1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dynamic Equivalence - Yea, MAN hath said!

Discussion in 'Bible Study Q & A' started by micah719, Oct 8, 2011.

  1. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    EUGENE NIDA (1914- ) is the father of the blasphemous dynamic equivalency theory of Bible
    translation. Originally with Wycliffe Bible Translators, Nida has been associated with the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies since 1943. “In addition to administrative responsibilities, his work involved field surveys, research, training programs, checking manuscripts of new translations, and the writing of numerous books and articles on linguistics, anthropology and the science of meaning. This work has taken him to more than 85 countries, where he has conferred with scores of translators on linguistic problems involving more than 200 different languages.

    Dr. Nida was also Translation Research Coordinator for the United Bible Societies from 1970 to 1980” (Record, American Bible Society, March 1986, p. 17). Though retired, Nida retains his relationship with the ABS and UBS as a Special Consultant for Translations, and is active in research, writing, and lecturing. As to his view of biblical inspiration, Nida says,

    “...God’s revelation involved limitations. ... Biblical revelation is not absolute and all divine revelation is
    essentially incarnational. ... Even if a truth is given only in words, it has no real validity until it has been translated into life. ... The words are in a sense nothing in and of themselves. ... the word is void unless related to experience” (Nida, Message and Mission, pp.222-228).

    The Psalmist did not hold to Nida’s theories about the words of Scripture. He said, “The words of the Lord are pure words...” (Psalm 12:6). Throughout Scripture, it is the very words of the Bible that are said to be important, not just the basic meaning. The words of the Bible ARE something in and of themselves, regardless of whether they are related to anything else.

    Nida is wrong. The words of the Bible are intrinsically the eternal words of God. Nida’s chief problem is his rejection of the doctrine of verbal, plenary inspiration.

    “Nida states emphatically that the biblical revelation is not ‘absolute’ and applies Paul’s statement that ‘now we see through a glass, darkly’ (1 Cor. 13:12) to the biblical revelation itself, which as the really incarnate Word can offer no absolute truth. Because it is a medium of communication within a limited cultural context, human language is unsuited as a vehicle for supernatural, eternal
    truths that would, in fact, need a language that is unhuman or divine” (Nida, Message and Mission, pp. 224-228, cited by Van Bruggen, p. 76).

    “In a time when the Bible was thought to be written in a kind of Holy Ghost language, the only criterion to exegetical accuracy was the pious hope that one’s interpretations were in accord with accepted doctrine. At a later period, when grammar was viewed almost exclusively from an historical perspective, one could only hope to arrive at valid conclusions by ‘historical reconstructs , ’ but these often proved highly impressionistic. At present, linguistics has provided much more exact tools of analysis based on the dynamic functioning of language, and it is to these that one ought to
    look for significant developments in the future” (Eugene Nida, Language Structure and Translation, Stanford, Calif.:Stanford University Press, 1975, p. 259).

    Nida is dead wrong in his views that the Bible is not absolute, is not eternal truth, and that it is written in imperfect language. Though written by imperfect men, the Bible is written in words chosen by God and settled forever in heaven. The Bible IS written in a language that is divine; it IS Holy Ghost language. The Bible’s words are God’s words and they have eternal validity whether or not they are “translated into life,” whether or not they are understood by man!

    Nida says the accounts of angels and miracles are not necessarily to be interpreted literally.
    “.. wrestling with an angel all have different meanings than in our own culture” (Nida, Message and Mission, p. 41). The Bible’s accounts of angels do not have different meanings for different cultures. They are infallibly recorded accounts of historical events. Jesus Christ believed in literal angels and interpreted the Old Testament miracles literally, and He is certainly a more faithful guide than Dr. Nida.

    As to the atonement of Jesus Christ, Nida says, “Most scholars, both Protestant and Roman Catholic,
    interpret the references to the redemption of the believer by Jesus Christ, not as evidence of any
    commercial transaction by any quid pro quo between Christ and God or between the ‘two natures of
    God’ (his love and his justice), but as a figure of the ‘cost,’ in terms of suffering” (Eugene Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice, 1969, p. 53). In A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans, Nida (with co-author Barclay Newman) says, “...’blood’ is used in this passage [Romans 3:25] in the same way that it is used in a number of other places in the New Testament, that is, to indicate a violent death. ...Although this noun [propitiation] (and its related forms) is sometimes used by pagan writers in the sense of propitiation (that is, an act to appease or placate a god), it is never used this way in the Old Testament.”

    Nida is wrong. The sacrifice of Christ was not just a figure; it WAS a placation of God, of His holiness and of the righteous demands in His law. Christ’s sacrifice WAS a commercial transaction between Christ and God, and was NOT merely a figure of the cost in terms of suffering. The sacrifice of Calvary was a true sacrifice, and that sacrifice required the offering of blood—not just a violent death as Nida says. Blood is blood and death is death, and we believe that God is wise enough
    to know which of these words should be used. Romans 5:8-10 teaches us that salvation required BOTH the blood and death of Christ. Had Christ died, for example, by strangulation, though it would have been a violent death, it would not have atoned for sin because blood is required. Those, like Nida, who tamper with or reinterpret the blood atonement often claim to believe in the cross of Christ and in justification by grace, but they are rendering the Cross ineffective by reinterpreting its meaning. There is no grace without a true propitiation. This word means “satisfaction” and refers to the fact that the sin debt was satisfied by the blood atonement of Christ. The great difference between the heathen concept of propitiating God and that of the Bible is this—the God of the Bible paid the propitiation Himself through His own Sacrifice, whereas the heathen thinks that he can
    propitiate God through his own human labors and offerings. The fact remains, though, that God did have to be propitiated through the bloody death of His own sinless Son.

