traditional forms.
Maurice, thanks for opening up the discussion in all the threads. It is good for brethren to address any matters that trouble the church, and the Versions Debate certainly has done so for some generations.
As we seek the truth, we have nothing to fear from anything we find. It may prove uncomfortable, it may require we change our minds and abandon long-held traditions. But we must follow the truth where ever it leads - and it only ever leads to God.
"But the signs are just that - signs. We use groups of letters to the same effect - squiggles that convey concepts. The signs can be used by anyone to convey the meaning they attach to them."
ReplyDeleteWolfsbane, that's precisely what the Masons and other nefarious secret societies argue in defence of their use of occultic symbols. Satanists and Wiccan witches argue that symbols are very important, not merely neutral squiggles or shapes.
No Bible (of any kind) should use any pagan/occult symbols. My copy of the AV has no symbols on it at all.
Is it even possible to purchase a NKJV without the inclusion of the symbol in question?
"As we seek the truth, we have nothing to fear from anything we find. It may prove uncomfortable, it may require we change our minds and abandon long-held traditions. But we must follow the truth where ever it leads - and it only ever leads to God."
I can certainly say a hearty Amen to that ... it is applicable to all!
People can put whatever meaning THEY want to any symbol. Doesn't mean WE all have to accept their meaning.
ReplyDeleteIF they are the originators of the symbol, they would be entitled to stake their claim - but if they just borrow it from mathematics or history, they don't.
Same with tunes. If a sensual song is put to a tune, we are not obliged to abandon that tune to the world. It may well be fitting for a great hymn.
But we do indeed have to be careful.
'Is it even possible to purchase a NKJV without the inclusion of the symbol in question?'
Yes, we have four NKJVs in our home, only one of which has the triquetra.
I note your AV has no symbols. Would you condemn those AVs that have a cross on the cover or flyleaf?
Are you troubled that all of them have 'Easter' as the translation in Acts 12?
That's a very weak argument as regards symbols ... symbols have a lot of meaning in the occult ... an occultic symbol has no place on any Bible - period!
ReplyDelete"I note your AV has no symbols. Would you condemn those AVs that have a cross on the cover or flyleaf?"
"Are you troubled that all of them have 'Easter' as the translation in Acts 12?"
Yes to both.
I deliberately avoid Bibles with symbols like crosses, etc. (I know, and acknowledge, that the vast majority of folks don't realize the nature of pagan symbols and certainly don't choose them with any ill intention ... but I agree with Maurice and Peter - it is concerning, and I am glad that Maurice has brought the issue to everyone's attention.
As for the "Easter" word in the AV, yes that is one valid example, and I acknowledge that.
I sympathise with your position, and agree it would be better to avoid anything that might give a wrong impression.
ReplyDeleteI just want to make the point that we need not submit to others' use of symbols - if the symbol is not itself occult in origin, occultists have no ownership of it.
"...it would be better to avoid anything that might give a wrong impression."
ReplyDeleteIt's more than just that!
" just want to make the point that we need not submit to others' use of symbols - if the symbol is not itself occult in origin, occultists have no ownership of it." (emphasis mine)
True, as far as it goes ... the operative word in your sentence being "if"
But Maurice rightly said:
"There is one symbol in particular that I want to mention ... This symbol predates the birth of Christ and was and remains a pagan religious symbol."
As Peter rightly pointed out:
"the symbol is most definitely of the occult in its origin ... The roots and uses of this symbol over the centuries is a study in itself"
We are talking here about a symbol that always has been in the domain of the pagan / occult.
It is very concerning to see it on a translation of the Bible.
The same can be said of the cross. But both can be used to represent Christian truths. To think that any Bible uses a cross or a triquerta to promote paganism is delusional.
ReplyDeleteGail Riplinger is into this conspiracy nuttery. Sensible believers should take note - and avoid anything she promotes.
"To think that any Bible uses a cross or a triquerta to promote paganism is delusional."
ReplyDeleteThat's a straw-man argument, Wolfsbane, given that no one here has stated that the symbol in question was definitely being used to promote paganism. It has been stated, clearly, that the inclusion of this pagan / occult symbol on a Bible is (rightly) a serious concern.
On the other hand, it would also be naive to think that there could not possibly ever be a more sinister motive at play, as Maurice said:
"I think Satan will try and influence whenever and wherever he can. Could it be that the inclusion of the triquetra on the spine of the NKJV is Satan’s way of letting his minions know that he has had some influence here? To be frank I don’t know. I cannot judge and I do not have perfect knowledge as to why this pagan symbol is on the spine or cover of the NKJV. I cannot judge the intentions of motives of the publisher. All I Know is it worries me greatly."
Wolfsbane, you said:
"...Riplinger is into this conspiracy nuttery. Sensible believers should take note - and avoid anything she promotes."
As someone who remonstrates loudly against "the KJV-only invective" ... you certainly take an ironic approach!
BTW, here is a helpful site, giving the 1611 KJV OT & NT. It gives 103 changes made to the 1611 version in the one we now have (1769).
ReplyDeleteA pity it omits the Apocrypha, for that would have given us a better sense of what the the readers back then had in their hands.
http://qbible.com/king-james-1611/
I see there are further KJV revisions going on, but unnoticed by many:
ReplyDelete'How to Know the Pure Cambridge Edition (PCE) of the King James Bible'
http://www.biblicalscholarship.net/howto.htm
One of the linked sites says:
'Those who are knowledgeable about the King James Bible agree that the Cambridge Edition is superior to the Oxford,
Nelson or any other edition. However, the particular variations in Cambridge Editions have not been closely studied until
now. That is, identifying which Cambridge Edition is correct.
