Sunday, April 3, 2016

Creator God or Drunken Robin Hood?

Prov 26:10 (KJB) The great God that FORMED ALL THINGS both rewardeth the fool, and rewardeth transgressors.

(NIV) Like an archer who wounds at random is he who hires a fool or any passer-by.

(NASB) Like an archer who wounds everyone, So is he who hires a fool or who hires those who pass by.

(AMP) [But] like an archer who wounds all, so is he who hires a fool or chance passers-by.

(NLT) An employer who hires a fool or a bystander is like an archer who shoots recklessly. 

(ASV) As an archer that woundeth all, So is he that hireth a fool and he that hireth them that pass by.

(ESV) Like an archer who wounds everyone is one who hires a passing fool or drunkard.

(CEV) It's no smarter to shoot arrows at every passerby than it is to hire a bunch of worthless nobodies.

The Creator God is replaced with some kind of drunken Robin Hood. In Rev 6, and in OT descriptions, the Antichrist is the archer! This is much like the modern versions who call Lucifer the "morning star" in Isa 14:12, which is a title for Jesus Christ in Rev 22:16.

Do you want a Bible that confuses the Lord with the devil, twice?

Created BY Christ, From the Beginning

Eph 3:9 (KJB) And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the BEGINNING of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things BY JESUS  CHRIST:

(NIV) ... which for AGES PAST was kept hidden in God, who  created all things [by NOBODY].
(NASB)  ... which for AGES has been hidden in God who  created all things [by NOBODY];
(ASV) ... which for AGES hath been hid in God who created all things  [by NOBODY];
(RSV) ...  hidden for AGES in God who created all things [by NOBODY];
(ESV) ... hidden for AGES in God who created all things, [by NOBODY]
(CEV) God, who created everything [by NOBODY],

Ages past? What does that tell you? Not much. Not as much as “from the beginning” - that is specific, settled. And Somebody is missing from the verse. Who might that be? Only Jesus Christ - apparently nobody important if you want to have a Bible version with the “same message”.

(NLT) ... God, the Creator of all things [by NOBODY];

Hey! A version that got it half right! Except the Living Bible left out Jesus too. What good are all these versions that leave out Jesus? BTW, Jesus Christ is in the Greek Textus Receptus here. My Nestles Alexandrian Greek text omits Jesus Christ, but has a footnote, and the critical apparatus lists several Alexandrian texts that contain  Jesus Christ. Why would a modern version want to take Jesus Christ out of the Bible? Who would be the inspiration for that?

Maybe the New KJV get is right. That’s translated from the same manuscripts, they say:

(NKJV) ... the beginning of the AGES THROUGH Jesus Christ;

Closer, but still not there. “Beginning of the ages” sounds like a compromise of a politically correct liberal politician. Even the Nkjv doesn't have Jesus Christ actually doing the creating. The Real King James has the creation done BY Him, but the New King James has the creation done "through" Him, which can mean almost anything. If a president sends  message through his secretary - who really wrote the message? That sounds like a politically correct Catholic liberal politician.

Is removing Jesus Christ only a "minor" change that "doesn't affect any doctrine" and has the "same message", like the modern version advocates claim?

Which versions would an evolutionist prefer?

Begotten god?

Only Begotten What?

John 1:18 (KJB) No man hath seen God at any time; the only  BEGOTTEN SON, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

(NIV) No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.

(ESV) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

These two make the one at the father's side the ONLY God - which logically means the Father is not God!

(RSV) No one has ever seen God; the ONLY SON, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

(NLT) No one has ever seen God. But his ONLY SON, who is himself God, is near to the Father's heart; he has told us about him.

(CEV) No one has ever seen God. The ONLY SON, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like. 

These make Jesus the ONLY Son. Dinosaur feathers! I'M a son of God, as is every saved individual. But I'm not the ONLY BEGOTTEN Son of God. That's Jesus!

(NASB) No one has seen God at any time; the only BEGOTTEN GOD who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

(AMP) No man has ever seen God at any time; the only unique Son, or the only BEGOTTEN GOD,

These make the worst blaspheme of all, calling Jesus a BEGOTTEN God, meaning He is not the ETERNAL Creator.