    Nida is a clever man. He does not openly assault the blood atonement and the doctrine of inspiration as his translator friend Robert Bratcher does. (Bratcher, translator of the Today’s English Version, has coauthored books with Nida.) Nida uses the same words as the Bible believer, but he reinterprets key words and passages such as those above. This is called Neoorthodoxy. Beware.

    Nida says Bible language was not given of God but was determined by the writers of the Bible. “Nida and Taber state that Paul, if he had been writing for us rather than for his original audience, would not only have written in a different language-form, but also would have said the same things differently” (Jakob Van Bruggen, citing Nida and Charles Taber, Theory and Practice of Translation, p. 23, n. 3).

    Nida does not believe the Bible’s own confession about its nature. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that “the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” Since the Bible writers did not choose their words, it is heretical to say they would write in a different language form if they were writing today. Paul’s words did not arise from his own will and context but were Revelations from Heaven and were written in words chosen by God. “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11-12). See
    also 1 Corinthians 2:10-13, where Paul states that the very words of New Testament Revelation are of God.

    Nida says there are no absolutes in Christianity except God. “The only absolute in Christianity is the triune God. Anything which involves man, who is finite and limited, must of necessity be limited, and hence relative. Biblical culture relativism is an obligatory feature of our incarnational religion, for without it we would either absolutize human institutions or relativize God” (Eugene Nida, Customs and Cultures, New York: Harper & Row, 1954, p. 282, footnote 22).

    Nida puts everything which man has touched in the category of imperfection, even the Bible and the
    institutions of described in Scripture, such as the tabernacle, the priesthood, and the church. Nida is
    wrong. The Bible, though written by fallible man, is infallible Revelation.

    Nida says Bible translation is to be tested by the response of non-christians and by youth. “Nida and Taber describe the difference between an earlier concept of translating and their own concept as a shift of the focus from the ‘form of the message’ to the ‘response of the receptor’; therefore the translator must now determine in particular the response of the receptor to the translated message (p. 1). Here it is not a matter of an abstraction, such as ‘The English-speaking person,’ but it is a matter of real individuals that appears when Nida and Taber desire that translations be attuned to non-Christians and to youth (pp. 31-32), and be tested by the potential users (p. 163)” (Van Bruggen, citing Nida and Taber, Theory and Practice of Translation).

    Nida has things backwards. How could unsaved people and young people determine if a Bible is an accurate translation of the preserved Greek and Hebrew text of Scripture? They don’t have the ability, spiritually or educationally, to make such a determination. The Bible plainly says the unsaved cannot understand God’s Word (1 Cor. 2:12-14). It is the translator’s job to make an accurate Bible translation. It is then the job of evangelists and teachers to help people understand the Bible.
    Nida’s erroneous view of the Bible is his foundational heresy, and this heresy alone is justification for God’s people to mark and avoid him (Romans 16:17). It is very strange to see people who profess to accept the Bible as the inerrant Word of God following the teachings of men who deny this precious doctrine.


    Quoted from:
    (reformatting from pdf to html lost original emphases)


    Unholy Hands on God’s Holy Book
    David W. Cloud
    Copyright © 1985, 1999 by David W. Cloud
    Third Edition 2001
    Fourth Edition January 2005
    Fifth Edition April 2006
    ISBN 1-58318-012-5

    available at:
  2. mattfivefour

    mattfivefour Well-Known Member

    I read this article expecting it to be a scholarly discussion on the issue of dynamic versus formal equivalence. Instead I merely found an attack on the person and character of Eugene Nida. This is an intellectually dishonest attempt to discredit a topic by association. It may well be that Mr. Nida is who and what the author states. I do not know since I do not have time to research him as I am out of town and using a borrowed computer; but dynamic equivalence has nothing to do with whether he is or not a scoundrel. Then I poked around in the site from which the article came and discovered (as I had begun to suspect) that it was just another KJV-Only site ... except it is a little less honest than most. It merely says that "The King James Version in English is an example of an accurate translation" which might lead one to think the writer was unbiased. But read a couple of sentences further and you will see he then says that he rejects EVERY other major translation. Not only that, he states that the KJV contains "the very words of God". Interesting since the KJV, like all translations, does not translate every original word in a word for word manner but ignores some words, supplies others, and substitutes some more. In fact the KJV is not a full translation from the originals but is word for word a copy of Jerome's Latin Vulgate in portions and has translated Latin words into English rather than the original Hebrew and Greek.

    This is nothing more than just another example of the dishonesty of the KJV-Onlyists who believe their idea is gospel truth and will close their eyes to any facts other than their own conceptions.

    I am getting EXTREMELY tired of this useless and vain dispute that they attempt to foist on everybody else, attacking all those who stand up to their bullying tactics. Yes, the KJV is a very good translation for the most part and has the most majestic use of the English language I have ever read. It is truly magnificent. But it is NOT the very best translation out there, nor (to quote Spurgeon) was it "let down from Heaven on a cord."

