HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS

NIV 1 Cor 6:9 "... HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS ... will not inherit the kingdom of God."

This certainly can be taken to mean that those who offend homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom. We'd better not offend those homosexuals like God does in Romans 1 - He might not inherit His own kingdom. Could that be why there were two sodomites on the NIV committee (NT stylist Mollencott and OT Chairman Woudstra)?!

Some defend the peculiar wording of this verse in the NIV by claiming that it can be taken as either homosexuals committing the offenses, or homosexuals being offended, and they choose the former interpretation. However, the fact that it *can* be taken either way is a problem with the NIV. Which rendering would a homosexual rather use?

Consider that in other contemporary phrases describing things pertaining to homosexuality, such as "gay basher" or "homo-phobe" - the LATTER rendering above is taken.

A "gay basher" is one who offends homosexuals - not a homosexual committing an offense.

A "homo-phobe" is one who offends homosexuals, not a homosexual committing an offense. Thus,

A "homosexual offender" would be one who offends homosexuals, not a homosexual committing an offense.

The retort is to appeal to other terms like "drug offenders", but they have to ignore the examples dealing specifically with homosexual terms.

Then they make a flawed analogy in addition to what they ignore. If an NIV interpretation of a "homosexual offender" is a homosexual who commits an offense, then the consistent analogy for "drug offender" would be a DRUG who commits an offense. Or a "traffic offender" would be a traffic who commits an offense.

Actually, a "drug offender (abuser)" is an offender (abuser) OF drugs. Thus a "homosexual offender" would be an offender OF homosexuals - even according to their own analogy! A "traffic offender (violator)" would be an offender of traffic.

So their own examples weaken their own case! We appreciate the help!

Here are some other items:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69147

TESTING THE FAITH'Gay' man sues Bible publishers$70 million for emotional distress because homosexuality cast as sinA homosexual man who has a blog on Sen. Barack Obama's campaign website is suing two major Christian publishers (Zondervan and Nelson) for violating his constitutional rights and causing emotional pain, because the Bible versions they publish refer to homosexuality as a sin.

TG: Actually, I hope he wins his suit - and here's why:

Fowler alleges both Zondervan and Thomas Nelson, with its King James Bible, manipulated Scripture without informing the public by using the term "homosexuals" in a New Testament passage, 1 Cor 6:9.

TG: In 1 Cor 6:9 the King James Bible says:

1 Cor 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

TG: The KJB uses the word "effeminate ", not "homosexuals ". If Zondervan and Nelson are changing words in the KJB without informing anybody, they SHOULD be sued.

The NIV changes "abusers of themselves" to "homosexual abusers", creating the possibility that those who offend homosexuals won't inherit the kingdom of God. If Zondervan and Nelson are secretly making the KJB into a perverted NIV, we should join this guy's lawsuit and put them out of business for fraud.

What an irony that a queer is more in the right than the modern Bible publishers.

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=69775
 
BRAZIL'S GOVERNMENT AT WORK 
Offend a homosexual ... Go to prison for 5 years 
Teachers, pastors facing 'criminalization of homophobia'
 
The NIV agrees with Brazil's queer leader. I've been warning people about this verse for years. It one day will be used against Christians who oppose sodomy. That day is getting closer.

NIV 1 Cor 6:9 "... HOMOSEXUAL OFFENDERS ... will not inherit the kingdom of God."

We'd better not offend those homosexuals like God does in Romans 1! He might not inherit His own kingdom. Could that be why there were two QUEERS on the NIV committee (NT stylist Mollencott and OT Chairman Woudstra)?!

QUEER BIBLES

The "Queen James Bible" is just the latest of a string of queer Bible versions: http://www.sfgate.com/business/prweb/article/New-Gay-Bible-Prevents-Homophobic-4112195.php#src=fb

New Gay Bible Prevents Homophobic Misinterpretation of Key Verses; Titled The Queen James Bible

The Queen James Bible resolves long-standing interpretive ambiguity in key Bible passages regarding homosexuality, making the world's first "Gay Bible."

TG: Such an abomination made possible by the modern version mentality. Yet even this vile perversion has to admit: "Like most English translations, The Queen James Bible is based on The King James Version. The KJV is the most popular Bible of all time, and arguably the most important English language document of all time."

