Donald Trump spoke in Michigan a week ago. I viewed the livestream presentation last Sunday afternoon. It was hard to stomach. He spoke again last night in Selma, North Carolina and his groupies such as Mike Lindell, the woman running for governor of Arizona on a Trump ticket were present. At the Michigan event in Washington, Michigan on March 2nd, he announced his "RINO" (translated: anybody who raises an eyebrow at Donald Trump) hitlist. Two Michigan Congressmen Peter Meijer and Fred Upton were included. The next day Upon announced his retirement and Trump has been boasting about his success in chasing them from the political scene. Brave Liz Cheney is on his list. He already chased Adam Kinzinger away, but don't count Kinzinger out. He has formed a brave Country First PAC (Political Action Committee.
I've written before about the LOVE JOY TRUMP book that clearly includes unashamedly blatant New Age themes and proclamations such as Trump is ushering in the Age of Aquarius, the Millennial Reign of Christ, and Gaia worship. This should be shocking to anybody knowing specifics about the New Age Movement and their Bible. I'm bothered by how little it is disturbing Evangelicals and some Catholics who once professed to know better.
I believe Trump is consciously operating out of the old Nazi/Hitler playbook. He has declared that if he is re=elected President in 2024 he will pardon those charged and convicted with the Capitol invasion on January 6, 2021. He is running efforts to take control of the election machinery from the bottom up - precinct workers, clerks, public officials, judges and putting those in power who will reaffirm his big lie that he was elected by a landslide in 2020 but the "Bit Steal" intervened. He is holding frequent large scale rallies that in some ways remind me of Munich spectacles.
Brannon Howse has made probably an excellent living parroting the information I pioneered on the New Age Movement and its ramifications for Christians. For that, I have no complaint, although I think it strange that he never attempted to make contact with me. As those of you who hav e, you know that I pick up my phone and am willing to generously share information and sources.
Now, Brannon Howse and Mike Lindell have worked together in recent history. Brannon Howse certainly knows enough about the New Age Movement to have set Mike Lindell straight. Even a cursory glance at LOVE JOY TRUMP that Lindell forwarded and probably paid for the publication would have clearly shown Mr. Howse that Mike Lindell and the cohorts writing that book were either New Age activists and/or had followed into its trap. Why did he obviously not set Lindell straight? I bluntly have to assume that Mike Lindell's money was more important to Brannon Howse than Mike Lindell's soul!
What about Qanon?
Qanon is obviously alive and well on Planet Earth. A Trump enrosed Secretary of State candidate for michigan Kristine Karamo spoke to a recent Michigan Republic Club meeting on the second Wednesday of March, 2022. I was present, seated near the font and given the mike to question her. I expressed my fears and concerns to her about Qanon and itss possible spread to the Michigan Trump circles. She told the entire room she knew little or nothing about Qanon. I wa shocked even before I learned the full truth because she claims to have a master's degree in Apologetics. It is impossible in my opinion to be in that field and not be aware of Qanon.
Yesterday, another candidate for the same office, a Michigan State Representative from the Upper Peninsula introduced himself to me at a small political meeting. I was there to help notarize precinct delegate applications. I decided to tell h im my concerns about Ms. Karamo's statements to me and the large audience of which I was a part this past week -- our local GoGop meeting. He was shocked at her reported lack of knowledge. "Kristine Karamo spoke at a national Qanon Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 23, 2021 and he promptly handed me the evidence. You can find it yourself easily on a Google / Duck Dck Go / Bing or other internet engine search.
Bluntly, she lied.
It is also looking to me sadly as though Archbishop Vigano is also falling into the Qanon and beyond traps including the theory that Putin is a hero trying to block the World Economic Forum and New World Order.
So much confusion -- hard to know where to start to fight it. I am also fearful that some of you might be taken in by the Qanon cult. We must be praying daily, "lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil."
Constance
1,072 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1072 Newer› Newest»J @ 9:33 PM,
Well, at least the author of the piece sources James Snapp, Jr. for his textual evidence. I also respect Snapp, for he is very thorough. It’s also good that the author notes that Snapp rejects the Johannine Comma as original, based on the evidence. (incidentally, Snapp commented on one of my blog articles: Charismatic Ramifications on the “Long Ending” of Mark’s Gospel.)
Daniel Wallace does a great job refuting the author’s claims regarding Cyprian: The Comma Johanneum and Cyprian.
See the comment @ January 22, 2021 by John-Luke Muresan. He details why the author is wrong on multiple counts.
For anyone concerned about the Trinity being 'compromised' by the absence of the Johannine Comma in modern versions, consider Matthew 28:19.
I want to reiterate/clarify my stance here. It’s not that I am against the KJV; my position is that a KJV prioritist (or onlyist) should not denigrate modern Bible versions, especially on dubious ‘evidence’. Criticisms of and personal attacks against Westcott and Hort are really non sequiturs. Modern versions are not ‘built on’ W-H; they are the result of textual criticism using what is called an eclectic method—in weighing the various manuscripts it considers a number of factors. Most textual critics use what is further described as reasoned eclecticism. Yet, it is true that the Alexandrian manuscripts are usually given favor, primarily because of their earlier datings.
And we must keep in mind that some of these ancient Alexandrian texts were only discovered within the last 150 years. In other words, these texts weren’t even available for Erasmus to assess.
Those text critics favoring the Byzantine/Majority texts criticize the eclectic method as being a bit haphazard, at times resulting in a final reading that is not supported by ANY manuscript anywhere. Fair enough, but one cannot just accept one text-type and assume this is original either. So, all legitimate textual critics do the best they can.
I’m kind of surprised that in the myriad citations of Bible verses indicating differences in the KJV vs. modern versions RayB didn’t mention John 3:13. This one has the verbiage “…who/which is in heaven” at the end in the N/KJV (and Douay-Rheims, etc.), which is not found in modern versions. This is the very verse which got me seriously exploring the discipline of textual criticism. I quickly discovered David Alan Black’s “The Text of John 3:13”, supporting the final clause. It’s a great study for one diving into this discipline:
THE TEXT OF JOHN 3:13
I am still on fence as to whether this text is likely original or not. Overall, the verse is somewhat of enigma, as it’s difficult to interpret with or without the final clause.
Craig, in textual criticism, what role, if any, is played by what the Bible itself says about the locations of Antioch and Alexandria?
Craig,
What do you think of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?
This is an interesting video series about Codex Sinaiticus on Youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcgRR1NWFGU&list=PLhmAbEGx-AnT8VmEOfkIc4U8Zx7cozYEv&index=2
This is one video evaluating what the speaker says are myths about Codex Sinaiticus.
Modern Textual Criticism: The Codex Sinaiticus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z1SitMhcPs
White House Claims Joe Biden Can Win Reelection in 2024 with 36% Approval Rating and Full-on Dementia
thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/steal-white-house-claims-joe-biden-can-win-reelection-2024-36-approval-rating-full-dementia/
I see kjv’ism as a precursor to new age one world religion prepping the undiscerning by, in essence, encouraging the exclusive worshipping and defense of a singular “traditional”, like rome, book versus Jesus Christ.
Just like qanon, Gayle didn’t reveal a conspiracy, she is the conspiracy.
Rayb falling for this crap isn’t surprising. He loves conspiratorial dishonesty.
X (ESV, NASB & KJV preferred).
Gail, not Gayle. She sounds just like a typical Maga qanon “expert”. She even claims God wrote the book through her as if “channeling” God isn’t new age itself.
“Gail Riplinger does not have any advanced degrees in Bible, theology, linguistics, textual criticism, or any other academic subject related to the subject of this book. She has not been associated with any well-known, accepted counter cult organization or expert, nor has she had previous books published on biblical issues. No reputable biblical scholar has endorsed her thesis or her arguments. Riplinger has advanced degrees in Industrial and Environmental Design (a branch of what used to be called Home Economics) and taught Family and Consumer Studies and Retail Space Plans (Home Economics) for a few years at Kent State University in Ohio. When she is asked what facility she has in biblical languages, she says that as a school girl she took Latin, and after graduation from high school, she worked as an English tutor with Greek immigrants. On a radio program she admitted she could not read Greek or Hebrew.”
“However, this lack of background, expertise, and education doesn’t daunt Riplinger. She explains why she has such confidence in her arguments — God gave them to her! In an article she wrote called “Why I Wrote the Book: New Age Bible Versions” [9] she declares, “Each discovery was not the result of effort on my part, but of the direct hand of God — so much so that I hesitated to even put my name on the book. Consequently, I used G. A. Riplinger, which signifies to me, God and Riplinger — God as author and Riplinger as secretary . . . . ” Although she has echoed this affirmation numerous times since in personal interviews and on radio programs, her book is actually erroneous, sensationalistic, misrepresentative, inaccurate, and logically indefensible. Her writing is ponderous; her graphs and charts are misleading; her reasoning is contradictory and convoluted; and her paragraphs are peppered with inept alliteration and mismatched meter“
https://www.answers.org/bookreviews/newagevers.html
X
Regarding the "Trinity" verses in I John 5:7,8 ...
King James Version
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Geneva Bible (1599) ... often referred to as the Bible of the Reformation
"For there are three, which bear record in heaven, the Father, the [q]Word, and the holy Ghost: and these three are [r]one.
And there are three, which bear record in the earth, the Spirit, and the Water and the Blood: and these three agree in one."
New King James Version
"For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree as one."
Wycliffe Bible (1382-1395 A.D.)
"For three be, that give witnessing in heaven, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost [For three be, that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the Word, or Son, and the Holy Ghost]; and these three be one.
And three be, that give witnessing in earth, the Spirit, water, and blood; and these three be one."
Phillips Literal Translation
"because three are who are testifying [in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;
and three are who are testifying in the earth], the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are into the one."
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition
"And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three are one."
21st. Century King James Version
"For there are three that bear record in Heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness on earth: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three agree in one."
There are more that accurately translated these verses, but we'll stop here. (Stay tuned to see how most of the modern 'translators' (i.e., interpreters) handled these verses)
Ask yourself this question: who is it in the spiritual universe that would love to bring the Triune God's very existence into question? Remember that Lucifer MISUSED Scripture when conversing with Eve, and, that he used Scripture in the same manner when tempting Christ.
King James Version
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Revised Standard Version
"And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree."
Amplified Version
"For there are three witnesses: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are in agreement [their testimony is perfectly consistent]."
American Standard Version
"And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is the truth. For there are three who bear witness, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and the three agree in one."
Christian Standard Bible
"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement."
Common English Bible
"The three are testifying— the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and the three are united in agreement."
Darby Translation (John Nelson Darby, inventor of Dispensationalism)
"For they that bear witness are three: the Spirit, and the water, and the blood; and the three agree in one."
Evangelical Herritage Version
In fact, there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood, and these three are one."
Good News Translation
"There are three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony."
Holman Christian Standard Bible
"For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and these three are in agreement."
J. B. Phillips New Testament
"The witness therefore is a triple one—the Spirit in our own hearts, the signs of the water of baptism and the blood of atonement—and they all say the same thing."
Living Bible
"So we have these three witnesses: the voice of the Holy Spirit in our hearts, the voice from heaven at Christ’s baptism, and the voice before he died."
New Catholic Bible
"Thus, there are three witnesses,
the Spirit, the water, and the blood,
and these three are as one."
New English Translation
"For there are three that testify, the Spirit and the water and the blood, and these three are in agreement."
New International Version (NIV)
"For there are three that testify: the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement."
World English Bible
"For there are three who testify: the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and the three agree as one."
x's head is stuck...stuck somewhere unmentionable.
People can read whatever Bible they want, several versions are ok, some definitely better than others. Use discernment and people will be fine.
A Bible and a concordance can help us out a lot. And there is the Lord's Spirit to lead us as promised when we ask Him, He's the first resort, not last.
But you aren't fine, x.
An unholy spirit makes you post your rot.
You need to read and actually obey the Bible and stop your pharisical marXism, and love your neighbor as your self.
To Craig @ 8:34 AM
Actually, MODERN bible versions SHOULD be 'denigrated' when the words in many of these scriptural passages have obviously been 'watered down' as to CHANGE the very MEANING of what Jesus intended for us to read, hear and understand. (The New Age Movement is alive and well... and yet, you don't 'see' their obvious infiltration (playing a definite part) in causing this confusion to many Christians today with modern versions of the Bible?)
Just what exactly do you find 'dubious' about that? (Actually I am quite surprised at you, Craig.)
________________________________________________________________________________________
Note: The word 'denigrate' means to sully or defame. I say that those who are 'watering down' (changing) the original words of Jesus and His disciples are the ones who are doing the sullying and defaming.
The word 'dubious' means: doubtful, uncertain, unsure, suspicious, suspect, untrustworthy, unreliable.
(I feel ALL of this toward those who would 'water down' or CHANGE the original words in the Bible.)
If we Christians don't stand up and speak out about this, who will?
RayB said: "Ask yourself this question: who is it in the spiritual universe that would love to bring the Triune God's very existence into question? Remember that Lucifer MISUSED Scripture when conversing with Eve, and, that he used Scripture in the same manner when tempting Christ."
The theory that 1 John 5:7 might have been edited down and why it's more lengthy roman catholic version doesn't seem to appear in any greek manuscript prior to about 1600 was actually because such verse may have been problematic to the early Greek church for the opposite reason that you suppose. The early greek church had a heretical sect to deal with that wanted to use 1 John 5:7 as a way to DENY the Trinity and claim Father, Son and Holy Spirit were actually all the same and not separate and unique in any way.
Between about 220 and 270 AD, a man named Sabellius taught that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were identical. People who believed the Father and Son were the same were called Patripassians (Father-sufferers), because they believed the Father and Son were both on the cross. They would apparently use the 1 John 5:7-8 passage to claim that the Trinity was actually the same person. We can easily see how the Eastern Orthodox maybe would not want any passage of their Bible to say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were "one." They would want to emphasize the distinctions between the Trinity and, perhaps, pare down or not have 1 John 5:7 in their Bibles.
I don't have an issue with the KJV (the 1611 version or the updated version from the 1700's we see today), I think it's COOL that's it's persevered this long, and I will not in ANYWAY deny God has and continues to use that translation. But He is JUST as capable of using an ESV or NASB. Let's stop worshiping translations, and commonly worship the God our TRANSLATED Holy Scriptures describe and point to.
x
I haven't watched it yet, so I can't vouch for it. I'm just suggesting it as a source for study and research.
