Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,461 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 1,806,306
Pageviews Today: 2,500,016Threads Today: 630Posts Today: 10,899
07:01 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?

 
Axx
User ID: 2580226
United States
03/21/2012 05:57 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
In Bible terminology of that day the insect had legs and arms. Some face forward some backwards.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 677020
United States
03/21/2012 06:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Not to burst anyone's bubble here, but the Bible is basically an alien document. That's right -- Yahweh was an alien. One of those who came here and genetically created humans out of apes, to use as slaves. That's why there's all the stuff about us calling him (and his pals) Lord and Master and junk. That's what the Garden of Eden is all about. It just refers to the jungle where the first results of the genetic experiments were put.

As for the stuff about God creating the heavens, that's all about how Nibiru created the asteroid belt. All this stuff is just reduced versions of the Sumerian original texts that go into much more detail.

So, yeah, you Bible-tards are actually worshipping an alien who enslaved humanity 1000s of years ago. I suppose, technically, we owe the idiot something, since without him and his jerkwad friends, people would never have gotten created in the first place.
Wingedlion

User ID: 11831062
United States
03/21/2012 06:06 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Bible Errors and Contradictions -


Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."
1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."
2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."
Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."


Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."
Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.
Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."
Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related
Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 770867


Yeah most of this is just manipulative bullshit, like the illustration you gave of II Sam.6:23, which does state that Michal didn't have any children, and then you quote II Sam.21:8 and say that Michal had five sons...but you didn't quote the rest of the verse that says..."whom she brought up for Adriel...she was raising someone elses kids. That is pure manipulation bullshit. Caught you red handed you fruad.
"Glory is what happens when faith overcomes adversity."
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2580226
United States
03/21/2012 06:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Name one error in the KJB
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 8541689
United States
03/21/2012 06:11 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Bible Errors and Contradictions -


Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."
1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."
2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."
Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."


Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."
Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.
Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."
Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related
Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 770867


Yeah most of this is just manipulative bullshit, like the illustration you gave of II Sam.6:23, which does state that Michal didn't have any children, and then you quote II Sam.21:8 and say that Michal had five sons...but you didn't quote the rest of the verse that says..."whom she brought up for Adriel...she was raising someone elses kids. That is pure manipulation bullshit. Caught you red handed you fruad.
 Quoting: Wingedlion


Bible Errors and Contradictions -


Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."
1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."
2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."
Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."


Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."
Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.
Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."
Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related
Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 770867


Yeah most of this is just manipulative bullshit, like the illustration you gave of II Sam.6:23, which does state that Michal didn't have any children, and then you quote II Sam.21:8 and say that Michal had five sons...but you didn't quote the rest of the verse that says..."whom she brought up for Adriel...she was raising someone elses kids. That is pure manipulation bullshit. Caught you red handed you fruad.
 Quoting: Wingedlion


I m just Quoting Bible ---
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 12929575
United States
03/21/2012 06:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
John 3 (KJV)


16 “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.”


A famous quote of most translations based on a practically unknown mistranslation. The underlieing Greek is “The son the unique/only one he gave”. Note that the Greek lacks “his”, KJV’s “only begotten” could be translated as “unique” and the meaning could be that Jesus was the only son God gave the world and not the only son God had. Now hearken back to:


John 1: (KJV)


18 “No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”


Regarding “the only begotten Son” above the earliest extant manuscripts indicate it should be “the unique god” rather than “son”. A majority of modern Christian translations here use “son”. Another example of Christian translators trying to impose a literal family relationship on the text. Keeping in mind that the original “John” has probably been heavily edited, if we go back in time to the beginning of John in its current form we still have trouble finding support for a literal family relationship between The God and Jesus. The only use of “son” in the Prologue is in 1:14 but as we saw Christians have mistranslated with the definite article, and with the proper indefinite article, “as of an only begotten of a Father”, this becomes a figurative adjective rather than a literal description. We are then left with no literal use of “son” in the entire prologue which strengthens the position that the author intended the “unique” word to refer to kind (quality) and not kin (quantity). “John” has many elements of Gnosticism in it, extreme contrasts between supposed opposing forces such as good/evil, flesh/spirit and Jesus/non-Jesus, so a Gnostic author would have a problem presenting Jesus in the flesh and therefore would not want to show Jesus as having a human type family relationship with The God. So “John” has no virgin birth, Jesus is only God’s figurative son. You Gnosty Goy.


The “unique/only” word in 3:16 is the same word previously used in “John” that the Christians keep translating as “only begotten”. But as we’ve seen John’s Prologue appears to describe as figurative father/son relationship between Jesus and The Father “unique” is probably the superior translation to “only” based on context. Therefore, the literal “The son the unique/only one he gave” (later manuscripts changed it to “His only son”) likely should be translated “the unique son he gave” with “son” having a figurative meaning.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 770867


Houtōs gar ēgapēsen ho Theos ton kosmon, hōste ton Huion ton monogenē edōken, hina pas ho pisteuōn eis Auton mē apolētai all᾽ echē zōēn aiōnion.

Do you actually know Koine? Monogenē literally means single descendent, only begotten, there is no ambiguity. It is used the same way in John 1:18, Monogenēs Theos, Gods single descendent.
TRINTY OF SATAN NOT JESUS
User ID: 8541689
United States
03/21/2012 06:17 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, nowhere in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. Nowhere am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only ‘holy’ Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.

Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a Roman Catholic priest and humanist named Erasmus.1 He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that Cardinal Ximenes and his associates were just about to publish an edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to ‘back-translate’ the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood.” However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read “there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit.” Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge—viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text—did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus’ third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was ‘made to order’ to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century.

That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the ‘King James only’ advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.2

Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?

Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?3

Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).4

Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that ‘you would understand it if you were spiritual’). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.—in short, the language—comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where ‘receive,’ ‘welcome’ shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).

Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther’s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther’s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.

Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals—who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith—prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!

Finally, though it is true that the modern translations ‘omit’ certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc.

I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those ‘mountains.’ We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world that is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria!

Addendum
One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books vilifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between ‘who’ and ‘whom’!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years.

1 Now a humanist in the sixteenth century is not the same as a humanist today. Erasmus was generally tolerant of other viewpoints, and was particularly interested in the humanities. Although he was a friend of Melanchthon, Luther’s right-hand man, Luther did not care for him.

2 It is significant that Erasmus himself was quite progressive in his thinking, and would hardly be in favor of how the KJV Only advocates have embraced him as their champion. For example, every one of his editions of the Greek NT was a diglot—Latin on one side and Greek on the other. The Latin was his own translation, and was meant to improve upon Jerome’s Latin Vulgate—a translation which the Catholic church had declared to be inspired. For this reason, Cambridge University immediately banned Erasmus’ New Testament, and others followed suit. Elsewhere, Erasmus questioned whether the pericope adulterae (the story of the woman caught in adultery [John 7:53-8:11]), the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20), etc., were authentic.