    If you want to debate theories of translation, then do so. But please present the points themselves and stop quoting other people who have theological axes to grind that have nothing to do with salvation, sanctification, or knowing God ... and which have no true relevancy to the science and art of translation itself.
  3. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    The difference between the AV and all the other translations are:

    the texts they are translated from, and

    the beliefs of the men that did the translating, and

    the fruit of their work.

    A common accusation by the antiKJV folks is that we poor Christians had to make do with corrupt Scripture up until the heretics Westcott & Hort resurrected two very poor texts from a heretic monastery in Sinai and the main cesspool of heresy, the Vatican. So, are we to believe on the word of unregenerate scholars that the church was without the word of God for 1500 years?

    The USB4/NA27 text is far and away the most popular text these days....and has over 8000 changes, amounting to about the whole of 1 & 2 Peter in size....just ripped out.

    The major damage is the uncertainty of the Authority of Scripture...can we hold an inerrant infallible Bible in our hand today? Or do we have to take the word of unsaved men and make do with ever-changing texts, which are the product of men's imaginations as to what God should have said? If you go into the translations minefield you'll see that the vaunted modern texts in places follow no known text at all! And contrary to to the assertion "no major doctrine affected", there are many and major changes to doctrine. Pray tell which bits of God's word are just filler, how are we to determine which bits we can safely discard? On whose authority, these heretics like Nida, Metzger, Aland, Nestle et al?

    Why are we trusting to these men when amongst them is the archbishop of the largest RCC diocese on earth??? (Mantini) Why are the modern versions approved by the RCC?

    I posted the bit about Nida to show what kind of man we are trusting to transmit the word of God to us today. He is not alone, he is not even one of few....he is one of many that corrupt Scripture, and we see based on his own words what manner of man he is.

    Come to your own conclusions, do your own research, do not trust a single person in this debate, not me, not Mr Cloud, not even Matt54.....you are responsible to check this for yourself.
  4. JAyres

    JAyres Well-Known Member

    Is there a version of the bible out there that is a word-for-word translation of the original texts into English? Which version should we be using?
  5. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Word for word is impossible. Conversely, the dynamic equivalence of Nida is far out of bounds.

    The distinction is the nature of the translator and his beliefs, the source text he is translating, his intent, methods and abilites.

    There are many instances where the translators of the finest English Bible did not go word for word, but did render the original language faithfully. They were able to preserve pinpoint accuracy where precision was necessary, and able to preserve vagueness when The Lord supplied it so in the original text. I recently posted Luther's open letter on translation, which was misused to introduce support for the completely separate and foreign theory of dynamic equivalence. This present thread resulted out of that.

    The modern versions are invariably based on a handful of corrupt texts translated by demonstrably unregenerate men: Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, Nida and many, many more. There are some modern versions based on the reliable TR/MT transmission line, of which none have been rendered in such a way as to improve on the AV of 1611. The AV was not a new translation, it was admitted as a project to make a better one of the several that existed such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew's, Bishop's. The MT/TR line is confirmed as pure because the Italic and Syriac texts prove the eclectic's accusations of corruption are false. The corruption was done by the Alexandrians and runs right through the hands of that cesspool and wellspring of lies, the Vatican. To believe that we must now rely on proven heretics to reconstruct a Scripture missing for nearly 2000 years is to fall for a clever lie; it is only effective when it isn't stated so plainly. The fruit of this "scholarship" is a plethora of ever-changing versions contradicting wach other and destroying faith.

    It is an emotionally charged issue with scoundrels, deceived, puzzled and the ignorant on both sides. As with any movement, there are a few committed and zealous in both camps with the majority being passengers in varying states of motivation and commitment. The devil has been corrupting and questioning the word of God since the beginning, and his main assault is on the Scripture because without them we are truly defenceless. IT IS WRITTEN is our sword and shield because the words come straight from God...any other words substituted are blunt rubber swords and shields of wet paper. Useless.

    The fallacy of "no major doctrine is affected" is plainly wrong. All Scripture is God breathed, we mere men must not presume to think we can arbitrarily decide which of it is mere filler or unnecessary. Dynamic equivalence as birthed by Mr Nida is but one of the many ways in which the purity and power of God's word is made of no effect. The Lord is not mocked and His word does not return to Him void, which corrupters of Scripture would do well to remember, if they are able to receive this.

    With those qualifying remarks, I encourage you to investigate the facts yourself. The AV of 1611 is the English Bible. The rest may contain enough light for people to be saved by, but they also contain enough darkness to facilitate the apostacy and heresy that we see flourishing in our days. This is not to maintain that no heretic ever misused the AV, but at the least the flock had the suitable weapon for defence and attack. It is this magnificent weapon that is being stolen from us slice by slice. In times past believers were educated up to the level of the AV, which is about 10th grade at its most difficult parts. Nowadays the Scriptures are being dumbed down. Why must the word of God read like the newspaper, or some technical jargon pap that nobody can memorise?
    Last edited: Oct 10, 2011
  6. mattfivefour