IMDB summarizes this film like this:
In the 19th century a revolution in biblical scholarship was prompted by the publication of a manuscript - Codex Sinaiticus - declared to be the oldest Bible ever found. Shortly after this discovery, deniers came forward against it. The controversy surrounding this manuscript is perhaps the most incredible untold chapter in Bible history. Witness the struggle between Bible believers and deniers.
Tares Among the Wheat - Adullam Films
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIKwuGvcRE
List of KJV Bible Verses REMOVED From Modern Versions
https://logosherald.com/kjv-bible-verses-removed-from-modern-versions/
12:10 PM,
I've realized as I've studied this bible version issue that a lot of my respected bible teachers are not using KJV bibles.
I respect RC Sproul and Ligonier Ministries a great deal, but I see they are selling ESV bibles.
I don't want to judge any individual Christian on the basis of which bible version he or she reads. As RayB said, he was saved by reading the NASB before switching to the KJV bible.
I've found that what Craig said about Gail Riplinger was really true. I've read a few chapters in her book. As I've gone along I've randomly spot checked certain claims. Some were true. Others were not true at all when I looked it up on the Bible Gateway web site, where it is so easy to see what is in each bible version.
I've left off from my study of Gail Riplinger's book, and I've turned to the study of other sources. I'm keenly interested in watching the Tares Among the Wheat Film, but I likely won't have time to do so immediately.
Romans 3:4 KJV
"...let God be true, but every man a liar..."
J at 2:48 PM
For x to take this conversation with regards to RayB and the stupid remarks he made at 10:43 and 10:57 and turn it to a qanon and maga slam is the bitter nastiness he needs to check his unholy spirit about. That does not enter this conversation but he made sure it did.
He treats no one here like a brother/or even you a sister in the Lord, to love his neighbor as himself. He shows next to nothing of being Christian..zilch,..post to post every day.
His talk about the Bible does not include a humble walk,so he can shut his pie hole and leave the good conversation on this topic to yo, Craig, and RayB. It's interesting without x's vile bile brought to it.
Count on it. "X", the fermented wort, won't leave his guile out of any discussion here..
qanonymous,
cRayB does not even go to church. This subject and every subject he opines upon is strictly political propaganda.
KJV'only'ism was and is, largely, a conservative conspiracy theory to hate on "liberals", "modernists", "progressives", even Calvinists and expand upon the everyday use of the words "they" and "them" with regards to conservative politics.
cRay even tried to indicate that Craigs opinions were out of place here since this site exposes new age conspiracies as though Gail's book was an honest disclosure of such and that Mrs. Cumbey, a devout Baptist who know doubt uses the ESV translation regularly, would agree with him.
cRay and you are the ones out of place here.
Craig said to cRayQ: "You not only illustrate a bias against Biblical scholarship (textual criticism, e.g.), you keep dishonestly perpetuating errors you had previously been corrected on."
Craig...that's exactly why I took to calling CRayQ a liar. I can understand him making mistakes or excitedly sharing conservative articles from his silo of disinformation but when he undertook sharing the same disinformation a second time, immediately after I had gone to great lengths, using the articles own data, to prove it incorrect and dishonest. That's when I realized this was not a honest person I was dealing with. It's politics before the Lord. Power at all costs.
Over the years, Mrs. Cumbey has seen it too. He's the one here trying to undermine this forum.
x
5:11 PM,
You're right; he doesn't care about the topic. He just wants to take shots at RayB and "MAGA."
I have 3 other versions to read besides KJV and I lean Calvinist myself so what is your ignorant point to make the topic political?
Your own trail of nasty is your signature here. Nobody does it better!
You can't blame anyone but you for that.
You make everything politics, x. That's because your government gods rule your thinking, so knee jerk nasty is all you have.
No one trolls here like you do.
J,
Is that your assessment? I read the discussion with great interest and obviously did some reading on my own. I simply agreed with Craig and thought he was doing another fine job destroying RayB lies and political arguments. I watched and read them having this debate a few years ago with a lot more interest when I still believe Ray to be a decent, albeit, disagreeable person. Now I don't believe a thing he says.
J, you said: "I've found that what Craig said about Gail Riplinger was really true. I've read a few chapters in her book. As I've gone along I've randomly spot checked certain claims. Some were true. Others were not true at all when I looked it up on the Bible Gateway web site, where it is so easy to see what is in each bible version."
If only you took my fact-checks and other debunking of Maga-Qanon positions so seriously you might have extracted yourself from those disbeliefs as well.
You astutely acknowledge and agree Gail is dishonest. RayB promotes Gail as truth, therefore you are acknowledging RayB promotes lies here on this forum. I agree with you.
It is MY further position...that's ALL he does.
x
This topic was never about RayB, Craig or myself. It was always about God's Word. Could we please return to discussing it?
qanonymous says: "I have 3 other versions to read besides KJV and I lean Calvinist myself so what is your ignorant point to make the topic political?"
Because to cRayB it IS political?
To you as well, it seems. Why else would you defend a man that's not even going to church who is basically calling you a progressive heretic for having and reading the "3 other versions" of the bible can only be explained as because he's in line with your political ideology.
I'm not the only one that sees the KJV only debate as a political one.
Trevin Wax over at The Gospel Coalition wrote this:
"Occasionally, someone will ask me what I think about the King James Only controversy raging in some of the fundamentalist circles of independent Baptist life. Having grown up around many KJV-Onlyers, I can only express sadness that the conservative independent Baptists continue to separate from each other over unimportant matters.
The fundamentalist movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress.
Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal.
So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others."
The King James Only Controversy
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/trevin-wax/the-king-james-only-controversy/
Leave it to X to take the blog into the ditch again.
You can always spot the troubler dousing (gaslighting) the blog with his gasoline and lighting matches.
Ahead of the curve to abuse people, blogs, topics, you name it, no one goes unscathed.
...the BLM/Antifa /Marxism training has come in handy.....
J,
Regarding:
Tares Among the Wheat - Adullam Films
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjIKwuGvcRE
I have seen this documentary film ... a few years back ... and found it to be very well done, and, informative. I'd be interested to hear what you think of it after viewing.
J said: "This topic was never about RayB, Craig or myself. It was always about God's Word. Could we please return to discussing it?"
I did ... I gave links to Fred Butlers books and Justin Peters Ministries. I discussed 1 John 5:7 above AND while discussing such, mentioned cRay's obvious disengenuous motivations.
The qanon peanut gallery took this off track and then YOU gave trolling qanonymous credit. Did qanonymoust engage in the discussion at all? Where's his input?
Even your words above are disengenous because when you said "the topic was never about "RayB, Craig or myself", why didn't you include "X" in your list and admonish the poster that really took this off tracke and nasty.
x
I'm quite sure that Jesus would not view those who are changing, manipulating or modernizing his WORD here as 'political' but more like 'liars' (moving away from the truth)... but, I'm sure they will get to take that argument up with HIM on Judgement Day.
You don't know my politics. You don't know my beliefs.
I defend RayB as a person. That's Christian.
Whatever Bible versions you read, they all get "thumped" by you.
The temptation to label anyone who doesn't agree with another on this blog as 'qanon' is very immature (not to mention untrue)... especially when the topic is about religion not politics.
For the record, OBVIOUSLY, whenever I make a reference to a book or, an article for that matter, by doing so, I am NOT endorsing EVERYTHING that the author writes. I trust that the reader has enough discernment to be able to judge for themselves as to the validity of the writer's claims. I read Riplinger's book "The New Age Versions" many years ago. It was a gift. Reading it didn't change ANYTHING as far as what I held to be convictions prior to reading that book. On a personal note, outside of the Bible itself, I have NEVER read ANY book that I agreed with 100%, and that would certainly apply to Riplinger's book.
X doesn't think that should be the case, and therefore, holds me accountable for EVERYTHING that is contained in the articles or books that I refer to. Kind of like 'guilt by association.' However, X takes it way beyond that. He labels me a LIAR, holding me personally accountable for EVERYTHING that is written in an article or book ... a VERY serious, unjust slander that he will one day have to give an answer for.
"It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
Thank you Anon @ 7:07 PM
You don't know my politics either. I am defending God's WORD (as originally written, not later re-worded or re-invented by MEN).
I was reading along and taking note of many things expressed here by RayB, J, and Craig, I am merely interested in this discussion and gleaning some information I did not know--no thanks to you, x.
What I did not appreciate was your striking out personally against RayB. Way to go ruining the topic with your input.
You're hateful.
Period.
Anon @ 7:07 PM ...
I agree with you. One of God's final warnings is located in Revelation Chapter 22:18-19
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
Personally, I shutter to think that I endorsed ANY work that took "away from the words of this prophecy." I believe that this pertains to the Bible itself, and not just the Book of Revelation.
Aw..."X" has his feelers bent because J didn't acknowledge his "input".
What a proud and immature soreass.
Tares Amongst the Wheat A Conspiracy Without a Goal
http://www.logosapologia.org/tares-amongst-the-wheat-a-conspiracy-without-a-goal/
Excerpt: "The film is centered on the idea that Codex Sinaticus or “Sinai Bible” was actually created as part of a Vatican conspiracy to undermine biblical inerrancy. I agree with Pinto and others that the Vatican has a vested interest in undermining Sola Scriptura and have argued vigorously that the Bible contradicts Rome’s theological traditions. So the idea is that Rome conspired to forge a Bible that differs significantly from the reformation efforts is plausible. However, Pinto’s conspiracy has huge gaping hole that seems fatal.
After watching the film and hearing Greek New Testament scholar Dan Wallace’s response, I am unconvinced that Codex Sinaticus is a forgery because the conspiracy is fundamentally incoherent. There’s no discernible pay off for the conspirators. The movie did not present any evidence that modern Bibles help Catholic theology in any meaningful way or undermine inerrancy. In fact, I think the opposite is true. The problem for the Tares Amongst the Wheat thesis is that Codex Sinaticus is just as caustic to Rome’s traditions as the King James Version. You would think that if Rome were going to concoct a forgery they might include something about Mary or purgatory but this is not the case. Where’s the payoff for Rome?
Why does Dr. James White, who argues vigorously against Catholic apologists in defense of reformation theology, find the conspiracy to be ridiculous? He comments here. It is because he is aware of the textual critical issues that Pinto is not… the conspiracy is not even possible once you realize what it would necessarily entail. If one bothers to look into textual criticism, you will quickly see that Sinaticus undergirds an entire text type."
...
"However even if we allow for the sake of argument that all of this is a huge Vatican conspiracy, it just doesn’t compel because you can debunk Peter as pope, the mass as a sacrifice, indulgences, and prayers to Mary and the Saints with an NIV. As far as undermining inerrancy, I find the long ending of Mark from Textus Receptus to be much more problematic. “They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.” (Mk 16:18. KJVOpen in Logos Bible Software (if available)) In contrast, the oldest manuscripts of the Alexandrian text type do not have this passage and modern scholars believe it to be a late edition. Unless you are willing to drink a glass of poison to prove your point, it seems to me that the modern scholars have done inerrancy a huge favor."
RayB @ 7:14 PM
Exactly, well said.
And why there is always a dumpster fire post coming from X because his broad brush of smear and mischaracterization is meant to harm people who are not the cut of his cloth.
He's on the devil's team in his armchair religion and politics, both.
Yes, RayB @ 7:21 PM
That is all that I have a problem with... those who 'shall add' or 'shall take away'.
Because, one would have to ask 'why' and 'for what purpose' would someone do that?
qanonymous said: "Aw..."X" has his feelers bent because J didn't acknowledge his "input"."
Why would she? I didn't sign x upon those entries because I wanted to provide input without it being attacked or politicized by you.
I don't care about getting credit. I simply shared my prior anonymous participation to potentially dissuade J of the notion that I did not care about the discussion.
You are the one that gets most bent when I ignore your childish qanon social gospel maga rants. You are the real communist.
x
"I don't care about getting credit."
Keep lying to yourself soreass.
7:21 and 7:40 pm --
"add" or "take away" from what??? the 1611 Authorized KJV version, including the Apocrypha; or, the most common 1769 version of the KJV including thousands of differences compared to the original?
Anon @ 7:39 PM ...
What his goal in life (at least on this blog) is actually to spread discord and "mischief." Here's what the Bible has to say about such wicked behavior:
"The tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully." - Psalm 52:2
"How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence." - Psalm 62:3
"For they sleep not, except they have done mischief; and their sleep is taken away, unless they cause some to fall." - Proverbs 4:16
"Frowardness is in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord."
- Proverbs 6:14
"It is as sport to a fool to do mischief: but a man of understanding hath wisdom."
- Proverbs 10:23
"He that hath a froward heart findeth no good: and he that hath a perverse tongue falleth into mischief." - Proverbs 17:20
"For their heart studieth destruction, and their lips talk of mischief." - Proverbs 24:2
And ... a SEVERE warning:
"He that diligently seeketh good procureth favour: but he that seeketh mischief, it shall come unto him." - Proverbs 11:27
'guilt by association.'
X is a lot more than guilty by association with his progressive socialist globalist NWO/New Age stances right here on a blog that exposes what he constantly excuses, defends, and promotes.
Not to mention he is an absolute jerk while doing so.
Amen RayB at 8:03 PM !
7:55 PM
When there are 'thousands of differences'... those modern versions make a mockery of God's WORD... and you can no longer call it the WORD!!!
Why, and for what purpose, would the original be changed (except for evil purposes)?
qanonymous said: "Why, and for what purpose, would the original be changed (except for evil purposes)?"
One reason --- So we could read it in our own language.
x
Anon 7:55 PM wrote, in response to 7:21 & 7:40 PM:
"add" or "take away" from what??? the 1611 Authorized KJV version, including the Apocrypha; or, the most common 1769 version of the KJV including thousands of differences compared to the original?
This is the baffling part regarding KJV prioritists (onlyists). It’d be one thing if the KJV had remained unchanged (save for maybe some updating to the English); but, this has NOT been the case!
As but one example, Erasmus initially didn’t have a manuscript of the Johannine Comma; so, his first two editions lacked the Comma. In the third it was ADDED. Comparing the first edition to the third edition one would find this difference (and others).