3 “Suffer” in Matt 19:14 means “permit”; “study” in 2 Tim 2:15 means “be eager, be diligent.” See the Oxford English Dictionary (the largest unabridged dictionary of the English language) for help here: it traces the uses of words through their history, pinpointing the year in which a new meaning came into vogue.

4 There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions. For example, the KJV in Heb 4:8 reads: “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” This sounds as though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for! However, the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1091561
United States
03/22/2012 07:14 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


King James Is well known illuminati
Axx
User ID: 2580226
United States
03/22/2012 07:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


King James Is well known illuminati
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1091561


So is the pope!

Still the KJB like earlier Geneva 1560 are the best English Bible.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 07:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


King James Is well known illuminati
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1091561


So is the pope!

Still the KJB like earlier Geneva 1560 are the best English Bible.
 Quoting: Axx 2580226


Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


King James Is well known illuminati
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1091561


So is the pope!

Still the KJB like earlier Geneva 1560 are the best English Bible.
 Quoting: Axx 2580226


Lots Of error from translating from Greek to English ---no 2 bible in world are same
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 07:39 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


Are we Christians Actually Worshiping Idols (idols of Jesus & Mary in most of churches )
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 08:05 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
PROOF THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION
OF THE BIBLE IS CORRUPTED





When the New King James Bible
departs from the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible.


Matthew 18:35 ³if ye from your hearts forgive not everyone his brother THEIR trespasses². Majority and C have ³their trespasses², but the Sinaticus & Vaticanus omit, so not in the nasb or niv. However the nkjv says: ³HIS trespasses². ³his² is not found in any manuscript. ³Their² trespasses is found in other Bibles which are based on the Textus Receptus of the KJB, as Tyndale, Geneva and Young¹s translation.

Matthew 22:10 ³THE WEDDING was furnished with guests². The ³wedding² is Œo gamos, and is found in the majority, D, B(2) Tyndale and Geneva, but Sinaticus says Œo numphon, the ³wedding hall² (or bridechamber- KJB). The nkjv follows the nasb/niv with ³wedding hall².

Matthew 24:40 ³THE one shall be taken, and the other left², there is a definite article before ³the one² which is in the majority and TR but is omitted in N (Sinaticus) and B (Vaticanus) and the njkv also omits it.

Matthew 26:45 is a statement in the majority, even in the original Wescott/Hort text, the ASV, Revised Version, Tyndale, Geneva and Douay. But the UBS (United Bible Society) has changed this to a question, and now the nkjv follows the nasb/niv in making it a question. The KJB reads: ³Sleep on now and take your rest² while the nkjv has: ³Are you still sleeping and resting?².

Mark 9:25 presents an oddity that defies explanation. All the texts describe the spirt that piano helped a father¹s son from his youth as ³Thou DUMB and DEAF spirit, I charge thee come out of him.² ³to alalon kai kophon² Even the RV, ASV, RSV and Nrsv besides Tyndale, Geneva read as does the KJB, ³dumb and deaf² spirit. But the nkjv, niv and nas have reversed these two words and say: ³you DEAF and DUMB spirit². This is not even following their own UBS texts.

Luke 1:35 ³that holy thing which shall be born OF THEE (ek sou) shall be called the Son of God.² ³Of thee² is found in the TR of th KJB, C, Theta, f1, many cursives, the Old Latin, Lamsa¹s 1933 translation from the Syriac Peshitta, the Geneva Bible and the Italian Diodati, which precedes the KJB. It is so quoted by many church fathers, as Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Origen, Agustine and others. Yet the nkjv, niv and nas omit these two little words from their translations.

Luke 5:7 ³they beckoned unto their partners WHICH (tois) were in the other ship. Tois (which) is found in the majority, A.C. and TR, but is omitted in N & B, and the nkjv also omits this word as do the nasb/niv.

Luke 6:4 ³It is not lawful to eat but for the priests ALONE (monous). ³ALONE² is found in all texts, and is in the nasb too, but the nkjv unites with the niv in omitting this word. The nkjv reads: ³it is not lawful for any but the priests.²

Luke 6:9 ³Is it lawful on the Sabbath DAYS to do good or to do evil?². Here the majority, A and TR have ³days² plural, but N & B have the singular. The nkjv follows nasb/niv and says: ³on the Sabbath to do good or to do evil?²

Luke 12:49 is a question in the Textus Receptus of the KJB, and also a question in the R.V, and ASV, Tyndale, Geneva and even the Douay. However, the UBS has once again changed and the nasb, niv and nkjv unite in making it an exclamation. The KJB says:² I am come to send fire on the earth; and what will I, if it be already kindled?² But the nkjv says: ³and how I wish it were already kindled!²

John 10:6 ³This parable spake Jesus UNTO THEM², autois - to them, is in all texts and even in the nasb, but the nkjv unites with the niv in omitting it and says: ³Jesus used this illustration².

John 18:20 ³I always taught in THE SYNAGOGUE². The TR has en TE sunagogee, singular, but the other texts omit the definite article, and the nkjv says ³I always taught in synagogueS², along with the nasb/niv.

John 18:24. Here the nkjv, niv, nas create a contradiction, not because of the text but by the way they have translated it. The KJB, as well as the Spanish, Diodati, Webster¹s, 21st Century KJB and Geneva Bible, have correctly translated the phrase as: ³ Now Annas HAD SENT him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest.² The fact that Annas had already sent Jesus to Caiaphas can be seen from verses 13 and 19 of this same chapter, as well as from Mat.26:57, Mark 14:55 and Luke 22:54. The nkjv,nas and niv blunder here in saying: ³THEN Annas SENT Him bound to Caiaphas the high priest.²

Acts 10:7 ³And when the angel which spake UNTO CORNELIUS (tw kornelio) was departed, HE called two of his household servants...² This is the reading of the majority and TR, but N & B omit ³unto Cornelius² and have ³to him² (auto). The nkjv follows N & B and makes up its own text by saying: ³when the angel who spoke TO HIM had departed, CORNELIUS called two of his household servants². Here the nkjv tries to combine all of the divergent texts into one, and ends up creating a whole new reading not found in any single manuscript.

Acts 15:23 ³And they wrote letters by them AFTER THIS MANNER² After this manner is found in the majority, C,D,TR, Tyndale and Geneva, and even the Revised Version, but the nkjv unites with the nasb/niv, N & B and omits these words.

Acts 17:14 ³the brethren sent away Paul to go AS IS WERE (ws) to the sea.² is the reading of the majority and TR, Tyndale and Geneva. But the N & B have ³TO the sea² (ews). And the nkjv unites with the nasb/niv in reading so, thus departing from the KJB text.