    mattfivefour Well-Known Member

    Stefan, my brother! I do not want to characterize much of what you have said as nonsense for it only drives a wedge between us; though, as has been pointed out to me, it is you who are driving the wedge by your insistence on the fallacy of the KJV being the only true Word of God. There are so many erroneous statements in your latest post (the continued dishonest attacks on Westcott and Hort, the fallacious statements about the older manuscripts, the fallacy that major doctrines are affected, etc, etc) that I am at a loss what to do to counteract the errors without engaging in the very vain discussion into which I do not wish this board to devolve. (Complicating matters is the fact that I am currently out of town and have to borrow a computer in order to get online.) Now the easiest way would be just to delete your posts and, for that matter, this entire thread. But to do so would cause some to infer that I am trying to avoid the issue or bury controversy. And that is completely untrue. Now, scripture in more than three places tells us that we should avoid "vain discussions" and I can honestly say that this topic is vain, ie: empty and pointless. However i know that to you and a few others you have allowed yourselves to be convinced that it is of crucial importance. So I will not terminate this thread at this point. Instead I urge everybody to prayerfully consider the topic.

    I will challenge you to defend one statement you made, though. You said, "The fallacy of "no major doctrine is affected" is plainly wrong." Please substantiate your statement that my statement is a fallacy by demonstrating a major doctrine that is destroyed by a translation in the NASB or the NIV.
  7. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    The first doctrine that is destroyed by multiple, contradictory versions is that of inerrancy. If there is no objective standard of truth the authority of God is weakened and His character maligned and the vital faith of believers destroyed. Hath God really said? That is the major and main damage, and it is quite enough already to serve the devil's purpose. But there is more.

    Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

    I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, etc etc etc

    Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

    Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

    There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, which omits some 45 entire verses from its text, and the ESV (omits 18 entire verses), when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible. Some of these I don't have access to at home, I have to use Biblegateway on my painfully slow connection, so bear with me as I dig...with a little help from Messrs Kinney, Cloud, Burgon, Hoskier et al. This brouhaha didn't blow up over night, but it is sad the long-refuted stuff has to be rehashed again and again every generation. Btw, Westcott and Hort's own biographers presented these men in their "best" light and quoted their own words, and on the basis of those words they are rank heretics. Metzger, Aland and Nestle's beliefs are detailed and public, and they are liberals of the worst sort. Nida's views are listed in the OP, yet I haven't heard anyone say what that kind of "faith" makes a man. Kurt Aland didn't even think the Canon of Scripture is kosher, he wanted it changed! Yet believers that wouldn't sit down to lunch with such men trust them to translate and transmit Scripture. It's called scholarolatry, venerating the scribes, as is already detailed in The Bible. The Lord didn't have a high view of such men or their works, but He had a very high view of the Scriptures these men despise and profess to "restore".

    Micah 5:2

    Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard,and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

    2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

    2 And thou Beth-leem Ephrathah art litle to bee among the thousandes of Iudah, yet out of thee shall he come forth vnto me, that shalbe the ruler in Israel: whose goings forth haue bene fro the beginning and from euerlasting.

    2 But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, are the smallest town in Judah. Your family is almost too small to count, but the "Ruler of Israel" will come from you to rule for me. His beginnings are from ancient times, from long, long ago.

    2 The LORD says, "Bethlehem Ephrathah, you are one of the smallest towns in Judah, but out of you I will bring a ruler for Israel, whose family line goes back to ancient times."

    2 You, Bethlehem Ephrathah, are too small to be included among Judah's cities. Yet, from you Israel's future ruler will come for me. His origins go back to the distant past, to days long ago.

    2 Bethlehem Ephrath, you are one of the smallest towns in the nation of Judah. But the LORD will choose one of your people to rule the nation-- someone whose family goes back to ancient times.

    2 "As for you, Bethlehem of Ephrathah, even though you remain least among the clans of Judah, nevertheless, the one who rules in Israel for me will emerge from you. His existence has been from antiquity, even from eternity.

    2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.”

    [a] or rulers

    2 “[a]But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,Too little to be among the clans of Judah,From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel.His goings forth are from long ago,From the days of eternity.”

    [a] Micah 5:2 Ch 5:1 in Heb
    Micah 5:2 Or His appearances are from long ago, from days of old

    from John Gill's Exposition of the entire Bible:
    whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting; which is said of him, not because his extraction was from David, who lived many ages before him; for admitting he was "in him, in his loins", as to his human nature, so long ago, yet his "goings forth" were not from thence: nor because he was prophesied of and promised very early, as he was from the beginning of the world; but neither a prophecy nor promise of him can be called his "going forth"; which was only foretold and spoken of, but not in actual being; nor because it was decreed from eternity that he should come forth from Bethlehem, or be born there in time; for this is saying no more than what might be said of everyone that was to be born in Bethlehem, and was born there: nor is this to be understood of his manifestations or appearances in a human form to the patriarchs, in the several ages of time; since to these, as to other of the above things, the phrase "from everlasting" cannot be ascribed: but either of his going forth in a way of grace towards his people, in acts of love to them, delighting in those sons of men before the world was; in applying to his Father on their account, asking them of him, and betrothing them to himself; in becoming their surety, entering into a covenant with his Father for them, and being the head of election to them, receiving all blessings and promises of grace for them: or else of his eternal generation and sonship, as commonly interpreted; who the only begotten of the Father, of the same nature with him, and a distinct person from him; the eternal Word that went forth from him, and was with him from eternity, and is truly God. The phrases are expressive of the eternity of his divine nature and person; Jarchi compares them with Psa_72:17; "before the sun was, his name was Jinnon"; that is, the Son, the Son of God; so as the former part of the text sets forth his human birth, this his divine generation; which, cause of the excellency and ineffableness of it, is expressed in the plural number, "goings forth". So Eliezer (o), along with the above mentioned passage in the Psalms, produces this to prove the name of the Messiah before the world was, whose "goings forth were from everlasting", when as yet the world was not created.