In any case, I think I may have an answer for the disregard for any subsequent KJV changes. See below.
---
To all,
My hunch is that many KJV prioritists are quite sincere in their zeal to defend the KJV over against any other version. This zeal, I think, is driven by a sincere desire to ‘preserve the Word of God’. If I’m correct, then, given any sort of new version which has substantive differences, it is assumed to be ‘changing God’s Word’. With that premise, it’s understandable that these KJV prioritists would vehemently defend what they perceive is the one and only Bible, and, further, that they’d ‘attack’ these new versions. Such individuals would be very willing to accept that evil motives were involved in the new versions.
I’m not meaning to be condescending or disparaging when I say the above or the following. I think individuals with this premise, with this mindset, would experience cognitive dissonance in response to anything that might challenge their stance. By that I mean, it becomes very hard to hold these two thoughts at once: (a) The KJV is the Word of God; and (b) any new version is the Word of God even though there are substantive differences between this new version and the KJV. In other words, in such a mindset, if (a) is true, then it seems difficult to also accept (b).
But this is to have a flawed view of what the Word of God is.
That’s why I made my 7:59 PM comment (yesterday—the first one in this new set of comments). To add to that comment, imagine you are in third century Antioch. Your ‘Bible’ consists of whatever manuscripts are available for you to read—or have read to you. Comparatively, you have a family member living in Alexandria. This family member has only what is available in his locale. The very high likelihood is that there are a few differences between the Antioch (Byzantine) texts and the Alexandrian texts. But this need not mean there were ‘two Bibles’ back then.
Taking this even further, if one lived on the west side of Antioch, and a family member lived on the east side, it may well be that there were differences in their respective manuscripts.
@ 8:28 PM
No politics mentioned by this poster, yet the left's political whore "X" makes reference to a political position regardless (you can bet is a complete misapplication) but still goes there with his q statement. His answer was fine, his smear, disgraceful.
Nothing but antics from you 8:31 PM
And how pathetic he wants and needs J's approval so much he lied that he keeps the topic solely on the up and up and didn't turn the discussion nasty. Like she, or we, can't see his fakery?! LOL
Anon 7:26 PM,
Your source debunking "Tares Against the Wheat" is well-reasoned. But with the benefit of manuscript digitizing, it is now MUCH EASIER. Below is a full copy of Codex Sinaiticus. While it contains a complete NT, the OT is fragmented. It begins at Genesis 21:26, in fragmentary form.
No one can look at this with any honesty and think this is some 19th century forgery:
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx
One can do searches (it takes a bit to figure out how to maneuver the page); and here's Matthew 1:1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=33&lid=en
To zoom in, click on the slider and drag upwards.
Then go to different parts of the OT and NT--you don't have to actually be able to read the Greek, just look around. Note all the markings in the margins. These are corrections. Would we REALLY believe this was penned as it is in order to give it the Czar of Russia?
I was going to go back to the Gail Riplinger book, New Age Bible Versions, just to find an example of a false claim and to share it here. But I ended up concluding that I had been wrong that it was a false claim. Hopefully it won't be too tedious to follow what I mean if I explain it.
In her book she claimed that five occurrences of "head of the corner" in KJV were replaced with "capstone" in NIV. (Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11, 1 Peter 2:7)
In Bible Gateway, NIV also used the wording "head of the corner." I had stopped there the first time I looked. But this time I noticed another search result and clicked on it.
A Bible concordance result for "capstone" came up in my search, even though the text of NIV did not say "capstone."
https://bibleapps.com/c/capstone.htm
On this concordance result, 7 occurrences of "capstone" were returned for NIV.
This prompted me to check into it a little bit more. I was feeling a little bit lost, but then I found this blog post of somebody talking about his 1984 edition of his NIV. In this edition, he says, Psalm 118:22 was rendered:
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the capstone.”
When I look it up on Bible Gateway, the current version of the NIV renders it like this:
"The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone;"
I need to apologize for jumping to conclusions about the Gail Riplinger book without having checked it out more thoroughly first. I didn't even think about older versions of NIV being different than newer versions.
The first printing of Riplinger's book was in 1993.
For Maga cRayQ...
Hebrews 10:24-25: And let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works. Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Psalm 150:1 Praise ye the LORD. Praise God in his sanctuary: praise him in the firmament of his power.
Matthew 18:20: For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
1 Timothy 3:14-15: These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.
Matthew 6:5: And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
Hebrews 10:25: Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.
Isaiah 56:7: Even them will I bring to my holy mountain, and make them joyful in my house of prayer: their burnt offerings and their sacrifices shall be accepted upon mine altar; for mine house shall be called an house of prayer for all people.
Psalm 84:10: For a day in thy courts is better than a thousand. I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness.
Luke 4:16: And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
Acts 2:47: Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.
John 3:16-22: For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
Psalm 122:1: I was glad when they said unto me, Let us go into the house of the LORD.
Romans 12:5: So we, being many, are one body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
Acts 2:42: And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.
Matthew 16:18: And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Ephesians 4:16: From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
I agree, Craig.
I believe God has preserved His Word for us in more than one version, has made sure we have a Shepherd to lead us to Him and keep us in Him (Christ in you, the hope of glory) by His Very Word, so thankfully people everywhere can know the truth that God has provided His Son as our Savior and His Spirit to seal and guide us in our salvation walk of "fear and trembling", generation to generation, in spite of flaws in men (even well intentioned men of any era).
God can and will keep us on track with what He has told us if we are tracking, following Him, obeying Him, as His disciples. And really we answer to Him, not each other.
I feel God is honored in this discussion if we are respectful of one another even though differences occur--this isn't heaven where everything will be rightly and completely understood someday--some things are going to be found mistaken at times since we see through a glass darkly at this moment. (I am not talking about the versions that are horribly off track to change the Gospel, changing the message to appease and fit the fleshly mind, as they are anathema, and God's people-with His discernment, can definitely know the difference and disavow those). The conversation was going well until.....
...what I think grieves the Lord is the personal attacks on persons by bringing politics into this as we saw a person's (rightly called) antics begin, taking an ugly turn. Shameful behavior by one who claims to be a brother.
But do continue between you and RayB and J. I am glad for becoming aware of some points each of you are making.
To All:
Bottom line, it doesn't really matter what I or anyone else thinks.
What matters is what GOD thinks about modern 'versions' or changes to HIS 'WORD' (the Bible).
And I am sure that God will let us ALL know on Judgement Day exactly what HE thinks.
Let's see if I understand this properly ...
The KJV needs to be 'changed' into modern 'English' so that people can properly understand it, yet, to the best of my knowledge, Shakespeare continues to be presented in the "King's English," and people don't seem to struggle with understanding Shakespeare!
Unfortunately, the vast majority of 'changes' to the KJV, Geneva Bible, etc. have a watering down effect upon its meaning. This watering down not only changes the meaning of verses, but, it causes considerable confusion ... and God is NOT the 'author of confusion.'
One aspect regarding 'modern translations' that has not been mentioned; and that is this ... there is a lot of MONEY to be made on each and every sale of copyrighted versions of these modern translations, which could very well be a primary reason why a never ending stream of new versions continue to be published. I personally know people that own 6 or more copies of different modern translations, which I don't think is all that uncommon. Not only is there MONEY in Bible publishing & sales, there is a LOT of money in ANYTHING that is 'religious' in nature. Perhaps that is why Harper Collins (they also own Zondervan, which publishes the New International Version of The Bible) known for decades as being a predominant publisher of Bibles, also published the Satanic Bible !
"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." - 2 Peter 2:2,3
J @ 9:20 PM,
Can you explain what is meant by "head of the corner"? Yeah, me neither.
Looking at the Greek of Matthew 21:42, it is identical in the TR and the Greek text underlying all new versions. So it's a translation issue.
The KJV is being overly-literal here. This was apparently some sort of Greek idiom; but, the basic meaning is cornerstone. Just look at the larger context of these verses.
See commentaries on this:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/21-42.htm
So, basically Riplinger is straining a gnat here.
But here's the real deal on Riplinger's book. She absolutely FAILS to support her thesis, as found in the title of her book: New Age Bible Versions. She has not at all established that these versions are New Age.
9:29 PM,
It would appear the 1984 version of the NIV is worse than the current version. Maybe Providence has been at work improving those modern Bible versions little by little. There must be a few good textual critics at work. Let's hope so.
There is quite a difference between "capstone" (like on top of a pyramid - kind of Masonic, dontcha think?) and "cornerstone."
RayB 9:35 PM,
Not only is there MONEY in Bible publishing & sales, there is a LOT of money in ANYTHING that is 'religious' in nature. Perhaps that is why Harper Collins (they also own Zondervan, which publishes the New International Version of The Bible) known for decades as being a predominant publisher of Bibles, also published the Satanic Bible !
_______________________________________________________________________________________
That's so cringey.
RayB,
You wrote: The KJV needs to be 'changed' into modern 'English' so that people can properly understand it, yet, to the best of my knowledge, Shakespeare continues to be presented in the "King's English," and people don't seem to struggle with understanding Shakespeare!
No one is saying that. If you or anyone else wants to read the KJV instead of a modern version, that's just fine.
You wrote: Unfortunately, the vast majority of 'changes' to the KJV, Geneva Bible, etc. have a watering down effect upon its meaning. This watering down not only changes the meaning of verses, but, it causes considerable confusion ... and God is NOT the 'author of confusion.'
You are the one who continues in confusion. This has already been explained. The new versions have differences as compared to the KJV, not CHANGES to the KJV. As one who has studied history, I don't understand how you can absolutely refuse to acknowledge this. When new evidence is found on a historical event the record is changed to reflect this finding. Right? So, if manuscripts are unearthed that palentologists and other professionals deem predate other manuscripts, shouldn't we accept this historical finding and change the record accordingly?
J @ 9:49 PM,
While "cornerstone" is the better translation, and it's good the NIV has update "capstone", the latter has more than one meaning, including "crowning achievement". I have a '84 edition, and "cornerstone" is listed in the footnote as an alternative. Like you, I prefer this alternative.
RayB @ 9:35 PM
AMEN!!! I am in total agreement with what you wrote here:
Unfortunately, the vast majority of 'changes' to the KJV, Geneva Bible, etc. have a watering down effect upon its meaning. This watering down not only changes the meaning of verses, but, it causes considerable confusion ... and God is NOT the 'author of confusion.'
This needs to sink in with all of us: GOD IS NOT THE AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.
Me personally, I don't really like how the NIV reads.
I do think it is watered down to some extent in what I have read of it because it doesn't state things strong enough in some places but i am not very familiar with it to be honest.
The NKJV and ESV are my other go to's other than KJV. Beyond those I am not all that familiar.
Many years ago I remember the Good News Bible (paperback) was being given away at a church event. I got one, began to read it, and thought---this is not reading like the Bible. I threw it away. KJV, NKJV, and ESV are my go-to's.
I have seen young people, without a lot of Bible knowledge or church background, come to saving knowledge of Christ using the Bible someone gave them in rehab ( I forget the name of the version handed out there, it wasn't familiar to me) and they read and study and walk it out as mere babes right now, but I am blessed by their faith and their love for God's Word. They are hungry, I believe God will feed them. They are clinging to it like their life depends on it--because it does! And I have seen older relatives (now passed away) that swore by their old family Bible, a huge King James Version, and for all their reading and quoting it, they did not know Jesus, just church. Their faith was in their Church going, trying to be good people, and having that big Bible, and a "hope so" belief. They weren't bad people, but they thought they were good people..that was the problem,,.sinners know they are not good--Jesus is Good.
God gives a "know so" faith.....John 20: 30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. 31 But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.........that comes from His Word because trusting Jesus, not religious habits, is still where it's at.
To know the Lord Jesus as Savior is about trusting instead of trying. John 1: 13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I do believe some versions skew that message.
10:31 PM in reply to J at 9:49 PM
This discussion is reaching the point of pointlessness. When individuals continue to anachronistically and erroneously insist that modern versions "have changed" the KJV, that modern versions "have omitted verses" when compared to the KJV, then we're never going to get anywhere in this discussion.
To try once again to set the record straight: The modern versions are using FAR MORE than the dozen or so manuscripts Erasmus used for the TR, which culminated in the KJV translation. So, Erasmus lacked some earlier Greek manuscript texts, which means the TR contains verbiage it should never have contained (e.g. the Johannine Comma), AND it lacks verbiage it should have contained (e.g. "His name and" in Revelation 14:1).
So, the Greek underlying the newer versions more accurately reflects what early Christians read. This Greek text, then, has been translated to English and other languages throughout the world.
This is interesting:
How Gail Riplinger is Stealthily Introducing Jewish Kabbalism (Witchcraft) to Christians Under the Guise of King James Onlyism
It is interesting. But shouldn't we hold Westcott and Hort to the same standard? If it's fair game to look at Gail Riplinger's alleged occult beliefs and practices, it should likewise be fair game to look at the occult beliefs and practices of Westcott and Hort.
If we should stick to studying the texts rather than attacking the individuals, when it comes to Westcott and Hort; then we should stick to what Gail Riplinger wrote about the scripture changes in her New Age Bible Versions book.
What standard would you propose that we should agree to stick with in this discussion?
https://kjbrc.org/why-use-the-king-james-bible/
Are these claims about the Codex Sinaiticus true to your knowledge, Craig?
* Constantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting of four different scribes in the writing of that text.
* The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen’s corrupt source.
* As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex.
* Tischendorf said he “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.”
* Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries.
https://kjbrc.org/why-use-the-king-james-bible/
What about Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine’s Monastery, which was a Greek Orthodox Monistary, by Constantin Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the manuscript until 1859. Constantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting off four different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems! The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen’s corrupt source. As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So much for the oldest!!
"It's a Neat Trick You Rig an Election and then If You Happen to Notice - You Make It Illegal for Them to Run for Office"
thegatewaypundit.com/2022/04/neat-trick-rig-election-happen-notice-make-illegal-run-office-liz-harrington-radical-left-attacks-mtg/
The other main "older = better" Alexandrian text relied upon for modern Bible translations is Codex Vaticanus. Is that correct?
Are these claims about Codex Vaticanus correct?
* “The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.”