Gay Bible http://nomaddesposyni.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/the-gay-bible/ - If you accept modern versions, you have no grounds to tell these people to reject this modern version.

Gay Bible angers Christians TG: They are getting bolder and more blasphemous by the minute. http://www.guardian.co.uk:80/world/2008/dec/01/princess-diana-gay-bible 

The World's first Study Bible for the Gay and Lesbian community. http://www.amazon.com/Study-Testament-Lesbians-Gays-Transgender/dp/0980443016/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223752358&sr=8-3  "Study New Testament for Lesbians, Gays, Bi, and Transgender: With Extensive Notes on Greek Word Meaning and Context" by Dr A. Nyland (Oct 12, 2007)

Oxford's New Pro-Homosexual Bible a Hit with 'Gay' Activists
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DobrasOxfordBible.htm Politically correct commentary questions Jesus Christ's deity. A new edition of the popular New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) commentary, The New Oxford Annotated Bible, reinterprets key sections of the Bible to negate or water down orthodox Christian beliefs about homosexuality ...

Here's an excellent angle into the Bible issue from Daryl Coates, the King James Bible is a masculine Bible, all the rest are feminine.

Danish linguist Otto Jesperson wrote in "Growth and Structure of the English Language", U of Chicago Press, 1982.

"English is more masculine than most languages ... the business-like, virile qualities of the English language .. English dictionaries comprise a larger number of words than those of any other nation ... women move in narrower circles of the vocabulary ... novels written by ladies are much easier to read and contain much fewer difficult words than those written by men."

Leonard Shlain added in his 1999 book, "The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: the Conflict between Word and Image"

"Whenever a culture elevates the written word at the expense of the image, patriarchy [as opposed to matriarchy] dominates."

The 6-99 "Quality Paperback Book Review" noted that,

"the very act of reading an alphabet reinforces the brain's left [masculine] hemisphere at the expense of the right."

This explains a lot of things. For one our video oriented culture (TV, video games, computer icons, picture magazines) instead of the more verbal oriented society of the past. No wonder the Bibles are becoming feminine.

It also explains why the latest new Bibles are "gender inclusive" neuter Bibles with the masculinity of God snipped out.

It also explains why more recent Bibles remove or alter warnings against homosexuality, not to mention that a homosexual man and a lesbian woman worked on the NIV.

Finally, it explains why all the other version come from Catholic texts - the "whore" and the "mother of harlots".

2 Tim 3:6 For of this sort are they [new Bible publishers?] which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,

1 Tim 4:7 But refuse profane and old wives' fables [new Bibles?], and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.

WAS KING JAMES QUEER?

Here is some excellent information from a book by Stephen Coston, "King James Unjustly Accused?" This is the best stuff I've ever read defending the character of King James.

It turns out that the younger man (George Villiers) that James is accused of having a homosexual relationship with, was taken as a "son" by James, after his father died at an early age. Not only that, but James' oldest son died young, and Villiers filled the void. Not only that, but James' own father died in his infancy (James ascended to the throne of Scotland at only One year of age) and he knew the hardships of growing up without a father. The terms of endearment toward Villiers were as from a father to a son. The terms were common speech of the day, and Coston gives countless examples of that. He also gave many quotes of thankfulness to James from Villiers' mother for helping raise him, and from Villiers' wife for remaining a close friend. They would've not been likely to commend a queer. Three generations of the Villiers family lived in the palace with the ruling Stuart family. The families remained close long after James was dead and gone.

Having lost at least 6 children due to miscarriage, I can fully understand the above relationships.

King James condemned homosexuality numerous times, he advised his own son to "Guard against corrupt leide ... and last of all, mignard and EFFEMINATE ones."

He also penned the advice, "But especially eschew to be EFFEMINATE in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like, and make not a FOOL of yourself in disguising or wearing LONG your hair or nails, which are but EXCRETEMENTS of nature."

I've never heard a homosexual castigate homosexuality like that!

James had many enemies. The Catholics hated him passionately. Many Brits disliked him because he was the first King of England of Scottish descent. The United Kingdom was first united under James' reign. He was the first to call the kingdom "Great Britain". His enemies are the ones who made the accusations. Enemies of God's word perpetuate the attacks. Nobody then thought James was a homo, the first accusations were not leveled until 25 years after he was dead.