    Alber Barnes' Notes on the entire Bible:
    Whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting - Literally, “from the days of eternity.” “Going forth” is opposed to “going forth;” a “going forth” out of Bethlehem, to a “going forth from eternity;” a “going forth,” which then was still to come, (the prophet says, “shall go forth,”) to a “going forth” which had been long ago (Rup.), “not from the world but from the beginning, not in the days of time, but “from the days of eternity.” For “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Same was in the beginning with God.” Joh_1:1-2. In the end of the days, He was to go forth from Bethlehem; but, lest he should be thought then to have had His Being, the prophet adds, His ‘goings forth are from everlasting.’” Here words, denoting eternity and used of the eternity of God, are united together to impress the belief of the Eternity of God the Son. We have neither thought nor words to conceive eternity; we can only conceive of time lengthened out without end. : “True eternity is boundless life, all existing at once,” or , “to duration without beginning and without end and without change.”
    The Hebrew names, here used, express as much as our thoughts can conceive or our words utter. They mean literally, from afore, (that is, look back as far as we can, that from which we begin is still “before,”) “from the days of that which is hidden.” True, that in eternity there are no divisions, no succession, but one everlasting “now;” one, as God, in whom it is, is One. But man can only conceive of Infinity of space as space without bounds, although God contains space, and is not contained by it; nor can we conceive of Eternity, save as filled out by time. And so God speaks after the manner of men, and calls Himself “the Ancient of Days” Dan_7:9, , “being Himself the age and time of all things; before days and age and time,” “the Beginning and measure of ages and of time.” The word, translated “from of old,” is used elsewhere of the eternity of God Hab_1:12. “The God of before” is a title chosen to express, that He is before all things which He made. “Dweller of afore” Psa_55:20 is a title, formed to shadow out His ever-present existence.
    Conceive any existence afore all which else you can conceive, go back afore and afore that; stretch out backward yet before and before all which you have conceived, ages afore ages, and yet afore, without end, - then and there God was. That afore was the property of God. Eternity belongs to God, not God to eternity. Any words must be inadequate to convey the idea of the Infinite to our finite minds. Probably the sight of God, as He is, will give us the only possible conception of eternity. Still the idea of time prolonged infinitely, although we cannot follow it to infinity, shadows our eternal being. And as we look along that long vista, our sight is prolonged and stretched out by those millions upon millions of years, along which we can look, although even if each grain of sand or dust on this earth, which are countless, represented countless millions, we should be, at the end, as far from reaching to eternity as at the beginning. “The days of eternity” are only an inadequate expression, because every conception of the human mind must be so.
    Equally so is every other, “From everlasting to everlasting” Psa_90:2; Psa_103:17; “from everlasting” (Psa_93:2, and of Divine Wisdom, or God the Son, Pro_8:23); “to everlasting” Psa_9:8; Psa_29:10; “from the day” Isa_43:13, that is, since the day was. For the word, from, to our minds implies time, and time is no measure of eternity. Only it expresses pre-existence, an eternal Existence backward as well as forward, the incommunicable attribute of God. But words of Holy Scripture have their full meaning, unless it appear from the passage itself that they have not. In the passages where the words, forever, from afore, do not mean eternity, the subject itself restrains them. Thus forever, looking onward, is used of time, equal in duration with the being of whom it is written, as, “he shall be thy servant forever” Exo_21:6, that is, so long as he lives in the body. So when it is said to the Son, “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever” Psa_45:6, it speaks of a kingdom which shall have no end. In like way, looking backward, “I will remember Thy wonders from old” Psa_77:12, must needs relate to time, because they are marvelous dealings of God in time. So again, “the heavens of old, stand simply contrasted with the changes of man” Psa_68:34. But “God of old is the Eternal God” Deu_33:27. “He that abideth of old” Psa_55:20 is God enthroned from everlasting In like manner the “goings forth” here, opposed to a “going forth” in time, (emphatic words being moreover united together,) are a going forth in eternity.
    The word, “from of old,” as used of being, is only used as to the Being of God. Here too then there is no ground to stop short of that meaning; and so it declares the eternal “going-forth,” or Generation of the Son. The plural, “goings forth,” may here be used, either as words of great majesty, “God,” “Lord,” “Wisdom,” (that is, divine Pro_1:20; Pro_9:1) are plural; or because the Generation of the Son from the Father is an Eternal Generation, before all time, and now, though not in time, yet in eternity still. As then the prophet saith, “from the days of eternity,” although eternity has no parts, nor beginning, nor “from,” so he may say “goings forth,” to convey, as we can receive it, a continual going-forth. We think of Eternity as unending, continual, time; and so he may have set forth to us the Eternal Act of the “Going Forth” of the Son, as continual acts.