* More specifically, the manuscript is faded in places;
* scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century,
* with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries.
* Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts.
https://kjbrc.org/why-use-the-king-james-bible/
For example, we read this about Codex Vaticanus (B) — “The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.” More specifically, the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. Those who study manuscripts say, All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible.Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript “the oldest and the best.”
J,
Let me reiterate: Westcott and Hort have NOTHING do with the current translations. NOTHING. Modern translations are undergirded with Greek text which comes from textual critics of the 20th and 21st centuries, not the 19th.
More to the point, pointing out how Riplinger herself may well be associated with the occult is fair game when you and others are using her book as a source for your claims against such as Westcott and Hort--and modern versions.
Which Greek texts?
Are the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus no longer used?
J @ 9:04 AM
"What standard would you propose that we should agree to stick with in this discussion."
J, It has been more of an egotistical argument than a discussion.
J, Sometimes I cant help but think there is something wrong with your marriage? Your on this blog even more than X, who basically lives here!!!! If my wife spent large chunks of her life on some blog, I would be concerned with balance/wholeness/health, in her life. Obviously there's some problem at your home. Your well received here, but your role as mother, wife, etc. should be of primary concern to other posters here. Not just as a constant 'sounding board', blog administrator.
Just sayin
To Just sayin I think it's great that J has the time to research and comment here. I have no idea what her situation is, but from what I've seen of J's character here, she would not sacrifice marriage and family for this blog. Perhaps the real reason for your unhappiness is that you need to take the beam out of your own eye.
Today is my first day feeling better. I do believe I had a bad reaction to my Covid 19 booster (Moderna) given only 3 days before the fever episodes started. I heard yesterday about another reputable source who said she had the same thing -- several days of fevers after receiving her 3rd booster. Right now, I'm inclined to avoid the extra boosters. I should report the reaction to them, but until today, I've had little stamina and ability to do so.
AND, TO THE ABOVE 6:21 -- in regards to Lara Logan, she is either deceived and/or paid off. Sorry, I buy NOTHING from her! Putin is a complete monster representing pure evil.
Constance
RR
J @ 9:50 AM,
Your sarcasm here is not amusing. If you wish to take the position that those manuscripts are inherently so corrupt as to be unusable, you illustrate your ignorance of textual criticism. (I’ve noted earlier how most ALL manuscripts have marks by later correcters.) Rather than rely on sources promoting KJV-onlyism, why not do as I suggested and get some REAL sources on NT textual criticism? You asked and I'd already listed some earlier. Here's one other, which is very readable:
J. Harold Greenlee The Text of the New Testament
Again, to put in context: The Textus Receptus is made up of about a dozen Greek texts, and this is larger what the KJV is translated from. They are mostly Byzantine, but they are NOT the Majority Text. There are two different partners who've made Greek New Testaments reflecting the Majority Text, which differs markedly from the TR. From Wikipedia:
The New Testament of the King James Version of the Bible was translated from editions of what was to become the Textus Receptus. The different Byzantine "Majority Text" of Hodges & Farstad as well as Robinson & Pierpont is called "Majority" because it is considered to be the Greek text established on the basis of the reading found in the vast majority of the Greek manuscripts. The Textus Receptus differs from the Majority Text in 1,838 Greek readings, of which 1,005 represent "translatable" differences.
In the next section:
The critical Greek New Testament texts of today (represented by UBS/NA Greek New Testaments) are predominantly Alexandrian in nature,[15] but there are some critics such as Robinson and Hodges who still favor the Byzantine Text, and have produced Byzantine-Majority critical editions of the Greek New Testament.[16] Around 6,500 readings differ between the Majority text and the modern critical text (represented by UBS/NA Greek New Testaments), although the two still agree 98% of the time.
Constance,
I'm very sorry (and disappointed) to hear about your current condition and your thinking that it's related to the Moderna booster. I'll pray you get well soon.
Democrat's Bill Would Allow Babies to Be Killed 28 Days AFTER Birth Lawyer Warns
neonnettle.com/features/1958-democrat-s-bill would-allow-babies-to-be-killed-28-days-after-birth-lawyer-warns
No 10:11 AM, that's not it. Obviously your an immature reactionary twit.
Constance @ 10:15 AM
Hind sight is 20/20. Glad you are realizing just how Satanic these experimental 'vaccines' are.
Food Crisis Coming?
endtimesforcaster.blogspot.com/2022/04/food-crisis-coming.html
In previous posts, RayB has successfully made side by side comparisons of various passages of the Bible to PROVE that modern versions of the Bible have indeed been watered down and changed.
So, maybe false pride needs to be put aside long enough to ask the question: What would Jesus do? (regarding all of these MODERN VERSIONS of the Bible).
Why were they changed... and for what purpose? Would Jesus be happy with these changes?
(NOT would anyone on this blog be happy with these changes?)
Constance @ 10:15 AM stated
"Putin is a complete monster representing pure evil"
That is Lucifer's mainstream media narrative. It's complicated, and it's nearly impossible to judge one side as morally superior to the other.
God is allowing these global, and varied apocalyptic events to take place, until He returns to sort everything out according to His perfect judgement, and will.
Constance:
Just want to share here that I have a dear close friend (Mike) who I have known since we were teenagers. He is slim & fit; eats right; gets regular checkups; and walks every single day.
After his third Moderna shot, he collapsed on his living room floor and was rushed to the hospital. He came home with a Pacemaker.
No one wants to make these connectons to the vaccine... but, unfortunately, we are now hearing about (or reading about) too many of these stories all over the world.
Thank you for sharing your update. Happy to hear that you are now feeling better.
To ALL:
I believe that it was Craig who shared this video here on this blog last week.
FYI: The problems between Russia & Ukraine are very complex and go back 8 years to the year 2014.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Former NATO Analyst & Top UN Official Says THIS Is The REAL Reason For War In Ukraine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEIFwLKlq1Q
Living Waters (Ray Comfort's ministry) ...
Gender Is Fluid Until You Bring THIS Up
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7OEbpMopdg
NOTE: Provides fascinating examples of how people REALLY think when you peel away a few layers in order to see what lies beneath the surface. This is the world we live in, and these people are all around us.
Constance,
I'm very sorry to hear about your ailments. Unfortunately, there are countless others that are suffering the same apparent side effects from these experimental 'vaccines.'
IMO, look into boosting your immune system as much as possible. There is a lot of great information out there as to how to do just that. Quercetin, Zinc, Vitamin D-3, Vitamin C (powdered form mixed with water), Organic Green Tea (or supplement), etc. Swanson's Vitamins are a great source for all of this. Dr. Zelenko's Protocol to a good source for dosage amounts. I do know people that are taking a milder dosage on a daily basis for 'maintenance.'
Craig 10:19 PM,
Not sure why you thought I was being sarcastic or amusing. I was asking straightforward and simple questions. I asked what if you thought the KJV only criticisms of the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus are correct. Then I asked if contemporary textual critics still use either of these texts.
My reason for asking both questions was simple: because I do not know. Yes, I am in the process of doing my own research, but you are the resident Greek language translation scholar, so I asked you, too. If you are going to be that thin-skinned about it, I will cease to ask you any further questions.
To my Concern Troll(s), please note the last line of the below scripture: "...which shall not be taken away from her." (KJV) or "...it will not be taken away from her." (NIV).
Jesus With Martha And Mary
Luke 10:38-42 KJV
Luke Chapter 10
38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house.
39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus' feet, and heard his word.
40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me.
41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things:
42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.
Here it is one more time in NIV:
Luke 10:38-42
New International Version
At the Home of Martha and Mary
38 As Jesus and his disciples were on their way, he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him. 39 She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said. 40 But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”
41 “Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, 42 but few things are needed—or indeed only one.[a] Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.”
Glad you are coming out from under what was causing you to feel ill, Constance. I'm sure you're thankful for God's grace to see you through this too.
You certainly aren't the first to have a reaction to the vaccination(s) from the many sources (here and abroad) out there that are learning about what can go wrong with it, and maybe in a short time you'll know what really caused the problem, but hoping you have no long term effects from whatever.
GI hope you get better and stronger quickly, Constance.
Constance,
I'm so glad you have recovered from your poor reaction to your booster enough to comment here again, and I'm sorry you had to go through it.
I admire the mixture of grace, humility, courage and honesty that you displayed by sharing your true story.
I hope to read more of your blog articles very soon, as you feel strong enough.
Biden and those behind him to prop him up--Obama and Soros, etc--are nonstop evil.
Putin is not alone in that!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secretive-soros-funded-group-works-behind-scenes-biden-admin-policy-documents
Much more needs to come out about this monster's very broad network of radical social engineering projects. His work against America has been going on for decades.
11:13 am
Since when are "top UN officials" trustworthy?
Jacques Baud is also an author peddling a new book and quoted sometimes online as a "secret service" expert with current?/historical knowledge of CIA and French Secret Service activities back to the 1960's.
I have no idea...but I bet he's roman catholic.
As a student of history (not an expert), I simply share my gut feeling why individuals such as Jacques Baud would go to such lengths to portend that Putin has any justification for invading eastern Ukraine. I think it's because Putin is not a communist. Opus Dei and other roman catholic organizations (and their ecumenical partners in eastern orthodox organizations) are fine with supporting one authoritarian leader. It's certainly much cheaper and easier to control one strongman than take over a democracy/republic like the United States (via the republican party). Eastern Ukraine is largely populated by people of Russian descent. They generally hate Putin; however, the ones that do like or support Russia at all may just harbor nostalgia for their motherland and it's old Communist Russia. The one world religion guys would prefer to just have Putin in charge and need to/prefer to give Putin political and ideological cover. They likely do so for money (as I've seen on Twitter where there are accusations Jacques Baud is on the take from Putin) or they do it to combat what they fear most...ANY possible conceivable no matter how remote...communist sentiments that MAY exist in Eastern Ukraine (or Greater Ukraine). Basically an eastern version of Lind's 4th generation war. You are either with us or you are a nazi sympathizer.
One fact that doesn't ring true to me bout such stories of extreme nazi'ism in eastern Ukraine was the fact so many international students (80,470 total including 4,379 from Nigeria alone) attending university in Ukraine in 2019. Two major universities in Kharkiv alone host about 9,000 of those students. PBS did a story about the all the Nigerian students fleeing the war and the interviews describe a very welcoming Ukraine prior to this war and the most mistreatment these student received were at evacuation terminals and borders tryig to escape.
I looked at surrounding countries and Slovakia has only 15,775 international students, Poland 78,259, Hungary 33,000 and Romania just 27,000. I just figured the number of international student might be an indication of the LACK of overwhelming nazi sentiments in the citizenry (unfortunately, it's never the lack thereof).
x
Please pay close attention to this last sentence in the quote, and give it careful thought:
"Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection."
Did you get that? "...which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection."
That's a potential controversy over a basic doctrine. It wouldn't get much more basic than the resurrection, would it? This isn't from a KJV only source. It's from the Biblical Archeology Society.
Are you prepared to defend the resurrection of Jesus Christ in the future when the next revisions come out perhaps five, ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now REMOVING the resurrection because "older is better?"
What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament?
Compare differences between the King James Version and Codex Sinaiticus
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/absent-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/
The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.
J,
Given that you keep referencing Westcott and Hort, sourcing from various websites that disparage Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, plus your recent comments in this vein, and the implication/assertions from you via these websites that modern versions are essentially built on these same manuscripts, what else am I to think? This despite what I wrote @ 8:34 AM (yesterday) above:
Criticisms of and personal attacks against Westcott and Hort are really non sequiturs. Modern versions are not ‘built on’ W-H; they are the result of textual criticism using what is called an eclectic method—in weighing the various manuscripts it considers a number of factors. Most textual critics use what is further described as reasoned eclecticism. Yet, it is true that the Alexandrian manuscripts are usually given favor, primarily because of their earlier datings.
To maybe make this clearer: These Alexandrian manuscripts include Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
To X @ 12:15 PM
Re: "Since when are "top UN officials" trustworthy?" (Or, your 'gut feeling'?)
__________________________________________________________________________________________
Since when are the Globalist-controlled mainstream news media 'trustworthy'?
In a FREE press, the entire 8 year history (from 2014-2022) of all of the complexities of what has been happening between Ukraine and Russia SHOULD be considered, in order for the world to understand exactly what brought Putin to the point of having to take last resort-action against Ukraine.
J,
In quoting another, you wrote: "Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection."
This is a non sequitur. We have other Gospels that explicitly affirm the Resurrection. And, it's largely assumed the original ending of Mark's Gospel has not yet been found. The 'long ending' in the KJV (there's a note in the ESV regarding this, by the way) varies in language and style with the rest of Mark's Gospel, though it's internally consistent. Moreover, those who accept this as original are committed to continuationism, in a rather extreme form.
See my blog post (which I'd also referenced above): Charismatic Ramifications on the “Long Ending” of Mark’s Gospel
Have you handled snakes and drank poison?
To J @ 11:47 AM:
Re: "To my Concern Troll(s)"
__________________________________________________________________________________________
FYI: Not everyone who disagrees with you is a 'troll' (even though it's so easy to be dismissive of those who may disagree with you).
(Just like X dismisses anyone who disagrees with him by labeling them 'qanon'.)
This is a blog of open discussions. Everyone has a right to their input.
Most of us just have our opinions (WITHOUT any agenda whatsoever).
Issues are not all black and white in this world (or on this blog).
Craig 1:12 PM,
You raise many more questions than you answer, but I will ask you no longer. I'm continuing my study. Thank you for weighing in.
I'm sharing this not just for you, Craig, though of course you can comment if you wish. This is for general interest since many have commented on this thread.
The author of this article - from the same source as my last link and not a KJV-only source - the Biblical Archeology Society - says that the gospel of Mark contains no account of the virgin birth.
To repeat: No account of the virgin birth.
I'm sharing this with all because it is of interest to me and I think it will be of interest to others. I am learning as I go and perhaps so are others.
The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/the-strange-ending-of-the-gospel-of-mark-and-why-it-makes-all-the-difference/
x @1:29
Thank you so much for that indiscretion on your part.
It really helps to see where you're coming from.
p.s. I think you may have meant to write Mongoloid, not Mongolian, but either way...
whoops, meant x@ 1:27,
J,
If you would take the time to read the (relatively short) blog post, some of your questions might get answered. I admit to being a bit frustrated, as I took quite a bit of time to write a number of my recent comments here, and these seem to be ignored by you.