Acts 18:6 ³And when they opposed THEMSELVES (autwn) and blasphemed...² That is, they put themselves in the way, to block the preaching of Paul. All the texts here are the same and even the ASV reads as does the KJB, but the nasb omits ³themselves², the nkjv says ³they opposed HIM² which in not in any text, and the niv says ³the blips opposed PAUL², again, neither blips nor Paul is in any text.

Acts 19:9 ³disputing daily in the school OF ONE (tinos) Tyrannus. This little word, tinos, is found in the majority and TR. but not in N or B. The nkjv unites with the nasb/niv and omits it.

Acts 19:39 ³but if ye enquire any thing CONCERNING OTHER MATTERS, (peri Œeteron) it shall be determined in a lowful assembly.² This is the reading of the majority, A,D and even Sinaticus and the Geneva Bible as well as the ASV, but it is not found in B. The nkjv omits this phrase and says: ³But if you have any other inquiry to make, it shall be determined in the lawful assembly.²

Acts 21:23 ³We have four men which have a vow ON THEM² On them is Eph Œeauton. This is found in all texts, and in the ASV, but the nkjv unites with the niv and nasb to omit them. The nkjv reads ³We have four men who have taken a vow.²

Acts 25:17 ³When they were come HITHER...² (enthade) This is in all texts, even in the nasb and niv, but the nkjv alone has omitted it. The nkjv says: ³When they had come together..²

Acts 27:14 ³But not long after there arose AGAINST IT (kat¹ autns) a tempestuous wind.² All texts read ³against it², referring to the island of Crete. But the nkjv omits this phrase and says: ³ a tempestuous head wind arose², the nasb paraphrases as ³from the land² and the niv as ³swept down from the island².

Romans 7:6 ³But now we are delivered from the law, THAT BEING DEAD, wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.² This refers to the contextual analogy of the husband having died, and the wife can be married to another. The law died and was put to death by Christ who blotted out the ³handwriting of ordinances that was against us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross.² Col.2:14. Here the TR of the KJB reads ³apothanontOS² masculine singular. The law died. This is the reading of Green¹s interlinear,the 21st Century KJB, Websters Bible of 1833, the Geneva Bible, the Modern Greek translation, Youngs translation, the Diodati, which preceded the KJB, and the Latin of Calvin. So it is a very ancient reading. The other Greek texts have a different reading. They say ³we died² apothanontES, which is masculine plural. The truth that we died is also taught in other passages, but not in this one. The nkjv joins the nasb and niv in saying: ³ We have been delivered from the law, HAVING DIED to what we were held by...²

I Corinthians 6:4 is a statement or a command in the KJB, the Majority, the TR. Tyndale, Geneva and even the Douay. But the Wescott/Hort text has this verse as a question, and the nkjv follows the nasb and Westcott Hort. The KJB says: ³If then ye have judgements of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church.² In other words, the Christians were already guilty of judging others in their own congregation, as the context shows, so, he says, set the lowliest of the saints to judge these matters. Paul is using irony. But the nkjv and nas say:²do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge?² While the niv has ³appoint as judges even men of little account in the church!². An exclamation in the niv. Well, they say variety is the spice of life.

II Cor. 3:14 ³for until this day remaineth the same vail untaken away in the reading of the old testament; WHICH vail is done away in Christ.² The reading ³which² (literally that which- 2 words- Œo ti) is found in the TR of Green, Berry, and Trinitarian Bible Society. It is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish, the Revised Version and even Douay. But the other Greek texts and Westcott & Hort have produced the reading found in he nkjv, nas & niv. The nkjv says: ³the same veil remains unlifted in the reading of the Old Testament, BECAUSE the veil is taken away in Christ.² This is a little change from Œo ti (2 words) to Œoti (one word) and the nkjv follows the Westcott and Hort text here and not the TR.

II Corinthians 4:14 ³Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jrsus shall raise up us also BY (dia) Jesus, and shall present us with you.² The word ³by² is in the majority, and N correction, but B says sun or ³with² instead of ³by². The nkjv reads ³will also raise us up WITH Jesus, and will present us with you.² Is Jesus going to be raised up again? Or is Jesus the person by whom we shall be raised? Here the nkjv clearly does not follow the TR reading.

Philippians 2:9 ³God also hath highly exalted him, and given him A name which is above every name². There is no definite article here in the majority or TR, but the Wescott-Hort text adds it. Bibles that read as the KJB with ³a name² are Geneva,Tyndale, Young, Darby etc., while those that follow N & B and the nkjv have ³given him THE name². I mention this only to point out that the nkjv does not always follow the Greek text of the KJB, but frequently follows the Wescott Hort text.

While here in Phillipians, notice that the nkjv is not the same from year to year. In just the first 10 chapters of Matthew, the changes from the 1979 nkjv, to the 1982 nkjv would fill up an entire page. In Phil.2:6 the 1979 nkjv said Christ ³did not consider equality with God something to be grasped² but in 1982 they changed it back to ³did not consider it robbery to be equal with God.² In Galations 4:24 the 1979 nkjv said ³which things are an allegory² while the 1982 says ³which things are symbolic², and in blips 12:13 the 1979 said ³so that what is lame not be turned from the way, but rather be healed² but the 1982 edition says: ³so that what is lame may not be dislocated, but rather be healed². The 1982 Nkjv has this word in italics, as though it is not in the text. But it is in the Greek and the KJB is correct and the nkjv is worse than it was before in 1979.

blips 3:16 ³For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses.² The Textus Receptus of the KJB is clearly a statement here. With the KJB are Tyndale, Geneva, Webster¹s Bible, the 21st Century KJB, the Italian Diodati, the Spanish of 1602 and 1909, the Third Millenium Bible, Youngs translation and even the Catholic Douay of 1950. However, the nkjv follows the W/H text and reads as do the nasb and niv. The nkjv says:² For who, having heard, rebelled? Indeed, was it not all who came out of Egypt, led by Moses?² This is very wrong. Not all who came out of Egypt rebelled. Caleb and Joshua did not rebel, but believed God and entered the promised land. This is the whole point of the passage. We are exhorted to believe God and enter into His rest, just as Caleb and Joshua did. The nkjv not only does not follow the Greek text of the KJB here, but creates a contradiction as well.

blips 13:6. ³So that we may boldly say, The Lord is my helper, AND I will not fear what man shall do unto me.² Here the little word ³and² kai is in the TR. majority, A and P46. But N & B omit the word ³and² and so does the nkjv. Also in the TR, and Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish and even Douay, this verse is a statement of fact. However Westcott-Hort have made it a question and so it stands in the nkjv, niv and nasb. The nkjv says: ³The Lord is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?² Do you see the differences?