    Jamieson, Fausset and Brown commentary:
    goings forth ... from everlasting — The plain antithesis of this clause, to “come forth out of thee” (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Psa_90:2; Pro_8:22, Pro_8:23; Joh_1:1). Messiah’s generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting. The promise of the Redeemer at first was vaguely general (Gen_3:15). Then the Shemitic division of mankind is declared as the quarter in which He was to be looked for (Gen_9:26, Gen_9:27); then it grows clearer, defining the race and nation whence the Deliverer should come, namely, the seed of Abraham, the Jews (Gen_12:3); then the particular tribe, Judah (Gen_49:10); then the family, that of David (Psa_89:19, Psa_89:20); then the very town of His birth, here. And as His coming drew nigh, the very parentage (Mat_1:1-17; Luk_1:26-35; Luk_2:1-7); and then all the scattered rays of prophecy concentrate in Jesus, as their focus (Heb_1:1, Heb_1:2).

    See also Keil & Delitzsch, Scofield, Wesley about this verse.

    Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

    The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

    In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

    The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

    John 7:8-10

    Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read?

    John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

    Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

    However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The fickle nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

    Daniel Wallace's NET version has the Lord saying He is NOT going to the feast, and then going. But the thinking of such "scholars" is revealed in his own footnotes where he says: " Most mss (Ì66,75 B L T W 070 0105 0250 Ë1,13 Ï sa), including most of the better witnesses, have “not yet” here. Those with the reading "not" (ouk) are not as impressive ( D K 1241 al lat), but "ouk" is the more difficult reading here, especially because it stands in tension with v. 10."

    So, in other words, because it absurdly makes our Lord Jesus a liar, it must be right!

    Wilbur Pickering, who himself is not even a KJB onlyist, comments on this blunder: Serious Anomalies/Aberrations -John 7:8 oupw--P66,75,B,E,F,G,H,L,N,T,W,X,D,Q,Y, 070,0105,0141,0250,f1,13, Byz,Lect,syrp,h,pal,cosa "NOT YET" ; ouk --À,D,K,P,lat,syrs,c,cobo "NOT" Problem: Since Jesus did in fact go to the feast (and doubtless knew what He was going to do), the UBS text has the effect of ascribing a falsehood to Him.

    Discussion: Since the UBS editors usually attach the highest value to P75 and B, isn't it strange that they reject them in this case? Here is Metzger's explanation: "The reading ["not yet"] was introduced at an early date (it is attested by P66,75) in order to alleviate the inconsistency between ver. 8 and ver. 10" (p. 216). So, they rejected P66,75 and B (as well as 99% of the MSS) because they preferred the "inconsistency". NASB, RSV, NEB and TEV stay with the eclectic text here. (end of comments by Dr. Pickering.)

    Also in just these three verses we see that the word “this” of THIS FEAST is omitted by B but found in Aleph, but the NASB and NIV both omit the word, while "UNTO THEM" is in the NASB and B, but not in the NIV or Aleph, and "AS IT WERE" is in B and the NASB, but not in Aleph and the NIV. This is the character of these two manuscripts and bible versions in a nutshell.

    Joh 7:8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.
    Joh 7:9 When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee.
    Joh 7:10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

    Joh 7:8 Go ye vp vnto this feast: I wil not go vp yet vnto this feast: for my time is not yet fulfilled.
    Joh 7:9 These things he sayde vnto them, and abode still in Galile.
    Joh 7:10 But assoone as his brethren were gone vp, then went hee also vp vnto the feast, not openly, but as it were priuilie.

    Joh 7:8 So you go to the festival. I will not go now, because the right time for me has not yet come."
    Joh 7:9 After Jesus said this, he stayed in Galilee.
    Joh 7:10 So his brothers left to go to the festival. After they left, Jesus went too, but he did not let people see him.

    Joh 7:8 You go on to the festival. I am not going to this festival, because the right time has not come for me."
    Joh 7:9 He said this and then stayed on in Galilee.
    Joh 7:10 After his brothers had gone to the festival, Jesus also went; however, he did not go openly, but secretly.

    Joh 7:8 Go to the festival. I'm not going to this festival right now. Now is not the right time for me to go."
    Joh 7:9 After saying this, Jesus stayed in Galilee.
    Joh 7:10 But after his brothers had gone to the festival, Jesus went. He didn't go publicly but secretly.

    Joh 7:8 Go on to the festival. My time hasn't yet come, and I am not going."
    Joh 7:9 Jesus said this and stayed on in Galilee.
    Joh 7:10 After Jesus' brothers had gone to the festival, he went secretly, without telling anyone.

    Joh 7:8 Go up to the festival yourselves. I am not yet going to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come."
    Joh 7:9 After saying this, he remained in Galilee.
    Joh 7:10 But after his brothers had gone up to the festival, he went up himself, not openly but, as it were, in secret.

    8 You go to the festival. I am not[a] going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come."
    9 After he had said this, he stayed in Galilee.
    10 However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but in secret.

    [a] Some manuscripts not yet

    8 Go up to the feast yourselves; I do not go up to this feast because My time has not yet fully come.”
    9 Having said these things to them, He stayed in Galilee.
    10 But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up, not publicly, but as if, in secret.