Here's an informative blog post the long ending of Mark by textual critic Daniel Wallace. In it, he refers to and references another book on the broader subject of NT textual criticism: Can We Still Believe the Bible?
As an aside, I don't feel the need (and don't wish to spend the time) to answer every conspiracy theory by KJVonly advocates. Again, I recommend you search out more scholarly sources as opposed to secondary ones which end up being reductionistic, and/or which have an ax to grind/agenda to further.
@1:36 PM
I did indeed mean to write 'Mongoloid'.
Did you know that Osborne was second only to Einstein in his day as a scientist?
x
Maybe I'm skimming too much of author Dr. James Tabor of Biblical Archaeology, but he seems to contradict himself. Perhaps I'm wrong.
And he appears not to fully grasp the Synoptic Problem.
The following, from your most recent reference to Tabor, supports part of my blog post:
"This original ending of Mark [at verse 8] was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking..."
CORRECTION to above: ...not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament... No, I don't affirm that, and I don't know who does. He claims Tischendorf did, but I'd like to see a quote in proper context for this. Where Mark fits in the sequence of Gospel writings has no bearing on this issue at all.
Obviously not me posting as x above.
The Putin loving impersonation must be talking about Henry Fairfield Osborn, not Henry Fairchild Osborne.
He was only second to Einstein in NOTORIETY as a scientist in his day. He was a great showman and curator for museums; but, a third-rate scientist whose life work, theories and opinions didn't stand up to the test of time.
Osborn was a flagrant racist and anti-Semite, an admirer of Adolf Hitler (and the feelings were mutual) and a strong supporter of research in eugenics. Osborn regularly used his clout to bring material harm to the American working class, lobbying for legislation including the Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924. For what it’s worth, Osborn was also apparently unbearably arrogant and truly dreadful to work with, going as far as to demand lower-ranked museum employees leave the elevator car when he got on.
In other words...elitist nazi-sympathicizing scum.
x
After an opening preface, the following is the beginning of my short blog article on the 'long ending' of Mark:
The Long and the Short of It
For quite some time, it has been the scholarly consensus that the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark, i.e., the last 12 verses (16:9-20), is not original to the Gospel, even though there are many manuscripts that include this text.1 While there are those who assert that the long ending is indeed original, they are well within the minority among NT scholars and textual critics. The vocabulary and style of the Greek in the long ending is substantially different than the remainder of Mark’s Gospel.2 In addition, the associated manuscript evidence points rather decisively to the inauthenticity of these verses.3
There is even a so-called “short ending” in one extant Old Latin manuscript. This short ending consists of a small amount of text following verse 8, about the equivalent of one long Biblical verse or two shorter ones. While this is found as the ending to Mark’s Gospel in only one manuscript, there is yet another variation in which the long ending is appended to the short ending.4 All three – the predominant long ending, the lone short ending, and the combination of short ending followed by long ending – are almost universally rejected, and identified as spurious.
Some are of the opinion that the Gospel of Mark simply concludes at verse 8. However, in view of the fact that verse 8 ends rather abruptly with frightened women at the tomb, and, secondarily, that the very last word is a conjunction (the word γάρ, transliterated gar, meaning for, since, or because), others believe the original ending has been lost, or that the Gospel writer just did not finish the work for some unknown reason.5 These may well be factors that influenced the writer of the long ending (assumed to be one lone author by the internal consistency of the text).
x,
You're probably right about the imposter posting as you.
You ain't that clever to post your own fakery to get sympathy, right?
And now 'KJV only' posters are being dismissed as conspiracy theorists?
When, in fact, we are 'on the side' of the truth... and fighting against any tampering with the original WORDS as originally spoken by Jesus and His disciples.
(How can this blog ever recover and be taken seriously, until a few of you take a good long look at yourselves in the mirror? And also learn to leave your egos at the door.)
2:40 pm said: "And now 'KJV only' posters are being dismissed as conspiracy theorists? When, in fact, we are 'on the side' of the truth... and fighting against any tampering with the original WORDS as originally spoken by Jesus and His disciples. (How can this blog ever recover and be taken seriously, until a few of you take a good long look at yourselves in the mirror? And also learn to leave your egos at the door.)"
This is certainly Russian troll behavior.
Russian trolls and bots simply focus on controversial topics in an effort to stoke political division. A fight for fights sake while we overlook Putin's unprovoked land-grab genocide in Ukraine.
Notice this entry doesn't engage in the subject at all. They don't know or really care what the controversy or about resolving it. They simply stoke it. It also comes on the heals of me insulting Putin and then someone impersonating me and listing some random racist early 19th century writer whose "eugenics" opinions must be alive and well in Russia. I'd never heard of the guy before.
Surely some uneducated kid somewhere in Russia or Russian controlled area and certainly not a Christian.
x
p.s.- Putin is a fanny
J: The Virgin birth was covered by Matthew...
Matthew 1:18-25
18 Now the generation of Christ was in this wise. When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child, of the Holy Ghost.
19 Whereupon Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing publicly to expose her, was minded to put her away privately.
20 But while he thought on these things, behold the angel of the Lord appeared to him in his sleep, saying: Joseph, son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife, for that which is conceived in her, is of the Holy Ghost.
21 And she shall bring forth a son: and thou shalt call his name JESUS. For he shall save his people from their sins.
22 Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying:
23 Behold a VIRGIN shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
24 And Joseph rising up from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord had commanded him, and took unto him his wife.
25 And he knew her not till she brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
Craig 1:49 PM,
You seem to be more thin skinned with me more easily than with any other commenter here.
Very have anonymous friends or an anonymous friend who becomes very mean to me if I am perceived as crossing you.
You, yourself, tell me you don't have time to, or you shouldn't have to go through this or that with me.
I'm sorry you feel ignored. I feel ignored frequently, too, but I'm completely used to it and utterly desensitized to it.
Have you considered maybe RayB feels ignored? Maybe the many people who said that God is not the author of confusion feel ignored?
I'm going to take some time to read through some of your blog posts you linked, but frankly so far, when I've looked at them, they are saying a little about a lot. I'm asking about basic questions. I don't see basic answers from you.
You're a scholar, so you're writing as a scholar should. I don't fault you for writing in that way, saying a lot about a little, rather than saying a little about a lot.
But I'm asking basic FAQ type questions. I'm asking a lot about a little. I'm asking basic questions. You have not yet given me a straight or simple answer to my basic questions.
Maybe I need to accept that a straight or simple answer does not exist. Maybe I have an unreasonable expectation for such. That's quite possible. I've not yet made up my mind. I will make up my own mind about that after I am comfortable with my own length of time spent on my own study.
You come across to me as if you expect me to treat you as a student would treat a professor in a classroom.
Even when I tell you I'm not addressing something to you in order to debate with you, you feel the need to chime in, but then you make comments to the effect that you resent having needed to chime in once more to correct what I said. It comes across as if you think you are entitled to be treated as the final authority on textual criticism in this comment section.
I originally stubbed my toe on this topic. I didn't even start a debate about it. If you recall, you are the one who originally brought it up, when you found it in passing, in a blog article about "peitho." I was interested in "peitho" and was respectful of your opinion about it. You noted that the author of the article recommended KJV only. You took issue with that. You are the one who made it into an issue.
Since that time my interest and knowledge has grown by leaps and bounds. I have much study left to do.
Correction: I meant to say that your blog articles have seemed to me to be saying a lot about a little. Again, this is not a criticism. It is normal for scholarly type writing.
Again, I have basic questions. I'm asking a little about a lot.
That's what I meant to say.
You resented my simple, straightforward question about whether contemporary textual critics still rely heavily upon the Codex Sinaiticus. You said you didn't appreciate my sarcasm or attempt to be amusing. I have no idea how that was either sarcastic or amusing, but it's exactly the type of thing a professor would say to a student.
Except the professor would have answered basic questions, too, maybe. Although my experience with professors is that if you ask them a question, they answer ten questions you didn't ask, and they don't always answer the question you asked. My lawyer is the same.
"Russian trolls and bots simply focus on controversial topics in an effort to stoke political division. A fight for fights sake"
Exactly what we have all come to expect of you, X. You are not helping yourself one bit.
Only once is a while do you post actual useful information, but all else is somebody who disagrees with you getting a beatdown from you in some determined misapplication of who they are and what they actually say....relentless to turn every topic into a political bar fight. I think you should stop that.
In your defense, and I do hate (as well as for others getting the same treatment) you are targeted by an imposter who is especially egregious in his posts and it is truly unfair and I know not true of you. I can tell the difference.
On the subject of Russian bots and trolls....Another thing about that Kim Iverson story, from The Hill, with the "real ukraine" article written by Jacques Baud....
Kim Iverson used to work for Russia Today. Iversen was an employee of Russia Today America.
Surely everyone knows who Tokyo Rose was? There were several women (not one) who would play pop music on shortwave radio interspersed with comments like "Come on USA GI, why are you here...you know your girl back home is not going to wait for you....it is so bad....you are losing..." and propoganda like that.
Well, this is what Kim Iversen of Russia Today (owned, operate, and funded by the Kremlin) Tweeted out before the war -
Feb 22, 2022: "Ukraine shouldn’t fight back. No one should. Let it go."
Feb 25, 2022: "If Ukraine fights back it will be devastating and the outcome won’t be any different. They can’t fight Russia on this, no one can. Best to let it go for now and use democracy in the future. Don’t kill yourselves. Seriously."
https://twitter.com/kimiversenshow/status/1497059195199246337
She offers no proof, no links, no interviews, to substantiate the propaganda she just repeats as the "real story"..and has a history of being paid by the Kremlin (or was until Russia Today America closed down).
Take that as you will.
x
X sure does have a lot of free time on it's hands, doesn't it?
Me thinks that X has a lot of time to post comments to (and talk to) himself. LOL
It used to be 'orange man bad'... now the mantra is 'Putin bad'.
It's not one or the other...both Trump and Putin are pedophiles.
Trump with his wing-man Epstein and Putin with boys in Moscow.
"Murdered spy claimed Putin was caught on film having sex with boys in same Moscow flat where Russian prosecutor was secretly taped cavorting with two pro$titutes"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3411766/Litvinenko-claimed-Putin-caught-film-having-sex-boys.html
As I was preparing a comment on Gail A. Riplinger’s book New Age Bible Versions, I came across a number of ‘errors’. I’m using the Internet Archive version, so others can see what I’m referring to:
archive.org/details/NewAgeBibleVersionsRiplinger/
At the bottom of the page 339 (pdf 350) she quotes Westcott; however, she conflates two separate contexts of two separate books. This is only discoverable by going to her footnote 87 (p 670/pdf 682). But in looking at the text she ‘cites’ on the page (339) one cannot determine which part goes to which work, for she doesn’t differentiate at all. However, since I have the first reference, his commentary on John’s Gospel, I found it by doing a keyword search. Not surprisingly, she selects half a sentence (with no ellipsis to indicate this), which completely distorts his intent.
Westcott is commenting on John 10:30 I and the Father are one. Below is his quote, with the bold indicating the portion she yanked from its context:
It seems clear that the unity spoken of cannot fall short of essence. The thought springs from the equality of power (my hand, the Father’s hand); but infinite power is an essential attribute of God; and it is impossible that two beings distinct in essence could be equal in power.
In other words, since the Father and the Son have equal power, their essence must be one and the same, as opposed to two separate individual ‘essences’. The two are ONE!
On the same page as the Westcott quote, she also confidently asserts that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were commissioned by Constantine; however, this is actually unprovable: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Bibles_of_Constantine.
On this same page she cites some manuscript evidence in John 1:18. While she is not incorrect that Tertullian supports “unbegotten Son” here, she distorts this evidence as definitive support. Though early Church Fathers and early Church writers are important, they are never used as primary evidence for any reading, because we don’t know if said document is original to the writer, or if it came from someone else who copied it, etc.
She also cites Arius as support for “unbegotten God” here; however, to my knowledge Arius is never used for any reading, and my copy of the UBS Greek New Testament lacks any mention of him. More positively, her citing of the other manuscript evidence supporting “unbegotten God” is mostly complete.
And her quote of Alan Wikgren is correct, though he actually used the Greek in this context, as opposed to the English as Riplinger ‘quotes’ him. Had she put this in brackets, it would have been fine, though she also should have provided ellipses after her citation, since he had more to say here. But note his comment that this may have been a “primitive, transcriptional error”, as opposed to a purposeful change, like she is implying otherwise. (Wikgren disagreed with the overwhelming majority opinion on this variant [“unbegotten God” vs. “unbegotten Son”].)
Those are not the only errors on that one page.
And recall that Gail Riplinger authors her book “G. A. Riplinger”, which she claims means “God And Riplinger” because it was the “direct hand of God” guiding her, so it signifies “God as author and Riplinger as secretary . . . . ” This is no different than most of Alice A. Bailey’s works and Helen Schucman’s A Course in Miracles.
Orange man bad. Putin bad. Booster shots are bad!
X, well, he is even worse.
@ 7:58 PM
No kidding. Good calling that trash talk what it is.
Slanders and gossips abound these days.
No proof just hit and run lying.
People need to realize they will answer to God for the words they speak.
That should give 8:08 PM some pause...well at least you hope so.
You are either naive, dense or live in an igloo.
"Donald Trump's Sexual Assault Accuser Claims Jeffrey Epstein Was The Former President's 'Wingman' With Seducing Women: 'It Was A Game To Them'"
https://okmagazine.com/p/donald-trump-sexual-assault-accuser-jeffrey-epstein-former-president-wingman/
Maxwell case logs show how frequently Trump flew on Epstein jets; Bill Clinton, too
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article256740662.html
Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Excerpt:
"Donald Trump...has been accused of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, including non-consensual kissing or groping, by at least 25 women since the 1970s. The accusations have resulted in three instances of litigation: his then-wife Ivana made a rape claim during their 1989 divorce litigation but later recanted that claim; businesswoman Jill Harth sued Trump in 1997 alleging breach of contract while also suing for sexual harassment but agreed to forfeit her sexual harassment claim as part of a settlement she received relating to the former suit; and, in 2017, former The Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos filed a defamation lawsuit after Trump accused her of lying about her sexual misconduct allegations against him.