II Peter 2:15 ³Balaam the son on BOSOR². Bosor is the reading of the majority, P72, N correction,A, and C. It is the reading of Tyndale, Geneva, Darby, Young, Spanish and Douay. However, Vaticanus reads Beor instead of Bosor and the nkjv reads as the niv and nasb with ³Balaam the son of BEOR.²

II John 7 ³for many deceivers ARE ENTERED into the world² Here, the majority, other uncials, and the TR of the KJB read EISnlthon - ³entered², while N, B and A read EXnlthon, ³went out². One word means to enter into, and the other means to go out. The nkjv again departs from the KJB text and follows Wescott and Hort with its ³many deceivers have GONE OUT into the world.². Remember, the devil is in the details.

Jude 3 ³I gave all diligence to write unto you of THE common faith². The TR and majority have THE common faith, but N & B say OUR common faith, and so does the nkjv, agreeing with the niv, nasb.

Jude 19 ³These be they who separate THEMSELVES, sensual, having not the Spirit.² The TR, and C read apodiorizontes ŒEAUTOUS. The Wescott Hort text does not have ³themselves². Separate themselves is found in Geneva, Latin Vulgate, Darby, Young, 21st Cent. KJB, Webster¹s Bible and Douay. The nkjv says: ²These are sensual persons, WHO CAUSE DIVISIONS, not having the Spirit² , thus reading as the nasb. The niv says ³these are men who divide YOU². The ³you² is not found in any text, and the whole meaning is changed. In the KJB they separate themselves from the others as a special class with superior knowledge, while the niv says they divide you, the Christians. Not the same meaning.

Revelation 6:11 ³And white ROBES WERE given unto every one of them². Here the TR reads plural ³white robes were given². Both the noun and verb are plural. The W/H text reads singular ³ A WHITE ROBE WAS given². The nkjv again joins the nasb/niv and reads: ³ And a white robe was given to each of them.²

Rev. 16:16 ³And HE gathered them together into a place called in the blip tongue Armageddon.² All texts here read ³he² referring to God. The nkjv reads: ³ And THEY gathered them together to the place...² The niv and nasb are also in error here, because even their Greek texts read suvngogen singular, not suvngogon plural. Tyndale, Douay, World English Bible, Webster¹s, Green, Berry, Spanish and Darby agree with the KJB.

Rev. 16:21 ³and the plague THEREOF (Œautns) was exceeding great.² The word ³thereof² or its, is in all texts, including the nasb, but the njkv has joined the niv in omitting this word. The nkjv says: ³that plague was exceeding great.²

Rev. 18:9 ³shall bewail HER, and lament for her.² Here the first ³her² is Œautnv. It is in the TR, and many other mss. But the njkv again has omitted it by following Sinaticus and the nasb/niv. It says ³will weep and lament for her.²

Revelation 19:2 ³and hath avenged the blood of his servants AT HER HAND². Here, ³at her hand² is ek tns xeipos Œautns. Four words in Greek. They are found in all texts, and though they are in Tyndale, Geneva,the RV, the ASV, World English Bible, Webster¹s, Spanish and Douay, the nasb and niv have shortened it and changed the meaning by saying ³has avenged the blood of his bond servants ON HER², and the nkjv has ³the blood of His servants shed BY HER² (omits hand).

I have personally gone through the book of Revelation, comparing every word between the KJB and the nkjv. The nas and niv follow a very different text in Revelation, and hundreds words are missing from their texts. However, though the nkjv claims to follow the same text as the KJB in Revelation, I found that the nkjv adds some words like ³some² in 2:17; ³sick² in 2:22; ³there² in 4:3; ³more² in 9:12; ³their² in 20:4 and ³as² in 21:16.

The nkjv also omits some 91 words. Eighty of these words are the little word ³and² or kai in Greek. That¹s eighty times omitted when in the Greek text that underlies the KJB just in one book! For example in 18:12,13 the word ³and² is omitted 8 times in just two verses.

The nkjv also omits ³the same² houtos in 3:5; ³nor² (mnte) twice in 7:1,3; ³called² (legetai) in 8:11; ³for her² Œautnv in both 16:21 and 16:18 ³so² (Œuto), as in ³so great²; the word ³for² (gar) in 21:25 ³FOR there shall be no night there.², and the verb ³shall be² (estai) in 22:12. The KJB has ³to give every man according as his work SHALL BE². The ³shall be² is in the majority and TR, but the nkjv merely says: ³to give every one according to his work.²

I will keep adding to this list as I study more of the nkjv, but in light of Rev.22:18,19 where we are told not to add to nor take away from the words of this book or God will take away his part out of the book of life, I would not recommend the nkjv to anyone. Stick to the King James Bible, and you will not go wrong.
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


still no answer . what was the reason to alter bible in original form ---
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 2580226
United States
03/22/2012 08:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


King James Is well known illuminati
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1091561


So is the pope!

Still the KJB like earlier Geneva 1560 are the best English Bible.
 Quoting: Axx 2580226


Lots Of error from translating from Greek to English ---no 2 bible in world are same
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1632682


Finding the right Bible is important. Many find the KJB is the true translation. Just because some have problems does not mean it cannot be done. Some just reject what is written, like you.

The KJB 1611 is near identical to the Geneva 1560 even thogh these were different translators.

We can all check original Greek by the Strong's Concordance of the Greek Textus Receptus
[link to www.apostolic-churches.net]
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 08:29 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Bible Errors and Contradictions -


Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."
1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."
2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."
Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."


Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."
Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.
Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."
Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related
Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 770867


Yeah most of this is just manipulative bullshit, like the illustration you gave of II Sam.6:23, which does state that Michal didn't have any children, and then you quote II Sam.21:8 and say that Michal had five sons...but you didn't quote the rest of the verse that says..."whom she brought up for Adriel...she was raising someone elses kids. That is pure manipulation bullshit. Caught you red handed you fruad.
 Quoting: Wingedlion
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 08:31 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Bible Errors and Contradictions -


Bible debates, perhaps more than any other debate topic, can become lost in endless details of interpretation and subtle questions of translation. It can easily seem that to get into the debate at all requires one to be a Biblical scholar. Fortunately, this is not the case, particularly when dealing with fundamentalists who claim that the Bible is free of error and contradiction.

The claim of Biblical inerrancy puts the Christian in the position of not just claiming that the original Bible was free of error (and, remember, none of the original autograph manuscripts exist) but that their modern version of the Bible is the end result of an error-free history of copying and translation beginning with the originals. Such a position is so specific that it allows one to falsify it simply by reference to the Bible itself. For example, Gen 32:30 states, "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." However, John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..." Both statements cannot be true. Either there is an error of fact, or an error of translation. In either case, there is an error. And if there is an error, then infallibility of the Bible (in this case the King James Version) is falsified. A typical defense used here is to look up the meaning of the original Hebrew / Greek, read that one of the words can have multiple meanings, and then pick the meaning that seems to break the contradiction. For example, the Christian might argue that "seen" or "face" means one thing in the first scripture, and something completely different in the second. The logical flaw in this approach is that it amounts to saying that the translator should have chosen to use a different word in one of the two scriptures in order to avoid the resulting logical contradiction that now appears in English—that is, the translator made an error. If no translation error occurred, then an error of fact exists in at least one of the two scriptures. Appeals to "context" are irrelevant in cases like this where simple declarative statements are involved such as "no one has seen God" and "I have seen God." Simply put, no "context" makes a contradiction or a false statement, like 2 = 3, true.