    Luke 2:22

    Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

    Luk 2:22 And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord;

    Luk 2:22 And when the daies of her purification after the Lawe of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Hierusalem, to present him to the Lord,

    Luk 2:22 The time came for Mary and Joseph to do the things the Law of Moses taught about being made pure. They brought Jesus to Jerusalem so that they could present him to the Lord.

    Luk 2:22 The time came for Joseph and Mary to perform the ceremony of purification, as the Law of Moses commanded. So they took the child to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,

    Luk 2:22 After the days required by Moses' Teachings to make a mother clean had passed, Joseph and Mary went to Jerusalem. They took Jesus to present him to the Lord.

    Luk 2:22 The time came for Mary and Joseph to do what the Law of Moses says a mother is supposed to do after her baby is born. They took Jesus to the temple in Jerusalem and presented him to the Lord,

    Luk 2:22 When the time came for their purification according to the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took Jesus up to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord,

    22 When the time came for the purification rites required by the Law of Moses, Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord

    22 And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord

    Luke 2:33

    Who is Jesus' Father? Father God, or Joseph? Let's see about this major doctrine...

    33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.

    33 And Ioseph and his mother marueiled at those things, which were spoken touching him.

    33 Jesus' father and mother were amazed at what Simeon said about him.

    33 The child's father and mother were amazed at the things Simeon said about him.

    33 Jesus' father and mother were amazed at what was said about him.

    33 Jesus' parents were surprised at what Simeon had said.

    33 Jesus' father and mother kept wondering at the things being said about him.

    33 Jesus' father and mother kept wondering at the things being said about him.

    33 And His father and mother were amazed at the things which were being said about Him.

    Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

    The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

    In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

    The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

    Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

    However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

    Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

    1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

    God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

    What is the fine linen, clean and white?

    Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed with the imputed righteousness of Christ. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the FINE LINEN IS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF SAINTS."

    Versions that read like the King James Bible are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Miles Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible of 1599, John Wesley's 1755 translation, Green’s interlinear, Webster's translation of 1833, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, the 21st Century KJV, and even the modern paraphrase called The Message.

    But the NKJV, NASB, ESV, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, “the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.” (or "the righteous deeds of God's people") If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. At the very least, you have to admit that not all these versions teach the same thing here. So, which one is true?

    Matthew Henry notes: "You have here a description of the bride, how she appeared in fine linen, clean and white, which is the righteousness of saints; in the robes of Christ’s righteousness... She had washed her robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb; and these her nuptial ornaments she did not purchase by any price of her own, but received them as the gift and grant of her blessed Lord."

    John Gill comments: "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints, not good works, or their own righteousness;... these are not comparable to fine linen, clean and white, but are like filthy rags, and cannot justify in the sight of God; but the righteousness of Christ is meant, and justification by that; for that is the only justifying righteousness of the saints.

    "Christ's righteousness may be compared to fine linen, clean and white... all the Lord's people will be righteous, they will have on the best robe, and wedding garment, and their being arrayed with it will be owing to the grace of Christ, who grants it. Not only the garment is a gift of grace, but the putting of it on is a grant from Christ, and what he himself does, (Isaiah 61:10) (Zechariah 3:4)."

    1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world" - this is the meaning found in the Geneva Bible, Holman Christian Standard, Darby, NIV, NKJV, and even the Douay version too. However the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world". No idols in the world, huh?

    Hosea 11:12 KJB "But Judah yet RULETH WITH GOD, AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS." The Bible versions that agree with the King James Bible in that Judah IS YET FAITHFUL are the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Darby, Young, Spanish Reina Valera, Green's interlinear, the Hebrew-English 1936, and the Third Millenium Bible.

    But the NKJV puts a new twist here saying: "But Judah still walks with God, even with the Holy One, who is faithful."

    This time Daniel Wallace's NET version agrees in the main with the KJB saying: "But Judah still roams about with God; he remains faithful to the Holy One."

    The NASB, NIV and TNIV completely spin this verse around to mean the opposite with: "And Judah is UNRULY AGAINST God, even against the faithful Holy One."

    The Holman Standard has come up with a different rendering, saying: "Judah STILL WANDERS WITH EL, AND IS FAITHFUL TO HOLY ONES." Say what?!? Then it tells us in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure. If you think the Hebrew is obscure, then the English translations are downright mind-boggling. So which, if any, of the multiple-choice bible versions is the true word of God?

    Daniel 9:26 "shall Messiah cut off, but NOT FOR HIMSELF"

    An extremely important Messianic prophecy about the significance of the death of Christ has been drastically changed in a multitude of conflicting modern versions.

    "And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF."

    The Messiah, the Lord Jesus Christ, was killed not for Himself but for His people. He laid down His life as a ransom for many. He gave Himself for the church, laid down His life for the sheep, and purchased the church of God with His own blood.

    There is no verb in the Hebrew text here. It reads "but not for himself". This is also the reading of the Bishop's Bible 1568, the NKJV 1982, Spanish Reina Valera 1960 (se quitará la vida al Mesías, mas no por sí), Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible and the KJV 21. Even the NIV footnote gives the reading of the King James Bible "or, cut off, but not for Himself", but the text of the NIV reads quite differently.