Sadly, many King James Bibles that follow the Cambridge Edition as are now being produced or provided by King James
Bible people are not the correct Cambridge Edition, but follow the Concord Cambridge Edition, which has departed from
the pure text. The correct text has, among other things, “rasor”, “inquire”, “counseller”, “expences”, “ancle”, “Geba” at
Ezra 2:26 and lower case “spirit” at Acts 11:12, 28 and 1 John 5:8.
There has been a great ignorance of the fact that a final purification took place in the history of the King James Bible.
Those who have studied the history of the King James Bible in depth would have been aware of the major purifications
that took place, such as the editions of 1629, 1638 and 1769. There was also a proper purification that took place circa 1900,
which has resulted in the final text of the King James Bible, which is in all ways the definitive presentation of the King
James Bible, and should not be altered.'
http://www.bibleprotector.com/Guide_to_the_PCE_draft_0-5.pdf
What is your position? Any of the KJV versions are OK, or is there one that must be held to?
I have stated my position already on NUMEROUS occasions - and no one on this blog (blogger or commentator) has argued perfection for the AV ... your desperate attempts to smoke screen the issue are laughable!
ReplyDeleteObviously there have been spelling mistakes made, particularly when printing machines required manual type-setting, etc. These are imperfections, of course... but hardly on the same scale as what this blog has sought to highlight as regards "modern versions"
Is your faculty of memory so failing you? After all, you seem unable to remember that this comment thread has to do with pagan symbols, not revisions - you are way of topic here.
Anyway, here's a reminder of the position I have stated so many times:
"The AV, whilst a translation at best, is the best translation in the English tongue to date. It is theoretically conceivable that an even more precise translation could be furnished, but to date that has not been evidenced. Given the current trends in scholarship, particularly in the areas of translation philosophy, methodology, it doesn’t seem like we are not going to get a better translation of the Scriptures in the English tongue any time soon. Until a superior translation in the English tongue is produced, I will continue to use the AV and encourage (not ‘force’) others to do likewise."
*correction - "It doesn't seem like we ARE going to get a better translation..."
ReplyDeleteYes, this is off-topic - but I thought it threw in some useful information to our wider debate.
ReplyDeleteAnd , No, I didn't forget your statement on accepting an improved AV. You mean one with less spelling mistakes, etc. You might even allow that some of the Greek text is in error - but not any that you've cared to identify.
IF such a corrected AV came to be, would the present one no longer be the Bible, or would both it and the new one be the Bible? Since you reject even the NKJV, I'm unsure how many changes you would allow. 200? 100? 10?
The AV 1611 with the Apocrypha can be read here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1§ion=0&translation=kja&oq=Genesis%25201&new=1&nb=ge&ngt=Go+To%3A&ng=1&ncc=1
"IF such a corrected AV came to be, would the present one no longer be the Bible, or would both it and the new one be the Bible? Since you reject even the NKJV, I'm unsure how many changes you would allow. 200? 100? 10?"
ReplyDeleteAgain, more of your deceitful straw-man arguments!
I have already dealt with this in earlier threads - you are a desperate man.
If a more accurate one came to be, then I would consider it the most accurate ... and the present one would be the second most accurate in the English tongue to-date, obviously.
No, you avoided answering it in previous threads, by the same means - "straw-man arguments".
ReplyDeleteI want you to spell out how much error in the text is allowable before you write it off as no longer the Bible. We both agree that the Critical Text is a lot more corrupt than the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus, and I think you acknowledge both the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus are somewhat corrupt.
But you seem to be saying only the Textus Receptus can be regarded as a true Bible. So how do you make the distinction between the amount of error that is acceptable and the amount that is not?
Read my previous statements in early threads.
ReplyDeleteYou are lying again by saying that I avoided answering. I have answered numerous times, but you are too busy refusing to listen. Too busy spinning straw-man arguments because your own argument holds no water.
By the way, I have no regrets accusing you of using straw-man arguments for each and every time that you chose / choose to do so! You seem to think that if you tell a lie often enough, then people will believe it.
You are here to cause contention, you lie, deceive and twist the words of others. You come on to this blog as a guest, only to attack virtually everything that Maurice and those who agree with him say.
Well, you keep on it if you like ... but you are not a serious, genuine commentator and like Calvin said, it is pointless wasting time on heretics like you.
On your own head be it, as you continue to promote the erroneous idea that parts of God's Word are not God's Word.
More proof of your refusal to answer the questions. If you have answered before, what's the problem about copying & pasting them here?
ReplyDeleteThey don't exist.
Hide all you like, Stephen, but your folly is manifest to all.
I'm truly sorry for you. I assume you are a believer, despite your reviling accusations. I know such behaviour is common with KJV-Only folk.
Stephen, Biblical Christians should not be loud-mouthed fundamentalists, baying like heathens in the Ephesian theatre. Rather they should aim for this:
2 Timothy 2:24 And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, 25 in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth,
That, with the following, is what I endeavour to do:
Titus 1:13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith,
Wolfsbane,
ReplyDeleteYour thinking is reversed!