If one is prepared to allow for the possibility of translator or transcriber errors, then the claim of Biblical inerrancy is completely undermined since no originals exist to serve as a benchmark against which to identify the errors. Left only with our error-prone copies of the originals, the claim of infallibility becomes completely vacuous. Pandora's Box would truly be open: You could have the Bible say whatever you want it to say by simply claiming that words to the contrary are the result of copying or translation/interpretation errors, and nothing could prove you wrong.

Let's look at several more of these context-independent contradictions and errors of fact.1


Contradictions

2 Kings 8:26 says "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..." 2 Chronicles 22:2 says "Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign..."
2 Samuel 6:23 says "Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death" 2 Samuel 21:8 says "But the king took...the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul"
2 Samuel 8:3-4 says "David smote also Hadadezer...and took from him...seven hundred horsemen..." 1 Chronicles 18:3-4 says "David smote Hadarezer...and took from him...seven thousand horsemen..."
1 Kings 4:26 says "And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots..." 2 Chronicles 9:25 says "And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots..."
2 Kings 25:8 says "And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month...Nebuzaradan...came...unto Jerusalem" Jeremiah 52:12 says "...in the fifth month, in the tenth day of the month...came Nebuzaradan...into Jerusalem"
1 Samuel 31:4-6 says "...Saul took a sword and fell upon it. And when his armourbearer saw that Saul was dead and...died with him. So Saul died..." 2 Samuel 21:12 says "...the Philistines had slain Saul in Gilboa."
Gen 2:17 says "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day thou eastest thereof thou shalt surely die [note: it doesn't say 'spiritual' death] Gen 5:5 says "And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died."
Matt 1:16 says, "And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus..." Luke 3:23 says "And Jesus...the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli"
James 1:13 says "..for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." Gen 22:1 says "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham..."
Gen 6:20 says "Of fowls after their kind and of cattle [etc.]...two of every sort shall come unto thee..." Gen 7:2,3 says "Of every clean beast thou shall take to thee by sevens...Of fowls also of the air by sevens..."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost." John 19:30 "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
Gen 32:30 states "...for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." John 1:18 states, "No man hath seen God at any time..."


Factual Errors

1 Kings 7:23 "He made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about." Circumference = Pi() x Diameter, which means the line would have to have been over 31 cubits. In order for this to be rounding, it would have had to overstate the amount to ensure that the line did "compass it round about."
Lev 11:20-21: "All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you." Fowl do not go upon all four.
Lev 11:6: "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud..." Hare do not chew the cud.
Deut 14:7: " "...as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof." For the hare this is wrong on both counts: Hare don’t chew the cud and they do divide the "hoof."
Jonah 1:17 says, "...Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights" Matt 12:40 says "...Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly..." whales and fish are not related
Matt 13:31-32: " "the kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed which…is the least of all seeds, but when it is grown is the greatest among herbs and becometh a tree." There are 2 significant errors here: first, there are many smaller seeds, like the orchid seed; and second, mustard plants don't grow into trees.
Matt 4:8: " Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them." Unless the world is flat, altitude simply will not help you see all the kingdoms of the earth.


-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 770867


Yeah most of this is just manipulative bullshit, like the illustration you gave of II Sam.6:23, which does state that Michal didn't have any children, and then you quote II Sam.21:8 and say that Michal had five sons...but you didn't quote the rest of the verse that says..."whom she brought up for Adriel...she was raising someone elses kids. That is pure manipulation bullshit. Caught you red handed you fruad.
 Quoting: Wingedlion

 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1632682


This many changes by man And It's still A gods book ? rant
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 08:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Biblical apocrypha From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about a class of books included in some Bibles. For other books generally excluded from Bibles, see Apocrypha.
Part of a series on
The Bible

Biblical canons
and books
Tanakh
(Torah · Nevi'im · Ketuvim)
Christian Bible
Old Testament (OT)
New Testament (NT)
Hebrew Bible
Deuterocanon
Antilegomena
Chapters and verses

Apocrypha
(Jewish · OT · NT)
Development and
authorship
Authorship
Hebrew canon
Old Testament canon
New Testament canon
Mosaic authorship
Pauline epistles
Johannine works
Petrine epistles
Translations and
manuscripts
Samaritan Torah
Dead Sea scrolls
Masoretic text
Targums · Peshitta
Septuagint · Vulgate
Gothic Bible · Vetus Latina
Luther Bible · English Bibles
Biblical studies
Dating the Bible
Biblical criticism
Historical criticism
Textual criticism
Source criticism
Form criticism
Redaction criticism
Canonical criticism
Novum Testamentum Graece
Documentary hypothesis
Wiseman hypothesis
Synoptic problem
NT textual categories

Historicity
People · Places · Names
Internal consistency
Archeology · Artifacts
Science and the Bible
Interpretation
Hermeneutics
Pesher · Midrash · Pardes
Allegorical interpretation
Literalism
Prophecy
Perspectives
Gnostic · Islamic · Qur'anic
Christianity and Judaism
Inerrancy · Infallibility
Criticism of the Bible
Bible book
-------------------------------------------------------------​-------------------
Bible portal

v · t · e
The word "apocrypha" (from the Greek word ἀπόκρυφος, apókruphos, meaning "hidden") is today often used to refer to the collection of ancient books printed in some editions of the Bible in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments. Although the term had been in use since the 5th century, it was in Luther's Bible of 1534 that the Apocrypha was first published as a separate inter-Testamental section.[1] Luther was making a polemical point about the canonicity of these books. As an authority for this division, he cited St. Jerome, who in the early 5th century distinguished the Hebrew and Greek Old Testaments,[2] stating that books not found in the Hebrew were not received as canonical. Although his statement was controversial in his day,[3] Jerome was later titled a Doctor of the Church and his authority was also cited in the Anglican statement in 1571 of the Thirty-Nine Articles.[4]

There was agreement among the Reformers that the Apocrypha contained "books proceeding from godly men" and therefore recommended reading. The Geneva Bible[5] said this in 1560:

These bokes that follow in order unto the Newe testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, bokes, which were not received by a comune consent to be red and expounded publickely in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save inasmuche as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirme the same, or rather whereon they were grounded : but as bokes proceding from godlie men, were received to be red for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the historie, and for the instruction of godlie maners : which bokes declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and meanes to confirme them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witnesse that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence, who had bothe so threatened by his Prophetes, and so broght it to passe for the destruction of their enemies, and for the tryal of his children.
Later, during the English Civil War, the Westminster Confession of 1647 excluded the Apocrypha from the canon and made no recommendation of the Apocrypha above "other human writings",[6] and, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says, "...the name Apocrypha soon came to have an unfavourable signification which it still retains, comporting both want of genuineness and canonicity."[7] This hostile attitude towards the Apocrypha (considered Catholic by some British Protestants) is represented by the refusal of the British and Foreign Bible Society in the early 19th century to print it (see below).