James also was a saved man with a desire to spread the Gospel. Due to having the aforementioned enemies, there were many attempts to assault and assassinate James. He told one attacker, "Are you after my life? You can get it, but you will not get my soul". 

King James authorized the first charters establishing settlements that would become States in America, as well as the Mayflower Compact. All of these had evangelism of the heathen as their primary purpose. James also wrote against the masculinization of women in their apparel, and against the dangers of smoking.

He may have had faults like anyone, he may have made mistakes as King, but in general, we don't have to apologize for King James' character.

 

Follow up information:

Here is the promised documentation of defenders of King James' character. Some of them are from people of his own day.

First, evidences of James' salvation (and security):

James' comment to a sword-armed assailant (James had several attempts on his life. Four conspiratorial plots were uncovered, several individual attempts, and a number of James' associates were captured or murdered.) "Are you after my life? You can get it, but you will NOT get my SOUL." (Letters of King James by G.P.V. Akrigg)

Sanderson (referenced below) gives another account of James' similar response to a knife-wielding attacker, "Sir if you want my life you may have it, but you will NOT have my SOUL."

In his own work "Basilicon Doron" James wrote "I am no papist, as I have said before...", "Now FAITH is the free gift of God (as Paul sayeth)." "...white garments washen the blood of the Lamb (as St. John sayeth)...". "All that is necessary for salvation is contained in the scripture."

Maurice Lee said in "Great Britain's Solomon - James VI & I" , "Historians can and should, ignore the VENOMOUS charicature of the King's person and behavior drawn by Anthony Weldon..."

Robert Ashton in "James I, By His Contemporaries" said, "the treatises of writers such as Sir Anthony Weldon and Francis Osborne are characterized chiefly by their author's SPITEFUL and indiscriminate ANIMUS against the king. They are represented here not because of their value as accurate accounts of events which is negligible..."

Sir Edmund Coke wrote that, "Buggery (homosexuality) is a detestable and abominable sin amongst Christians...". He also wrote directly to Viscount Villiers, "And I, knowing the sincerity of his Majesty's justice, (for the which he is the most renowned King in the Christian world)..." (cited by Roger Magnuson in "Are Gay Rights Right? Multnomah, 1990 p. 111)

Peter Heylyn (1600-1662) was a historian and contemporary of James. He wrote "Examen Historicum A Discovery and Examination of the Mistakes, Falsities, and Defects in Some Modern Histories (1659). In it he denounced Weldon's book as an infamous libel.

The "Dictionary of National Biography" states that James was "decidedly pure" and did not "come into conflict with the Presbyterian clergy" in the field of "morality".

Anthony Wood (1632-1695) was a contemporary historian of James' era. He wrote "Athenas Oxonienses". he called Peyton's accusations "a most desperate and LIBELOUS book." "full of LIES, mistakes, and nonsense."

Sir William Sanderson (1586-1676) was another historian of the era who defended King James against his accusers. He penned "A Complete History of the Lives and Reigns of Mary ... and ... James. Reconciling Several Opinions ... in Vindication of Him, against two Scandalous Authors:" (Weldon and Wilson) He commented, "Their but infection hath poisoned others, who wilfully and maliciously, have now, very lately SPIT their VENOM in print as if the world had been more than since half hundred years last past abused, with a FALSE and FEIGNED story." he calls Weldon's work "his traitorous intention" and him a "pamphleteer of fables". Sanderson further defended James in "Aulicus Coquinariae", calling Weldon's diatribe a "FALSE story".

Other sources to look into for defense of King James include "The Literary Character" and an "Inquiry into the Character of James I" by Isaac Disraeli [also later works of his son, Benjamin] (1859) and "Curiosities of Literature" (1863). "The Life of King James the First" by Robert Chambers (1830). "Monarchs of Scotland" by Stewart Ross. The "Stuart Tracts" (1603-1693) put out by Cooper Square Publishers, NY.

One last quote, from F.A. Inderwick's "Side-Lights on the Stuarts", "James...language, however, both written and oral, partook too much of the grossness and RUDENESS of the age." Oh, no, King James was a "RUCKMANITE"! :-)

ASININE ALEXANDRIAN ERRORS

Is this where modern version supporters will find the next claimed "oldest and best" manuscripts?