...
Trump was recorded bragging that a celebrity like himself "can do anything" to women, including "just start kissing them ... I don't even wait" and "grab 'em by the pussy". Trump subsequently characterized those comments as "locker room talk" and denied actually behaving that way toward women, and he also apologized for the crude language. Many of his accusers stated that Trump's denials provoked them into going public with their allegations.
Another type of accusation was made, primarily after the audio recording surfaced, by several former Miss USA and Miss Teen USA contestants, who accused Trump of entering the dressing rooms of beauty pageant contestants. Trump, who owned the Miss Universe franchise, which includes both pageants, was accused of going into dressing rooms in 1997, 2000, 2001, and 2006, while contestants were in various stages of undress. Trump had already referred to this practice during a 2005 interview on The Howard Stern Show, saying he could "get away with things like that" because he owned the beauty pageants the women and girls were competing in..."
I'm just raising issues as I research. People can research on their own or comment or not as they wish. It's not aimed at any particular commenter.
One claim I have encountered is that, if you accept the Alexandrian texts for the New Testament, you also need to accept the Septaguint for the Old Testament.
The Septaguint is in Greek. It contains the Apocrypha.
So if you accept the Septuagint, you also need to accept the Apocrypha. That would mean accepting Catholic doctrines like purgatory, for instance.
I'm sorry to keep on bringing up so many things in quick succession.
I truly feel as if I stubbed my toe on a can of worms, and ever since, I've been trying to gather the slippery things.
Of course, the can was opened long ago, before I stumbled upon it. None of the issues will be decided here in this blog.
It's not about any commenter here.
Craig, it's not meant as an accusation of you. You don't need to defend against it. It's just a problem I noticed and raised.
For all I know, Craig, you could be part of a team of text critics in the future who defend the biblical doctrines. I really have no idea at all.
P.S. "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Jots are Hebrew letters. Tittles are marks between Hebrew letters. Jesus could not have studied the Septaguint.
Mariah Billado, Victoria Hughes, and three other Miss Teen USA contestants (1997)
Mariah Billado, Miss Vermont Teen USA, is one of five women to mention such a dressing room visit incident in 1997. Billado said of the visit: "I remember putting on my dress really quick, because I was like, 'Oh my god, there's a man in here.' Trump, she recalled, said something like, 'Don't worry, ladies, I've seen it all before.'" Billado recalled talking to Ivanka, Trump's daughter, who responded "Yeah, he does that." Victoria Hughes, Miss New Mexico Teen USA, also said Trump did conduct a dressing room visit, and that the youngest contestant there was The dressing room had 51 contestants, each with their own stations.
Bridget Sullivan (2000)
In 2000, Bridget Sullivan was Miss New Hampshire USA. As she prepared for a television broadcast, Trump allegedly walked into the dressing room. She told BuzzFeed he was coming to wish the contestants good luck, but they "were all naked".
Tasha Dixon (2001)
Tasha Dixon, Miss Arizona USA 2001, told a CBS affiliate in Los Angeles that in 2001, "[Trump] just came strolling right in. There was no second to put a robe on or any sort of clothing or anything. Some girls were topless, other girls were naked." She said that having been walked in on when the women had little or no clothes put them in a "very physically vulnerable position, and then to have the pressure of the people that work for him telling us to go fawn all over him, go walk up to him, talk to him ..."
Unnamed contestants (2001)
An unnamed Miss USA contestant said that in 2001 Trump walked into her dressing room unannounced while she and another contestant were undressed. She told The Guardian Trump "just barged right in, didn't say anything, stood there and stared at us. ... He didn't walk in and say, 'Oh, I'm so sorry, I was looking for someone.' He walked in, he stood and he stared. He was doing it because he knew that he could." Another contestant told The Guardian the contestant had spoken to others of this event at the time.
Samantha Holvey (2006)
On October 14, 2016, Samantha Carol Holvey, Miss North Carolina USA 2006, related that "Trump's conduct was 'creepy' around the women participating but he never made an advance toward her." She also said that before pageant events, Trump had "moved into areas where she and other contestants were getting ready", and that she had "never been around men that were like that". More than a year after Trump was elected president, and after many high-profile men, such as Harvey Weinstein, had lost their jobs because of sexual harassment allegations, Holvey wrote: "You can't work in Hollywood if you're a sexual predator, but you can become the commander-in-chief?" She then related how Trump made her feel very uncomfortable at the 2006 Miss USA pageant: "He eyed me like a piece of meat. I was shocked and disgusted. I have never felt so objectified. I left the meet-and-greet hoping that this would be my one and only encounter with him." She also described how he had come backstage unannounced, with Melania Trump: "I was shocked—again—by this violation of our personal space. What was he doing, coming backstage when we were still getting dressed?"
J @ 8:34, 37 PM,
In the NT, in both the TR and the Greek text from which modern versions are written, the same GREEK words are used in Matthew 5:18: iōta and keraia. These DO refer to the ‘jot’ and tittle’of Hebrew. But one must bear in mind that the Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew by Jewish scholars ca. 3rd century BC to 132BC. And many quotes of Jesus and NT writers come from the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew Masoretic text.
The apocrypha were included in original KJV Bibles for some time (don’t recall how long off the top of my head), and I have an Oxford softcover copy with these writings between the OT and the NT. Just because they were in the KJV editions didn’t mean they were regarded as Scripture. They weren’t.
To add to my 8:56 PM comment, the original KJV (and some subsequent editions) is made up of the Hebrew Masoretic text for the OT, the Septuagint (LXX) for the apocrypha, and the TR for the NT.
7:58 PM
Former President Trump was, and is, the most investigated man of all time. If the garbage @ 8:31 pm is true that would have been uncovered. Long time ago. No stone was unturned, many wannabe scandals fizzled on contact, yet TDS continues.
But what we know is for all the extreme effort, time, and money spent, to bring him down on his ethics and find scandals that would actually stick, well, nothing has come of it. But not for lack of trying that's for sure. His one time crooked lawyer just one example of the opportunists trying to bring him down, yet didn't. Big media has given itself big hernias trying so hard to wreck him. They are the wreck (I love it)..
Trump's loud, unrestrained mouth got him in trouble at times, words caused problems and complications, but his actions really did not. The truth is the truth about that and we could all see and hear that for ourselves. The egos that surrounded him were as big as his was, and now they write books no one will read because they all sound the same. Bitter. Most people, reasonable people can see that a mile away. What he did was what I paid attention to..and I was thankful to be able to vote for what he stood for--he stood with regular America.
D.C. does not stand with us...and hasn't for a very long time.
I think the Democrats have so successfully cooked the goose that thing is charred. I don't think there will be voting ever again in this country.
I can hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.
James 5:16:
KJV: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.
NIV: Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.
NASB:Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.
The bold reflects the same Greek word underlying all three. Why the different translation? Elsewhere in the KJV, this same Greek word is rendered sin. Curious.
This clip below contains the context of the of the “Palmer” quote at the bottom of the same page (339/pdf 350) referenced in my earlier comment (@ 7:39 PM). His name is Edwin Palmer, and Riplinger cites him out of context, apparently because she doesn’t understand (or she purposefully confuses?) the historic doctrine of the Father begetting the Son in the Trinity from eternity ‘past’.
Gail Riplinger vs. James White, 1993, KRDS Radio Part III
After White sets her straight about both the Palmer quote and the reference to the Trinity—as opposed to the Incarnation—they discuss the word translated “begotten” in the KJV and a few other translations: monogenēs. This is a compound word made up of monos, “only”, and genos, “kind”. The unfortunate translation of “begotten” comes from an error in equating this word with monos + gennaō, which is the verb for “beget” (note the two “n”s in the Greek transliteration). [This verb gennaō is used at the end of 1:13 for children of God, so 1:14 is likely to contrast with it.] Listen to White explain it. I’ll return to this later.
While the context for the above stops at about the 5 minute mark, note White’s response to her claim of new versions ‘missing words’: Note the use of the phrase “missing words.” This is the common error of KJV Onlyists: they make the KJV the standard, but never give a logical reason why we should do so.
Howz about that:
Oh, So NOW They Care About Social Media & Its Influence...INTERESTING
Memology 102
The hypocrisy is just too much.
Nice Non Sequitur Fallacy
The democrats and Biden have been concerned about fake news and anti-American Maga Qanon propaganda on social media for years. The 2016 election was "stolen" from Hillary Clinton largely due to Russian disinformation and manipulation of Facebook algorithms preying on fears of the uneducated. Likewise, it's also not surprising the White House didn't and doesn't give two hoots that Trump was suspended on Twitter for 2 years for violations of their user policies.
Undermining national interests and allowing essentially, murderers and purveyors of deadly propaganda like Sherri Tenpenny, Joe Mercola, natural news, Dr. Malone, etc should be censored when they post or share deadly disinformation for profit on social media.
Also maybe censoring or limiting pedophiles access to trolling social media for children is hopefully something Republicans can get on board with Biden in a bipartisan fashion to keep guys like Matt Gaetz and others from grooming children on free for all alt-right Twitter.
x
This blog is beginning to stink with the toxic posts of delusional X as he posts lie after lie of a combination of propaganda and wishful thinking.
qanonymous @ 12:38 am
Don't you care about the children or do you support pedophiles using an unmoderated alt-right twitter to groom and recruit children?
Pedophiles and adulterers, is there anyone you won't defend?
x
Anyone who supports O'Biden and Hillary does NOT support children. Peddle your lies somewhere else, ignoramous.
It's always good to be aware of both sides of a story whenever possible.
I've become quite amazed to watch Gail Riplinger become attacked in exactly the same type of way that X attacks most conservative media shared here.
I see no reason for Mike Adams, Elon Musk and Russell Brand to be "in"; while Gail Riplinger is "out."
Gail Riplinger wrote a whole book answering her critics. The book was called, Blind Guides.
She says that James White, for at least one critic, has changed her quotes.
A pdf of Blind Guides can be downloaded here.
http://nashpublications.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/King_James_Bible/Riplinger_Books/BLIND-GUIDES.pdf
I'm sure she's not a perfect person, but neither is Donald Trump. What gives?
J,
How many misquotes of Riplinger need to be cited for you to be satisfied that she continuously misquotes individuals? I'd just noted a few regarding Edwin Palmer @ 9:59 PM, and I noted her mis-citation of Westcott @ 7:39 PM. And I'd mentioned a couple more mis-citations of Westcott in the previous 200 comments.
I'd really like to know.
A careful reading shows multiple mis-citation errors on each page!
fanny?
x is most likely gay.
x has a cushy desk jocky job where it sits and does nothing all day except to troll this blog site and probably others as well.
x has no real reason for it's existence other than to kill, to steal and to destroy.
I'll bet that x is paid very well for it's "service".
Craig,
Is misquoting scholars worse than misquoting God?
J,
Since you are defending Riplinger, in view of your 8:14 AM, would you care to provide one piece of evidence that James White misquoted her (or misquoted her mis-citations)? If it's something in White's The King James Only Controversy, I can verify it by directly quoting it here.
J,
What do you mean by "misquoting God"?
Craig,
Just a few posts above I shared a pdf copy of "Blind Guides." Does that count for one piece of evidence?
If you would bother to read New Age Bible Versions, you would find in the first few chapters, abundant examples of misquoting God. That would be before the chapters about Westcott and Hort, which come later, and which seem to be the only ones you care about.
Keep in mind that some of her examples will not be proved by the updated NIV and NASB but can be proved by looking in and older edition of the NIV or NASB. I already commented about that. She wrote her book in 1993.
J,
With respect, you've not yet defined what "misquoting God" means. If you mean the modern versions are DIFFERENT in some ways as compared to the KJV, then, yes, they are DIFFERENT. The issue then is which Greek text is original. Is it those few manuscripts underlying the KJV, or is it the plethora of manuscripts weighed against one another that the modern versions are translated from?
J,
My point was to find one of Riplinger's quotes and then compare it directly with one of James White's quotes. You are the one who provided the work, claiming that Riplinger "says that James White, for at least one critic, has changed her quotes." Can you cite and verify? If you'll provide one example you'd like to test, I'll quote directly from White's book.
Craig, and J,
Why don't you start your own blog!
Between you two and X, your taking up the whole comments section.
Come out of your myopic little world, and get a life!
My bigger concern with J @ 8:14 AM is that there is so such thing as 'both sides of a story' when it comes to the Bible. There is only one side: the TRUTH.
And what does Mike Adams, Elon Musk and Russell Brand have to do with modern versions of the Bible? Politics and religion are two separate subjects.
J,
Here’s one example:
Riplinger (Blind Guides, p 35/pdf 39; all emphasis Riplinger’s): “[James] White ALTERS a quote by Edwin Palmer to give his reader the impression that my Palmer citation is a ‘gross misuse of his words.’ Both Palmer and my quotation of him say “few clear and decisive texts.” (p. 305, New Age Bible Versions and p. 143, The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation) White places my quote next to his trumped up quote in a chart headed “What Dr. Palmer Actually Said.” White adds the word “and” (“few clear and decisive texts”) to give the impression that I have grossly miscited the man . . .”.
Now, first we’ll quote Riplinger from New Age Bible Versions (p 305/pdf 316):
Under the century old spell of Westcott and Hort Greek Text, NIV editor Edwin Palmer comes to his chilling theological conclusion!:
‘[There are] few clear and decisive texts that declare Jesus is God.’
That sounds really bad! But it’s about 180 degrees from Palmer’s quote in context. White provides the rest, which pertains to John 1:18 in most modern versions (The King James Only Controversy, p 103):
What Dr. Palmer Actually Said
John 1:18, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is one of those few clear and decisive texts that declare that Jesus is God. But, without fault of its own, the KJV, following inferior manuscripts, altered what the Holy Spirit said through John, calling Jesus “Son.”
So, the “trumped up quote” is actually a fuller citation to provide more accurate context.
In his footnote here (p 123, nt 18) White does concede that in the first printing he erroneously added an “and”: “In the first printing of The King James Only Controversy, I incorrectly cited Dr. Palmer as saying that John 1:18 is one of those “few and clear and decisive texts,” the first “and” being mistakenly added. The reader can see that this in no way alters the complete misuse of the passage by Riplinger.”