Catholic and Orthodox Christians regard as fully canonical most of these books called Apocrypha, and their canonicity was explicitly affirmed at the Council of Trent in 1546[8] and Synod of Jerusalem (1672) respectively. They are called deuterocanonical by Catholics and anagignoskomena by the Orthodox.

Contents [hide]
1 Biblical canon Y
2 Vulgate prologues
3 Apocrypha in editions of the Bible
3.1 Gutenberg Bible
3.2 Luther Bible
3.3 Clementine Vulgate
3.4 King James Version
3.5 Other early Bible editions
3.6 Modern editions
3.7 Anagignoskomena
4 Pseudepigrapha
5 Classification
6 Cultural impact
7 See also
8 References
9 External links

[edit] Biblical canonMain articles: Biblical canon, Christian biblical canons, Development of the Christian biblical canon, Protocanonical books, and Deuterocanonical books
[edit] Vulgate prologuesJerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. In the Middle Ages the Vulgate became the de facto standard version of the Bible in the West. These Bibles were divided into Old and New Testaments only; there was no separate Apocrypha section. Nevertheless, the Vulgate manuscripts included prologues[9] that clearly identified certain books of the Vulgate Old Testament as apocryphal or non-canonical. In the prologue to the books of Samuel and Kings, which is often called the Prologus Galeatus, Jerome described those books not translated from the Hebrew as apocrypha; he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".

He mentions the book of Baruch in his prologue to the Jeremias and does not explicitly refer to it as apocryphal, but he does mention that "it is neither read nor held among the Hebrews". In his prologue to the Judith he mentions that "among the Hebrews, the authority [of Judith] came into contention", but that it was "counted in the number of Sacred Scriptures" by the First Council of Nicaea.

Although in his Apology against Rufinus, Book II he denied the authority of the canon of the Hebrews, this caveat does not appear in the prologues themselves, nor in his prologues does he specify the authorship of the canon he describes. Whatever its origin or authority, it was this canon, without qualification, that the prologues of the bibles of Western Europe described.

[edit] Apocrypha in editions of the BibleApocrypha are very well attested in surviving manuscripts of the Christian Bible. (See for example Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, Vulgate, and Peshitta.) After the Lutheran and Catholic canons were defined by Luther (c. 1534) and Trent[10] (April 8, 1546) respectively, early Protestant editions of the Bible (notably the Luther Bible in German and 1611 King James Version in English) did not omit these books, but placed them in a separate Apocrypha section apart from the Old and New Testaments to indicate their status. The 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith during the English Civil War (1642–1651) specifically excluded the Apocrypha, thus Bibles printed by English Protestants who separated from the Church of England began to exclude these books.

[edit] Gutenberg BibleThis famous edition of the Vulgate was published in 1455. Like the manuscripts it was based on, the Gutenberg Bible lacked a specific Apocrypha section;[11] its Old Testament included the books that Jerome considered apocryphal, and those Clement VIII later moved to the appendix. The Prayer of Manasses was located after the Books of Chronicles, and 3 and 4 Esdras followed 2 Esdras (Nehemiah), and Prayer of Solomon followed Ecclesiasticus.

[edit] Luther BibleMain article: Luther Bible
Martin Luther translated the Bible into German during the early part of the 16th century, first releasing a complete Bible in 1534. His Bible was the first major edition to have a separate section called Apocrypha. Books and portions of books not found in the Masoretic Text of Judaism were moved out of the body of the Old Testament to this section.[12] Luther placed these books between the Old and New Testaments. For this reason, these works are sometimes known as inter-testamental books, see also Intertestamental period and Luther's canon. The books 1 and 2 Esdras were omitted entirely.[13]

Luther also expressed some doubts about the canonicity of four New Testament books, although he never called them apocrypha: the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude, and the Revelation to John. He did not put them in a separate named section, but he did move them to the end of his New Testament.[14]

[edit] Clementine VulgateSee also: Books of the Latin Vulgate
In 1592, Pope Clement VIII published his revised edition of the Vulgate, referred to as the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate. He moved three books not found in the canon of the Council of Trent from the Old Testament into an appendix "lest they utterly perish" (ne prorsus interirent).[15]

Prayer of Manasses
3 Esdras (1 Esdras in the King James Bible)
4 Esdras (2 Esdras in the King James Bible)
The protocanonical and deuterocanonical books he placed in their traditional positions in the Old Testament.

[edit] King James VersionThe English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly (variations are marked below). The section contains the following:[16]

1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
Tobit
Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasses (follows 2 Chronicles in Geneva)
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Included in this list are those books of the Vulgate that were not in Luther's canon. These are the books most frequently referred to by the casual appellation "the Apocrypha". These same books are also listed in Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England.[17] But despite being placed in the Apocrypha, in the table of lessons at the front of some printings of the King James Bible, these books are included under the Old Testament.

[edit] Other early Bible editions This section requires expansion.

All English translations of the Bible printed in the sixteenth century included a section or appendix for Apocryphal books. Matthew's Bible, published in 1537, contains all the Apocrypha of the later King James Version in an inter-testamental section. The 1538 Myles Coverdale Bible contained an Apocrypha that excluded Baruch and the Prayer of Manasseh. The 1560 Geneva Bible placed the Prayer of Manasseh after 2 Chronicles; the rest of the Apocrypha were placed in an inter-testamental section. The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582–1609) placed the Prayer of Manasseh and 3 and 4 Esdras into an Appendix of the second volume of the Old Testament.

In the Zürich Bible (1529–30) they are placed in an Appendix. They include 3 Maccabees, along with 1 Esdras & 2 Esdras. The 1st edition omitted the Prayer of Manasseh and the Rest of Esther, although these were included in the 2nd edition. The French Bible (1535) of Pierre Robert Olivétan placed them between the Testaments, with the subtitle, "The volume of the apocryphal books contained in the Vulgate translation, which we have not found in the Hebrew or Chaldee".

In 1569 the Spanish Reina Bible, following the example of the pre-Clementine Latin Vulgate, contained the deuterocanonical books in its Old Testament. Following the other Protestant translations of its day, Valera's 1602 revision of the Reina Bible moved these books into an inter-testamental section.

[edit] Modern editionsAll King James Bibles published before 1666 included the Apocrypha.[18] In 1826,[19] the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and reprintings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section. In the 18th century, the Apocrypha section was omitted from the Challoner revision of the Douay-Rheims version. In the 1979 revision of the Vulgate, the section was dropped. Modern reprintings of the Clementine Vulgate commonly omit the Apocrypha section. Many reprintings of older versions of the Bible now omit the apocrypha and many newer translations and revisions have never included them at all.