    Christ was to make reconciliation for iniquity and bring in everlasting righteousness, as verse Daniel 9:24 tells us. Matthew Henry comments: "In order to all this the Messiah must be cut off, must die a violent death, and so be cut off from the land of the living, as was foretold, Isaiah 53:8 - "for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken." He must be cut off, but not for himself — not for any sin of his own, but, as Caiaphas prophesied, he must die for the people, in our stead and for our good, it was to atone for our sins, and to purchase life for us, that he was cut off."

    John Wesley tersely remarks: " Not for himself - But for our sakes, and for our salvation."

    Matthew Poole writes in his commentary - "our English translation seems to hit the truest sense, i. e. not for himself. He was innocent and guiltless, he died for others, not for himself, but for our sakes and for our salvation."

    David Guzik's Commentary says simply: "The Messiah will be cut off for the sake of others, not for Himself."

    John Gill offfers this explanation first: " when Jesus the true Messiah was cut off in a judicial way; not for any sins of his own, but for the sins of his people, to make satisfaction for them, and to obtain their redemption and salvation."

    However, the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, and NASB read: "Messiah shall be cut off AND HAVE NOTHING." Messiah shall have nothing?!? He purchased His people and bought His bride with His own blood! He certainly did not "have nothing".

    Here are some other "bible versions" and their readings for comparison. See if this clears things up for us and verifies the statement made by some that "There are no conflicting bibles".

    Coverdale 1535 "Christ shall be slain AND THEY SHALL HAVE NO PLEASURE IN HIM."

    The Message 2002 - "After the sixty-two sevens, the Anointed Leader will be killed--THE END OF HIM."

    New English bible 1970- "one who is anointed shall be removed WITH NO ONE TO TAKE HIS PART."

    Young's - "cut off is Messiah AND THE CITY AND THE HOLY PLACE ARE NOT."

    1917 Jewish Publication Society translation - "shall an anointed one be cut off AND BE NO MORE." (again not true)

    New American Bible - "an anointed one shall be cut off WHEN HE DOES NOT POSSESS THE CITY."

    Douay 1950 - "Christ shall be slain AND THE PEOPLE WHO DENY HIM SHALL NOT BE HIS."

    Lamsa's 1933 - "Messiah shall be slain AND THE CITY SHALL BE WITHOUT A RULER."

    The Septuagint (LXX) - "the anointed one shall be destroyed AND THERE IS NO JUDGMENT IN HIM."

    Men like James White tell us that by comparing all the bible versions we get a much better idea of what God really said. Do you think all these bibles have the same general message and clarify the true meaning for us?

    This is the type of foolishness being promoted by those who tell us there are no conflicting bible versions and that they all have the same ideas but with different words. This one example from Daniel 9:26 can easily be repeated a hundred times over with many individual verses.

    These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one directing the modern versionists. This God seems more than a little confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.

    If you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.

    Isn't there something written in the Bible that tells us of the falling away from the faith in the last days? Has Satan changed his hateful opposition and corrupting influence toward the words of God? Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these latter days to where he can now think more clearly?

    If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in hundreds of places, verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which it speaks is true?

    If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul? When does God start telling the truth?

    Do you still think that "no doctrines are changed" in the various versions? Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? If so, what exactly are you referring to when you say this? Some mystical bible that exists in your own mind, or a solid Book we can hold in our hands, read, believe and preach to a lost world?

    One last example of the many....go look up 1 Tim 3:16 in the versions and tell me WHO was manifest in the flesh? This is the clearest, plainest statement of that major doctrine in all Scripture, yet in many "Bibles" it is gone. One slice at a time........
  8. micah719

    micah719 an adopted son of The Most High God John 6:37-40

    Even an athiest "gets it".

    :lobster posted in full from:
    Atheism, Gender-Neutrality, and the King James Bible | Frames of Reference

    Atheism, Gender-Neutrality, and the King James Bible

    We wrote about the gender neutral NIV translation back in 2009, but an interesting note of the perils of the trendy “gender neutral” translation come from none other than staunch anti-religious atheist Christopher Hitchens.

    Hitchens called the contemporary version “pancake-flat” and more suited for “a basement meeting of A.A.”

    “These words could not hope to penetrate the torpid, resistant fog in the mind of a 16-year-old boy, as their original had done for me,” he said in his commentary.

    He also rejected the gender neutral language of substituting “brethren” with “my friends,” calling it a “slightly ingratiating obeisance.”

    “Tto suggest that Saint Paul, of all people, was gender-neutral is to re-write the history as well as to rinse out the prose,” Hitchens noted.

    This isn’t the first time Hitchens’ theology surpassed that of supposed “Christian” scholars. It’s a reminder not all who call themselves Christians really are Christians — some gospel deniers teach heretical alternate gospels.

    Don’t fall for the “argument from authority” mistake. Just because someone claims a pastorship, or has a degree from seminary doesn’t mean they’re right. They can easily be attempting to pass you deception straight from the pit of hell. In short, do your own homework and don’t believe what you’re told without checking it out yourself (trust me, I’m a doctor).

    It’s a shame more pastors and “scholars” don’t have the understanding atheist Hitchens does, but that’s a sad commentary on the state of the church, and illustrates the problem of people blindly accepting arguments from authority.

    Why do “scholars” consistently feel the need to re-write the Bible to suit their bias?

Share This Page