So, in Riplinger’s counterclaim that White miscited her citation of Palmer, she completely leaves out the main part of White’s citation of Palmer, which provides a fuller context, thereby proving Riplinger really did miscite him.
Does this sound like an honest person with pure motives to you, J?
And please don't compare the Globalist-controlled lamestream news media to Jesus... or my head will explode. LOL
A few on this blog have such fragile egos, they are more concerned with proving that they are 'right' and others are 'wrong' (and refuse to allow logic or common sense to get in the way).
Craig,
Just a few questions:
1. Have you formally studied Koine Greek via an institute of higher learning?
2. Have you reached any recognized formal level of expertise in the Koine Greek?
3. Should Bibles be trusted that are derived from the Textus Receptus, (such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version), in their current form? Do you believe these Bibles are the "Word of God?"
4. Do you believe manuscripts that appear to be 'older' automatically makes them more trustworthy and credible? I ask this, in light of the fact, that God warned us in I John 4:3 that the "spirit of antichrist" "even NOW already if it in the world."
Obviously the "now" in this verse refers to the Apostolic first Century of the Church age, which no doubt predates the Alexandrian texts.
5. Finally, is proficiency in Koine Greek a primary requirement in order to arrive at the true meaning of Bible words and passages?
Thanks Craig. I look forward to your answers.
KJV, Geneva Bible, etc.:
I John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."
Host of Modern Translations typically render this verse:
"For there are three witnesses"
There is an enormous difference between these two 'translations."
Can they BOTH be right? Which removes the validity of the Trinity?
@ 12:10 and 1:21 AM
Flamethrower..gaslighter, more bitter by the day, X.
The perfect example of slander and gossip that tries so hard to be news.
X is the little engine than definitely can't. LOL
There's none more willing to abuse media than the left..and X, their troll.
Fight for fight's sake because the truth is not present in those posts.
Nobody is more afraid of the truth getting out that leftist extremists.
Who is more myopic than x?
The answer is nobody.
Anybody, but the posts of x and "poet", are fine by me.
Those two are the hoggish and lying abusers of the blog.
King of all darkness, his initiation,
X baptizes the babes in blue flames...
Next in line is the Obamanation,
with Joe spreading horror inside his domain....
X mastered the art that loves the impure,
he inherits the Coat of the Bees....
Thousand of Eons this schmuck will endure,
Fanny of all prophecies!
Lyrics by RayB, paul
Some have called X Nancy's Son,
a name he will never deny;
Wielding his membrum so small second to none,
far too flaccid to confine!
Stay informed ... I strongly encourage everyone to read this recent article by Sarah Winters entitled:
Soul Education and SEL: A Pathway to Global Consciousness and Spirituality
"The spiritual implications of ‘Social-Emotional Learning’ are darker than you can imagine, and the evidence of this fact is clear."
"In the 1990s, the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) created a global educational movement emphasizing social and emotional learning (SEL). This new style of education quickly spread across the globe. The Rockefellers, the Fetzer Institute, and the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) were all vital to its creation. Examining the connections between CASEL associates and Dr. Robert Muller’s Whole World Curriculum, Alice Bailey, The Shift Network, the Collaborative for Spirituality in Education (CSE), the World Commission on Global Consciousness and Spirituality, the Contemplative Mind in Society, and those organizations who are featured by the Lucis Trust raises questions. Are our public schools and educators being used to transform the culture anticipating that this will lead to the formation of a “global consciousness and spirituality?” Although many of the associated organizations claim that spirituality is separate and distinct from religion, their mission seems simple–shape the worldview, shape the world."
"The war is bigger than individual battles against Critical Race Theory or Comprehensive Sexuality Education. This is truly a battle for our children’s souls. On his website, Dr. Robert Muller tells the following story: “An educator wrote to me, ‘Through your world core curriculum, the world’s teachers can now have access to the soul of every man, woman and child on this planet.’” Dr. Muller replies, “I hope this will be the case.”
Read it in its entirety here:
https://libertysentinel.org/soul-education-and-sel-a-pathway-to-global-consciousness-and-spirituality
PS: Obviously, Constance has been providing valuable info on this subject for years.
You may also be interested in this article by Sarah Winters ... written 2 weeks ago:
The Connections Between the Global Elites, the World Economic Forum, and the Social-Emotional Learning Movement
https://libertysentinel.org/the-connections-between-the-global-elites-the-world-economic-forum-and-the-social-emotional-learning-movement
"PS: Obviously, Constance has been providing valuable info on this subject for years."
Yeah, RayB.
Much has been missed while peeling other less important grapes.......
The front lines have been schools, education at every level and became the trend for what "education" was supposed to be.
So many teachers quit teaching the basics to turn them into indoctrination centers using the guise of "well-being" centers for the children.
Thanks for highlighting what should have been at the forefront.
RayB @ 11:25 AM
Thank you so much for sharing this link.
The following paragraph is especially important to read...
If schools engage in soul/spiritual education, where does that leave the parents in their own religious rights? Although these organizations claim they are not promoting a particular religion in public education, teaching part of a religion while neglecting the whole, combining elements from various religions, teaching a form of spirituality apart from the religious texts, or teaching a spiritual worldview antithetical to the family’s worldview would interfere with the ability of a parent to raise their child according to their own values free from government influence. The war is bigger than individual battles against Critical Race Theory or Comprehensive Sexuality Education. This is truly a battle for our children’s souls. On his website, Dr. Robert Muller tells the following story: “An educator wrote to me, ‘Through your world core curriculum, the world’s teachers can now have access to the soul of every man, woman and child on this planet.’” Dr. Muller replies, “I hope this will be the case.”
11:06 AM
Thanks for the lyrics
Current truth trumps old hackneyed, trite drivel about the orange man!
This is taken from the first chapter of the book, Why They Changed the Bible: One World Bible for One World Religion, by David W. Daniels.
Caught!
They were caught, and they knew it.
These Bible translators had wanted to make it easier to understand the Bible. But they failed at a crucial place.
In some of their translations, Jesus was no longer the Son of God!
So those translators also had to change the verses that call God the Father of Jesus.
Why would they make a change like that to the clearly understood, literal words of God?
The translators lived in a Muslim culture. They had some serious issues to face when it comes to the name of God. Muslims falsely say that Allah is the God of the Bible. Their Qur'an says that Allah would never have a son, and it is blasphemy to call Christ "Allah," or to call Allah "one of three in a Trinity." Yet the Van Dyke Arabic Bible and others use the word "Allah" for God! This puts translators in a confusing and perilous situation. Blasphemy is often punishable by arrest, torture or death.
Should their Bible say:
"For Allah so loved the world, that he gave his only son"?
Or should Thomas fall at Jesus' feet and exclaim, "My Lord and my Allah"?
The bottom line was this: they could either change God's holy words into something acceptable to the culture, or they could face the serious consequences. Some of them decided the cost was too great to leave God's words as He said them.
So some of them compromised.
It's quite tempting to bend the truth, if the alternative is persecution, exile, death, or worse.
Was this tiny detail mentioned in the churches when they raised missionary funds for Bible translation? Probably not. Would you want to talk about possibly compromising the word of God so they would be accepted by a foreign culture?
But they got caught, sacrificing God's literal words to be accepted by people of another religion. "...be sure your sin will find you out:" (Numbers 32:23).
When challenged, the Bible translators in these countries were divided over what to do.
About 20% of them didn't think there was a problem. They just wanted to find culturally acceptable terms. They suggested substituting words like: "beloved one of God," "Messiah of God," or "Christ of God." One linguist even suggested, "God's Uniquely Intimate Beloved Chosen One." --As long as they didn't call Jesus the Son of God the Father.
So in 2011, 30 representatives from around the world met to consider how to translate the phrases "Son of God" and "God the Father" for Muslim cultures. But some within Wycliffe Bible Translators got wind of these private meetings and threatened to leave the organization over this confusion and compromise. Some churches and missions agencies also found out and considered removing their support. At first, Wycliffe was dismissive, lightly referring to "erroneous information and rumors on the internet" that "have recently raises questions concerning this issue."
They never anticipated the reaction of common Christians once they realized that the very doctrine of the Godhead was about to be erased in key verses of a book calling itself the Bible. So, on February 6-7, 2012, Wycliffe backpedaled and promised to "re-evaluate" their methodology and "put on hold" their approval for any of the controversial translations. Wycliffe Bible Translators (WBT) and its sister group, the Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL International) asked the World Evangelical Alliance to convene and independent panel in Istanbul to figure out a policy for their translators in Muslim cultures.
And on April 26, 2013 the panel reported its results. In short, they agreed that it isn't right to take away the doctrin of the Divine Father and Son, just because another culture misunderstands and abhors it. It is still true. Translators can add helping words to clarify that it is talking about a "heavenly" or "Divine" Father or Son, but they cannot simply remove the entire doctrine.
Only time will tell if the translators will follow the new recommendations.
But how did we get to this place in history, where people calling themselves Bible translators would even consider removing an entire doctrine, verse by verse, throughout the scripture, to please a pagan or unbelieving culture?
Actually, it is the natural result of greater forces at work, over the centuries, seducing Christian scholarship, then leadership, then common Christians to be willing to change the Bible from God's exact, unchanging words to the changing opinions of men.
But who started this movement to change the Bible? And why did they do it?
As a preface to my critique below, there’s one thing I’d noticed and mentioned in a number of blog posts on Bill Johnson. Cult leaders tend to start with something everyone can agree on, continue down this train of thought, and then conclude with a non sequitur. This would result in cognitive dissonance. Those caught up in such a confused state are more easily led further astray.
Now, bear in mind Riplinger’s claim that she was acting as “secretary” for “God”.
Riplinger first gains attention and confidence for her position by ‘exposing’ scholars through misquotations, misrepresentations, etc., and her ‘modern versions made changes to the KJV’ argument. With this ‘foundation’ she then claims new versions are supposedly reviving Gnosticism. She eventually gets to a section titled “The Only Begotten Son” on page 337 (pdf 348). She first compares the KJV’s “only begotten Son” of John 1:18 with the JW’s NWT “only begotten God” and the NASB’s “only begotten God”—as if the last two are implying the same thing in their respective NT contexts, which, of course, they are not (see John 1:1). Having set up this false analogy, she states something every Christian will agree with—at least initially.
She begins (New Age Bible Versions, p 337/pdf 348):
If, “He is antichrist. . .that denieth the Son,” surely the Jehovah Witnesses and new version editors, who have discharged ‘the Son’ from John 1:18, are arch-antichrists. Recent printings of the NIV do likewise.
Following this, she places the NWT, NASB and KJV translations side-by-side—but not the NIV, curiously (more on this below). Now, first we must understand the context of “antichrist” in 1 John 2:22–23 and 1 John 4:2–3. In short, John, in his first epistle, is very likely countering early forms of Gnosticism, which came to flourish in the 2nd century.
These were based on a strong dichotomy of matter and spirit: spirit is good (divine), all matter is evil. As it relates to Jesus, the first form is Docetism, which denied Christ’s humanity. Under this belief Jesus Christ’s body was merely a phantom, an illusion, for Deity could not be conjoined with flesh (matter).
The second form denied Christ’s Deity, thought to be exemplified by Cerinthus. Under this belief, Jesus was a mere man who was descended upon by the “Christ spirit” at His baptism. By living an ascetic life in conjunction with this “Christ spirit”, a person could eventually help ‘free’ his soul from the ‘evil’ matter.
Whenever considering Gnosticism generally, this hard distinction between matter and spirit must be understood. The two cannot mix.
Returning to where we left off in Riplinger’s book, in which she backs up to John 1:14:
Christians have held tenaciously to the doctrine that Christ is God and co-eternal with the Father. The term begotten, in reference to Christ, is introduced and interpreted in John 1:14.
‘[T]he word was made flesh and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father. . John 1:14’
From this we gather that “begotten” is used in reference to the body of “flesh” “beheld” by mankind.
[continued]
[continuing]
She takes this further by quoting Luke 1:35, which describes the birth of Christ. But notice what she didn’t do. She didn’t quote any modern version. Why? Because they all essentially agree with the KJV here.
So, she’s established the co-eternality of Father and Son. She’s also affirmed the Incarnation—the Word made flesh, the Divine-human. This is Christian orthodoxy. And the KJV and modern versions all agree here.
Then she returns to commenting on John 1:18:
Regrettably, John 1:18 was ripped from its context and fed to the wolves of history past. It was chewed by the Gnostics, along with the begotten Gods of Oriental and Greek mythology, until its unrecognizable form was spewed from the mouth of Valentinus, and Egyptian Gnostic. From his “unbegotten God” came a series of aeons and ‘begotten’ Gods’…
Is this really what the NASB can be construed as conveying with “only begotten God” in John 1:18? The NASB had already established that the Word was God (1:1), and that the Word [God] was made flesh (1:14). This affirms the Incarnation of the Divine-human Jesus Christ. So, “unbegotten God” in 1:18 must be interpreted in that larger context. It cannot contradict it.
In any case, whether rendered “begotten Son” or “begotten God”, a Gnostic could (and has) perverted this text in isolation, out of its larger context. In other words, John 1:18 may not be exactly straightforward to exegete—in part because of textual issues—but it cannot be read as gnostic unless it is “ripped from its context”.
And, if an early Gnostic truly sought to pervert the Scriptures, he would have changed ALL relevant Scriptures. In the case of John’s Gospel, the changes would all be reflected in 1:14, 1:18, and 3:16, 18 as “unbegotten God”. But, of course, that’s not the case. (Even still, “flesh” in 1:14 poses a difficult problem.)
As noted above, Riplinger conveniently doesn’t include the NIV of John 1:18 which renders this verse:
1984NIV: No one has ever seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.
2011NIV: No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.
The 1984 version, which she would have seen, didn’t read “unbegotten God”, but “God the one and only”. This is not a bad paraphrase of monogenēs theos, avoiding the whole ‘begetting’ mistranslation altogether. The 2011—which, of course, she would not have had—combines the two readings, as a compromise of sorts.
I have quite a few commentaries preferring “Son” over against “God” here in 1:18. And that’s OK, because we just don’t know for sure.
I hope I’ve established that Riplinger is not a source to be trusted. If one prefers a KJV over against new versions, I’m OK with that. However, to demonize the new versions as being some sort of New Age conspiracy is without merit.