There are some exceptions to this trend, however. Some editions of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible include not only the Apocrypha listed above, but also the third and fourth books of the Maccabees, and Psalm 151; the RSV Apocrypha also lists the Letter of Jeremiah (Epistle of Jeremy in the KJV) as separate from the book of Baruch, following the Orthodox tradition.

The American Bible Society lifted restrictions on the publication of Bibles with the Apocrypha in 1964. The British and Foreign Bible Society followed in 1966.[20] The Stuttgart edition of the Vulgate (the printed edition, not most of the on-line editions), which is published by the UBS, contains the Clementine Apocrypha as well as the Epistle to the Laodiceans and Psalm 151.

Brenton's edition of the Septuagint includes all of the Apocrypha found in the King James Bible with the exception of 2 Esdras, which was not in the Septuagint and is no longer extant in Greek.[21] He places them in a separate section at the end of his Old Testament, following English tradition.

In Greek circles, however, these books are not traditionally called Apocrypha, but Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσ&#954​;όμενα), and are integrated into the Old Testament. The Orthodox Study Bible, published by Thomas Nelson Publishers, includes the Anagignoskomena in its Old Testament, with the exception of 4 Maccabees. This was translated by the Saint Athanasius Academy of Orthodox Theology, from the Rahlfs Edition of the Septuagint using Brenton's English translation and the RSV Expanded Apocrypha as boilerplate. As such, they are included in the Old Testament with no distinction between these books and the rest of the Old Testament. This follows the tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church where the Septuagint is the received version of Old Testament scripture, considered itself inspired in agreement with some of the Fathers, such as St Augustine, rather than the Hebrew Masoretic text followed by all other modern translations.[22]

[edit] AnagignoskomenaThe Septuagint, the pre-eminent Greek version of the Old Testament, contains books that are not present in the Hebrew Bible. These texts are not traditionally segregated into a separate section, nor are they usually called apocrypha. Rather, they are referred to as the Anagignoskomena (ἀναγιγνωσ&#954​;όμενα, "things that are read"). The anagignoskomena are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (in the Vulgate this is chapter 6 of Baruch), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, i.e. all the Deuterocanonical plus 3 Maccabees and 1 Esdras.[23]

Some editions add additional books, as Psalm 151 or the Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses. 2 Esdras is added as appendix in the Slavonic Bibles and 4 Maccabees as appendix in Greek editions.[23]

[edit] PseudepigraphaTechnically, a pseudepigraphon is a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it. In common usage, however, the term pseudepigrapha is often used by way of distinction to refer to apocryphal writings that do not appear in printed editions of the Bible, as opposed to the apocryphal texts listed above. Examples[24] include:

Letter of Aristeas
Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah
Joseph and Aseneth
Life of Adam and Eve
Lives of the Prophets
Ladder of Jacob
Jannes and Jambres
History of the Rechabites
Eldad and Modad
History of Joseph
Odes of Solomon
Prayer of Joseph
Prayer of Jacob
Often included among the pseudepigrapha are 3 and 4 Maccabees because they are not traditionally found in western Bibles, although they are in the Septuagint. Similarly, the Book of Enoch, Book of Jubilees and 4 Baruch are often listed with the pseudepigrapha although they are commonly included in Ethiopian Bibles. The Psalms of Solomon are found in some editions of the Septuagint.

[edit] Classification This unreferenced section requires citations to ensure verifiability.

The Apocrypha of the King James Bible constitutes the books of the Vulgate that are present neither in the Hebrew Old Testament nor the Greek New Testament. Since these are derived from the Septuagint, from which the old Latin version was translated, it follows that the difference between the KJV and the Roman Catholic Old Testaments is traceable to the difference between the Palestinian and the Alexandrian canons of the Old Testament. This is only true with certain reservations, as the Latin Vulgate was revised by Jerome according to the Hebrew, and, where Hebrew originals were not found, according to the Septuagint. Furthermore, the Vulgate omits 3 and 4 Maccabees, which generally appear in the Septuagint, while the Septuagint and Luther's Bible omit 2 Esdras, which is found in the Apocrypha of the Vulgate and the King James Bible. Luther's Bible, moreover, also omits 1 Esdras. It should further be observed that the Clementine Vulgate places the Prayer of Manasses and 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in an appendix after the New Testament as apocryphal.

It is hardly possible to form any classification not open to some objection. Scholars are still divided as to the original language, date, and place of composition of some of the books that come under this provisional attempt at order. (Thus some of the additions to Daniel and the Prayer of Manasseh are most probably derived from a Semitic original written in Palestine, yet in compliance with the prevailing opinion they are classed under Hellenistic Jewish literature. Again, the Slavonic Enoch goes back undoubtedly in parts to a Semitic original, though most of it may have been written by a Greek jewish in Egypt.)

A distinction can be made between the Palestinian and the Hellenistic literature of the Old Testament, though even this is open to serious objections. The former literature was written in Hebrew or Aramaic, and seldom in Greek; the latter in Greek.

Next, within these literatures there are three or four classes of subject material.

Historical,
Legendary (Haggadic),
Apocalyptic,
Didactic or Sapiential.
The Apocrypha proper then would be classified as follows:--

Palestinian Jewish Literature
Historical
1 Esdras (i.e. Greek Ezra).
1 Maccabees.
Legendary
Book of Baruch
Book of Judith
Apocalyptic
2 Esdras (see also Apocalyptic literature)
Didactic
Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus)
Tobit
Hellenistic Jewish Literature:--
Historical and Legendary
Additions to Daniel
Additions to Esther
Epistle of Jeremy
2 Maccabees
Prayer of Manasseh
Didactic
Book of Wisdom
[edit] Cultural impact
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


Nice read
Xerces

User ID: 1517558
United States
03/22/2012 09:02 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


It is time for you to learn something, here.

Ezekiel is using the story of the whoring sisters to portray Israel, who had rejected God's Religion of The Mosaic Law, by adopting the paganism of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and the other pagan countries mentioned.

Do you understand what I just said?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1266576


OH REALLY--- WAS THERE DID JESUS SPOKE WORD LIKE " PROSTITUTES" AND "BREAST WERE FONDLED" SO YOU SAYING THIS IS HOW GOD TALKS---- MUSLIM BELIEVE THAT JESUS WOULD HAVE NEVER USED THIS KIND OF WORDS INSTEAD HE WOULD HAVE USED "PRIVATE PARTS FONDLED" OR SOMETHING---- BUT WE BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT "SATAN" ADDED IN BIBLE clappa
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


Needless to say, the bible was written for mature adults:

Proverbs 5:19
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Every translation of the bible.
[link to bible.cc]
"A truth's initial commotion is directly proportional to how deeply the lie was believed. When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker, a raving lunatic."
-Dresden James

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident."
-Arthur Schopenhauer
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/22/2012 09:20 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


It is time for you to learn something, here.