Again, which versions would an atheist, evolutionist, or Christ denier prefer?

Creator God or Created Being?


Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, from EVERLASTING..

This is a clear prophecy of Jesus Christ. Prophecy is one of the key proofs that the Bible is the Supernatural word of God. And this is one of the most stunning prophecies of Jesus Christ - it gives the very town He will be born in, what family He’ll belong to, and some specific things about His life - all in one little verse written 700 years before Jesus was born. Let’s see the daily horoscope try that! It presents Jesus Christ as "everlasting". That fits with Him being the Creator God in John 1:1-3 & 14. Surely no Bible version would mess up at such an important place.

(NIV) ... whose ORIGINS ... from ANCIENT TIMES.

(RSV) ... whose ORIGIN ... from ANCIENT DAYS.

(NLT) ... one whose ORIGINS are  from the DISTANT PAST.

(CEV) ... someone whose FAMILY goes  back to ANCIENT TIMES.
(ESV) ... whose ORIGIN is from of old,  from ANCIENT DAYS.

(HCS) … his ORIGIN is from ANTIQUITY

These versions strip Jesus Christ of His deity and makes Him a created false god. He is not the everlasting Word/Son of God. 

How can a Christian convince an evolutionist from such versions? We’re supposed to be apt to teach and able to convince the gainsayers of God’s truth. How can we do that with a Bible version that says what they believe? And that’s what they do say! That’s why we call them per-versions. How can a Christian witness to a lost person and tell Him about Jesus when the lost evolutionist can grab almost any modern version and show that Jesus wasn’t God, He had an origin, and He wasn’t the Creator! The multi-version creationists have a different Creator than the King James Bible!

Those two verses should be enough to make any Christian with the discernment of a pet rock chuck his fake Bible and get the real one. 

Bottom line, which versions would an evolutionist or atheist prefer?

Tuesday, February 23, 2016

LXX X-perts Deny LXX

Even the LXX X-perts admit there is no actual evidence for a BC LXX. Here is Sir Frederick Kenyon:

"A considerable number of MSS. exist which give information as to Origen's Hexaplaric text and particular passages in the other columns, but these DO *NOT* GO FAR towards enabling us to recover the LXX text as it existed BEFORE ORIGEN; and this remains the GREATEST PROBLEM which confronts the TEXTUAL STUDENT of the SEPTUAGINT." "The Text of the Greek Bible", Sir Frederick Kenyon, (approx. 1920) p 35. 

        Brenton, the editor of the LXX, remarks -
"The Hexapla itself is said never to have been copied: what remains of the versions which it contained (mere fragments) were edited by Montfaucon in 1714, and in an abridged edition by Bahrdt in 1769-70. The Hexaplar text of the Septuagint was copied about a half century AFTER Origen's death by Pamphilus and Eusebius; it thus obtained a circulation; but the errors of copyists soon confounded the marks of addition and omission which Origen placed, and HENCE the TEXT of the SEPTUAGINT became almost hopelessly MIXED up WITH that of OTHER VERSIONS." Brenton's Septuagint Introduction (Zondervan, from the original 1851), p vi.

        In other words, we can't even reconstruct Origen's fifth column of the LXX, let alone a pre-Origenian Septuagint, much less a BC LXX.

In "Invitation To The Septuagint," Moises Silva & Karen Jobes, Baker Academic, 2000, "In effect, the great task of Septuagint textual criticism is to reconstruct the pre-Hexaplaric text, which means undoing Origen's labors so as to rediscover the form of the "Septuagint" in the second century. Without Greek manuscripts predating Origen, however, that goal is not easily reached." p 53.

"We have no EVIDENCE that any Greek version of the Hebrew Bible, or even of the Pentateuch, was called the Septuagint prior to the second century of this era." Jobes & Silva, Invitation To The Septuagint, p 32.

        So, aside from the few scraps which predate Origen, they again admit they can't even reconstruct Origen's Hexapla, let alone any kind of "Septuagint." They don't have any EVIDENCE to work with.