Craig 8:50 AM,
We already covered cornerstone vs. capstone, and that one wasn't hard in Psalms, even if the "head of the corner" is less clear.
One example is that the name, "Lucifer," is not to be found in Isaiah 14 in the new translations. Instead, "morning star" is used. But the "morning star" or the "day star" is Jesus Christ (2 Peter 1:19). You can still see this on Bible Gateway.
That reference to "Lucifer" in Isaiah was the only reference to Lucifer in the entire Bible. In newer revision, Lucifer is not to be found one single time in the Bible.
And yet here we are on the blog of a woman who studied Luciferian initiations in the New Age movement.
That is just for starters.
Pope Francis has written a letter accusing journalists who believe he quietly backs Putin of having a sexual fetish for feces, report says
newsnetdaily.com/pope-francis-has-written-a-letter-accusing-journalists-who-believe-he-quietly-backs-putin-of-having-a-sexual-fetish-for-feces-report-says/
cRayQ,
Since you don't go to church, I thought I'd help you with other places than the seemingly added 1 John 5:7 verse in the KJV to assist you with confirming the trinity in the new testament alone:
Matthew 28:19
2 Corinthians 13:14
1 Corinthians 12:4-5
Ephesians 4:4-6
1 Peter 1:2; and,
Revelation 1:4-5
Not saying 1 John 5:7 in the KJV is invalid. Just that it's not really the most accurate translation of what real biblical experts currently understand to be the original manuscripts.
Neither the 1600 or 1700 KJV are the standard by which all other translations are measured.
Translation discernment IS important...just not the way you present it here.
x
And she throws that Luciferian accusation, without reason, liberally!
That's messed up!
J @ 1:12 PM,
May I suggest that rather than continuing going down the KJV priority rabbit hole and devouring it hook, line and sinker, that you take individual claims and check to see if there's a logical reason?
In the case of Isaiah 14:12, the answer is simple. For whatever reason, the KJV translators accepted the Latin (and this sometimes occurred in the NT):
Daniel Wallace explains this: Is "Lucifer" the Devil in Isaiah 14:12? - The KJV Argument against Modern Translations
And here's the TLDR quote:
In Isa 14:12, The KJV translators did not actually translate the Hebrew word הילל as ‘Lucifer.’ This word occurs only here in the Hebrew Old Testament. Most likely, the KJV translators were not sure what to make of it, and simply duplicated the word used in the Latin Vulgate that translated הילל....
I think another reason for "Lucifer" in Isaiah 14:12 can be traced to the popularity of Dante's Inferno.
Craig,
Could you please state your doctrinal position clearly? Are you saying your doctrinal belief is not that Satan was Lucifer, an archangel, before he fell? Do you believe there is really no such being as Lucifer?
J,
I discussed the mission bible "contextualization" (C1-C6) issue here before and it wasn't kindly received.
Not all but some of those claims of Muslim conversion stories shared with many large congregations by overly zealous 'missionaries" of prosperity gospel 'churches' appear to be false conversions where the individuals were given watered-down bibles and told they could be both Muslim AND Christians. Then asked to smile for the cameras and document their 'conversions' and love for Jesus Christ. My recollection of the controversy is that by doing this they felt they were able to reach people groups in countries they otherwise would not have been able to reach and in a manner not requiring ostracization upon half 'conversion'.
It happens. I'm not there to document it but it's happening. Former Muslim and Christian Apologist Abdu Murray has a great video on the subject that I just can't find right now. He finds contextualization a horrible idea.
That said, the ESV and NASB are not "contextualized" translations. Neither I, nor Craig are arguing that the KJV is bad. I (Craig too, I presume) agree there are bad translations, particularly when you get into the thought-for-thought translations and the paraphrased translations.
x
Craig,
I read the article by Daniel Wallace, and I need to research it further.
I went searching for "Daniel Wallace Lucifer" read more by him.and immediately found this as literally in the number one search result on DuckDuckGo:
Is Lucifer such a bad guy after all?
https://danielbwallace.com/2012/03/27/is-lucifer-such-a-bad-guy-after-all/
Literally the very last sentence of his article reads:
"In short, Lucifer is not such a bad guy after all because Lucifer is not Satan."
For all of you who salivate over that Elon Musk, have a look at this from 2018 -
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2018/06/14/elon-musk-really-is-god-at-least-in-the-minds-eye-of-christian-believers/?sh=7fe256a06afd
What a kick in the nuts if he turns out to be the Man.
Watch out with this guy.
J @ 2:08 PM,
Could it be that Wallace was a bit tongue-in-cheek here? Especially if you keep it in the larger context of his post.
But if one wishes to read it out of context, with the premise that Lucifer = Satan, then...
J,
There's a being in OT and NT called Satan, the adversary, the accuser, the devil. The original texts don't actually ever call him "Lucifer", though some versions use this term as a name at Isaiah 14:12, relying on the Latin Vulgate. Isaiah 14 and Ezekiel 28:12-15 can be understood as allegories for Satan (and I understand it that way), though the historical contexts point elsewhere.
See David Stern's Complete Jewish Bible rendering of Isaiah 14, in which "morning star" is NOT capitalized in verse 12, as if the name of a person:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+14&version=CJB
Daniel Wallace is a leader and a teacher. He teaches free online Bible classes. He has taught Greek and New Testament courses at a graduate level. He is a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, training the next generation of pastors.
How would he be able to help somebody caught up in a cult like the Process Cult of the Final Judgement?
Could it be that his careless words could ever become a stumbling block for any Christians?
Matthew 5:37
“But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.”
King James Version (KJV)
Romans 14:1
“Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations.”
King James Version (KJV)
J @ 2:27 PM,
As always, context is king.
If you are going down that trail, certainly Gail Riplinger is culpable of this for myriad reasons.
Why that title? Why that concluding sentence? Those were not necessary, or did he make an article about scripture into click bait? What was that all about, anyway?
J said: "And yet here we are on the blog of a woman who studied Luciferian initiations in the New Age movement."
I've searched...do you have evidence Mrs. Cumbey is a KJV only'ist?
I have a KJV bible as well as an ESV, NASB and Berean Study Bible.
I've called out and rebuked "Luciferians" here too. Doesn't make me KJV only'ist.
x
p.s. - I've always associated "morning star" with Lucifer but apparently both have been referred to as the morning star. Got Questions addresses this issue in the entry titled "Why are both Jesus and Satan referred to as the morning star?" wherein they point out the both Satan and Jesus are referred to as lions at various times in the bible.
https://www.gotquestions.org/morning-star.html
J @ 2:40 PM,
I suppose you'll have to ask Wallace, as I cannot speak for him.
Yet, in a similar way, what about Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions? That's a very tall charge inherent in her title--that she fails to substantiate, though she tries by using misquotations, mischaracterizations, and most importantly, by taking Scripture out of context (see my most recent two part comment) to "support" her 'thesis'.
J @ 12:53 mentioned:
"These Bible translators had wanted to make it easier to understand the Bible. But they failed at a crucial place."
"In some of their translations, Jesus was no longer the Son of God!"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Back in the early 1980s, one of the very first things we learned in Constance Cumbey's books (which exposed the New Age Movement) was that New Agers would DENY the DIVINITY of Jesus Christ.
X @ 2:44 PM said
"I've called out and rebuked "Luciferians" here too."
Yes, sure you have dr
You do more to further the plans of Lucifer, than any other poster here. By a country mile!
You look to the world for solutions, that have no political solution. And you voted for Zealous baby murderer Barack O'Biden.
Your an enemy of Christ, and a friend of the devil.
"Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son." (1 John 2:22 KJV)
From Isaiah 14:12-17 KJV
12 How art thou from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
t High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16 They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17 That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
Craig 2:51 PM,
Yes, I read your recent two-part comment. I have been attempting to check out Riplinger's claims one by one as I go along. I've only gotten through a few of them so far. My task is much more difficult since she wrote her book in 1993. The NIV and NASB were apparently revised at least one or more times after her book came out. Some of the changes to scripture that she claimed, are easy to find on Bible Gateway. Others can't be found without having an old copy of an NIV or NASB bible on hand.
You said you got involved in textual criticism about 15 years ago. I wonder if you would have agreed more with Riplinger had you got involved in it 30 years ago. Do you know what all the revisions to the NIV and NASB have been since they were issued? Is there any source that has kept track of those revisions?
If I could find a source online that has kept track of revisions I'd be able to answer your questions and points much more quickly and easily.
As I go along it's possible I may conclude that Riplinger is not reliable. So far I frankly feel glad she has alerted me to. At least I'm aware of things I didn't have a clue about.
I tried to research Daniel Wallace and immediately found his tongue-in-cheek article saying Lucifer isn't a bad guy. I wasn't even trying to dig up dirt about him. What am I supposed to think?
I did find one false claim made by Riplinger. You are right that she either does not understand or misrepresents Greek texts. She claimed the Nestle-Aland Greek text supports the KJV. I have seen for myself already from my own research that it does not.
J @ 3:34 PM,
I never would have agreed with Riplinger, even before I began studying textual criticism, Koine Greek, etc. That's because the main part of her assertions (putting aside the "New Age" allegations) is that modern versions have "changed" Scripture. This is a wrong-headed way to view the issue.
The KJV is NOT the starting point. The starting point is Scripture, as it is found in manuscripts. The KJV has English readings not found in modern versions, because manuscripts have been found that do not include those readings. And, conversely, the KJV lacks some verbiage the modern versions have because Erasmus' manuscripts lacked these words, while manuscripts have been found that do for the new versions.
In a nutshell, we have to start with the Greek texts, which are then translated to English.
Who knows? A new manuscript may be discovered in the old Byzantine area which confirms some of the Alexandrian readings--ones that others consider questionable. Or vice versa.
Whatever the case, the 'original autographs', as they are called, are no longer available. But we have about 6000 manuscripts that, taken together, contain God's Word. The KJV may be translated from a deficient amount of manuscripts, but I'd never claims it's not "God's Word".
Craig 3:58 PM,
Oh, then you must not agree with Riplinger about it being wrong to change "he" and "him" to "the One?"
Transgender Virginia Mollenkott and the NIV Bible Translation
https://savedmag.com/transgender-lesbian-virginia-mollenkott-the-niv-bible-translation/
'Transgendered, Lesbian Virginia Ramey Mollenkott... professor of LGBT and feminist theology and author of queer books such as, “Transgender Journeys”, “Omnigender”, and “The Divine Feminine”, in which Mollenkott interprets the name El Shaddai as the “God of the Breasts”—was the stylistic consultant to the New International Version (NIV) translation committee from 1970 to 1978.'
The NIV web site claims she was only a stylistic editor for a few months. I wonder who is right here?
https://www.thenivbible.com/virginia-mollencott/
'Virginia Mollencott
Virginia Mollencott, a Lesbian sympathizer, was involved with the NIV development at one point. It is important to note that she was not a translator, and never had anything to do with the translation itself. For a few months Virginia served in the capacity of working on the literary (stylistic) committee of the NIV. When her sexual views were known she was immediately asked to resign. Her work never impacted the translation of the NIV at any point. To anybody reading the NIV it is very clear that homosexuality is a sin.'
Should we care, or should we mostly only care if Virginia Mollenkott was quoted correctly by Gail Riplinger in her book, New Age Bible Versions?
She featured this quote, and if it's an inaccurate quote, then who cares what else may be true about NIV and Virginia Mollenkott?
I can't quickly find the quote now. It's a pdf book, and it's scanned, so I can't even word search. It was something about the One Ultimate Relational Being undergirding all things that exist.
2nd. Request ...
Craig,
Just a few questions:
1. Have you formally studied Koine Greek via an institute of higher learning?
2. Have you reached any recognized formal level of expertise in Koine Greek?
3. Should Bibles be trusted that are derived from the Textus Receptus, (such as the Geneva Bible and the King James Version), in their current form? Do you believe these Bibles are the "Word of God?"
4. Do you believe manuscripts that appear to be 'older' automatically makes them more trustworthy and credible? I ask this, in light of the fact, that God warned us in I John 4:3 that the "spirit of antichrist" "even NOW already if it in the world."
Obviously the "now" in this verse refers to the Apostolic first Century of the Church age, which no doubt predates the Alexandrian texts.
5. Finally, is proficiency in Koine Greek a primary requirement in order to arrive at the true meaning of Bible words and passages?
Thanks Craig. I look forward to your answers.
Virginia Ramey Mollenkott (Source, Wikipedia)
"Virginia May Ramey (birth name) was born in Philadelphia's Temple University Hospital on January 28, 1932 to Frank and May (Lotz) Ramey.[1] She married Frederick H. Mollenkott on June 17, 1954, with whom she had a son, Paul F. Mollenkott, on July 3, 1958. The Mollenkotts divorced in July 1973.[2]
A Democrat and trans-religious Christian, Mollenkott lived with her domestic partner Judith Suzannah Tilton at Cedar Crest Retirement Village until Judith's death in February 2018; together they co-grandmothered Mollenkott's three granddaughters.[3][4]
Ramey and Tilton got married in 2013 following the United States Supreme Court decision in United States v. Windsor, which overturned a law that denied federal benefits to same-sex couples. Ms. Tilton died in 2018.[1]"
"Mollenkott served as an assistant editor of Seventeenth Century News from 1965 to 1975, and as a stylistic consultant for the New International Version of the Bible for the American Bible Society from 1970 to 1978."
"She has delivered hundreds of guest lectures on feminist and LGBT theologies at churches, conferences, universities and seminaries throughout the United States.[6]"
NOTE: For EIGHT YEARS, Mollenkott was involved as a consultant for the NIV. She also was a prolific author with numerous published books that centered primarily upon the promotion of the LGBTQ+ agenda.
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (1 John 2:22 KJV)
From Isaiah 14:12-15 KJV
12 How art thou from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
I tried to post what the Bible says in Deuteronomy 23:17 in KJV, NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV. But the filter stopped it. LOL
Look it up on Bible Gateway for yourself.
Weird ... I just attempted to post Deuteronomy 23:17 in the various versions (which drastically differ from the KJV) and it was also filtered. WHY?
Perhaps it's because the KJV uses the word "sodomite" and the others don't?
Post a Comment