Ezekiel is using the story of the whoring sisters to portray Israel, who had rejected God's Religion of The Mosaic Law, by adopting the paganism of Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and the other pagan countries mentioned.

Do you understand what I just said?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1266576


OH REALLY--- WAS THERE DID JESUS SPOKE WORD LIKE " PROSTITUTES" AND "BREAST WERE FONDLED" SO YOU SAYING THIS IS HOW GOD TALKS---- MUSLIM BELIEVE THAT JESUS WOULD HAVE NEVER USED THIS KIND OF WORDS INSTEAD HE WOULD HAVE USED "PRIVATE PARTS FONDLED" OR SOMETHING---- BUT WE BELIEVE THIS IS WHAT "SATAN" ADDED IN BIBLE clappa
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


Needless to say, the bible was written for mature adults:

Proverbs 5:19
Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.

Every translation of the bible.
[link to bible.cc]
 Quoting: Xerces

Haha
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/23/2012 06:48 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
 Quoting: T Ceti H.C. Radnarg
...YOU HAVE BEEN PROVED WRONG...why did king James change the name Josiah in -Hebrews 8:4 and Acts 7:45- into the name Jesus if the KJV is correct???...here's your answer>and king james says"hey scribes everywhere you see that jewish name change it....heres the scribes when they get to the same name of both leaders in the old and new testament>"its talking about the Josiah in the old testament"...heres the head scribe>"you heard the king, change the Josiah jewish name everywhere in the new testament or its off with our heads"...old testament Josiah led them into milk and honey land,new testament Josiah leds you into the promised land too..since there no letter J in Hebrew it was Yosiah bin yosef or bin=son,yosef=josef....you... have... been... proven... wrong...the new king james corrects these mistakes...
 Quoting: Axx 2580226


The NT was never in Hebrew - it was in GREEK.

The translation Jesus comes from the Greek Iesous

KJV

Hebrews 8:4 For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law:
[link to www.apostolic-churches.net]
Acts 7:45 Which also our fathers that came after brought in with Jesus into the possession of the Gentiles, whom God drove out before the face of our fathers, to the days of David;
[link to www.apostolic-churches.net]

NT written in GREEK as the Gospel went to the world

[link to www.youtube.com]
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN
King James – The Founder of Freemason Lodges
The KJV – A Freemason Bible
The history of King James’ role in the formation of Freemasonry is mandatory reading in the Hiram Key book of Masonic scrolls attempting to link Christ with the Pharaohs.

Freemasonry, in its present form, came into being through the Lodge system, established under the auspices of King James VI of Scotland, (later King James I of England), the only son of Roman Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. At the age of 37, two years after becoming a Mason, James became the first Stuart king of England and immediately began to persecute the Puritans, rejecting their petition to reform the Church of England along biblical lines.

James was initiated into Freemasonry, into the Lodge of Scoon and Perth in 1601, at the age of 35. Fifteen years after taking active control of Scotland and five years before becoming English monarch, he ordered that the Masonic structure be given leadership and organisation. He made a senior Mason, named William Schaw, his General Warden of the Craft, and instructed Schaw to revamp the entire structure of Freemasonry into what it became today. Schaw commenced this project on 28th December 1598, on the orders of James.

To this day, the 1611 edition of the King James Bible remains the Freemason Bible and is the edition conventionally used in secret Masonic temple rituals.

Moriel does not, however believe that the Masonic association with the KJV or the Freemasonry of King James, founder of the Masonic Lodge system, detracts from the validity of this outdated but valid translation of the Bible. Nonetheless, it is the Freemason Bible and has been from its inception, commissioned and authorised by the same Freemason King who commissioned and authorised the Masonic Lodge structure. We can only speculate how many members of the KJV Only cult are in fact Freemasons.



Idol1

King James has indeed currupted God book
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/24/2012 12:17 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


Gods book? Hehe wtf
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/24/2012 10:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


This are not GODS words folks
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 860167
United States
03/25/2012 11:16 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
King James role model was Chiram
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 828881
United States
03/25/2012 03:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Are Evangelical leaders are illuminati too?---worshiping "Satan" secretly
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1632682
United States
03/25/2012 08:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
[link to www.youtube.com] (Allah mention in bible with name )
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 880450
United States
03/27/2012 01:41 AM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


Word of god or Satan ?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 902414
United States
03/27/2012 02:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
King James has sucessfully inserted the "Solomon keys answer in bible ". As Michael hoggard mention it in his lectures
Mordier L'eft

User ID: 9522399
Canada
03/27/2012 03:04 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Satan's Bible is known as the Non-Inspired Version, or the NIV.

The King James Version is 100% perfect and no matter how much you try, it will never be proven wrong. Jesus prophesied 3 original languages merging into 1, which is to say that Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts will be English. That is why King James declared, "It is done" when he saw that the Bible he had authorized was perfect.


 Quoting: Fidokrab


King James was a fucking liar.
--"In this era of great big brains anything that can happen will. So hunker down." -- Kurt Vonnegut, JR. -- Galapagos.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1314164
United States
03/27/2012 03:10 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?

Satan's Bible is known as the Non-Inspired Version, or the NIV.

The King James Version is 100% perfect and no matter how much you try, it will never be proven wrong. Jesus prophesied 3 original languages merging into 1, which is to say that Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic texts will be English. That is why King James declared, "It is done" when he saw that the Bible he had authorized was perfect.


Who gave King James the authority to authorize it?

Yeah, its all bsflag
shenandoah
User ID: 2636202
United States
03/27/2012 06:54 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Ezekiel 23
New International Version (NIV)

Ezekiel 23
Two Adulterous Sisters
1 The word of the LORD came to me: 2 “Son of man, there were two women, daughters of the same mother. 3 They became prostitutes in Egypt, engaging in prostitution from their youth. In that land their breasts were fondled and their virgin bosoms caressed. 4 The older was named Oholah, and her sister was Oholibah. They were mine and gave birth to sons and daughters. Oholah is Samaria, and Oholibah is Jerusalemwtf
 Quoting: EXPOSING SECRET SOCIETY PLAN


If you're trying to discredit the King James version, then why did you quote from the New International version?

Do you have a problem with all Christian bibles?

Are you trying to equate the KJV with the NIV?

Your post sounds like a typical smear.
shenandoah
User ID: 2636202
United States
03/27/2012 06:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: THIS IS WHAT KING JAMES( FAMOUS ILLUMINATI) ADDED IN BIBLE (EZEKIEL 23) is this word of "GOD" or word of SATAN WORSHIPER king james ?
Maybe there are the real Illuminati, and then there are the wannabes.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!