ALEXANDRIAN MANUSCRIPTS

Vaticanus (Vat, B) is the primary manuscript behind modern versions. Sinaiticus (Sin, Aleph) is the secondary Alexandrian (Egyptian, African) mss. used for MVs. Their Old Testament portions are also the two primary extant representatives of the supposed Septuagint (LXX).

Both Vaticanus & Sinaiticus include the Apocrypha AS inspired canon. Sin goes further and adds the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas to the NT. To make room, it omits the first part of John 8, the last part of Mark 16, and several other scattered verses.

Vat omits most of Genesis, ALL of Revelation, the pastoral epistles, and over 30 Psalms. It was left stuffed in the corner of the attic of the Vatican library for over 1,000 years - even the old Catholics didn't use it. A secondary Sinaiticus manuscript was rescued from a trash can in a monastery.

The Oxyrrhynchus manuscripts are other notable texts (scraps) from this textual family. They were actually found in an ancient garbage dump.

Have any of the modern version proponents ever wondered WHY their manuscripts were in places like dumps, trash cans, attics, and buried under caves? Could it be that they were recognized as GARBAGE in their day, and treated accordingly?

****************************************

BLASPHEMY AND HERESY

Here are some of the most incredible corruptions:

1. Who Killed Jesus?

(KJV Matt 27:49-50 The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him. Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.)

Matt 27:49-50 (from Sin and Vat) Let us alone. Let us see whether Elijah will come to save him. Then another came with a spear and pierced his side and immediately there came out water and blood. Then Jesus cried with a loud voice and gave up the ghost. 

There you have it - the ultimate blasphemy. Jesus did not die supernaturally as He Himself stated He would in John 10. Rather, according to these corrupt witnesses which add John 19:34 to this verse, Jesus was just another normal human who died the way every man dies (in this case He was killed by the soldier stabbing Him with his spear), in which case he couldn't save a drowned cat. That isn't the only serious error in the Alexandrian abominations, but it alone is enough to trash them as utterly corrupt. Here's a few more:

2. Kept by Satan?

John 17:15 (Vat B) I do not pray that you should take them from the evil one.  

(KJV: John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world.)

What a serious difference! The Alexandrian manuscript has Jesus praying that His disciples would be left with Satan! Perhaps in the modern versions, he got this prayer answered! People are left in the hand of the devil.

3. A Controversy About a Victory.

(KJV 1 Cor 15:54-55 ... Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?)

1 Cor 15:54-55 (Vat B) ... Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY. 

Why shouldn't MV proponents be swallowed up in controversy? They have no absolute scripture, what else could they be swallowed up in? How can they have victory when they don't even have a sure scripture? The whole difference between us and them is that we have certain victory, and they have confusion and controversy. This is just the reading that should be in their versions. I'm surprised they leave it out of their English versions, it fits so well with what they believe to just leave it as it reads in the Alexandrian Greek.

4. No Change For Us. 

(KJV I Cor 15:51 We shall NOT all sleep, but we shall all be changed.)

I Cor 15:51 (Sin) We shall sleep but we shall NOT ALL be changed.

The exact opposite. We will have to spend eternity in our corrupted, vile bodies of death.

5. New Versions Are Empty.

(KJV Rev 21:5 Behold, I make all things NEW.)

Rev 21:5 (Sin) Behold, I make all things EMPTY.

More and more I'm seeing the modern versions are TRUE within themselves. They won't change us. They leave us under the power of Satan. They stab Jesus. They have controversy rather than victory. And the new versions are empty.

6. Creator or Created?

In this prophecy of Jesus Christ in Micah 5:2, the KJV says His "goings forth" and "from everlasting". Almost every modern version says His "ORIGINS" are from "ANCIENT days". They have turned Jesus Christ into a created being who therefore would need a Saviour himself. Therefore, if the modern versions, and the manuscript horses they rode in on, are correct, we are wasting our time with Christianity and a Christ who is a fraud, not deity, and couldn't save us. If the modern versions are true, we are wasting our time in church when we could be in the bar. We are wasting our time in the Bible when we could be reading pornography. If the modern versions are true, we'd be better off appeasing our flesh. Eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

7. Demonstrable Factual Errors.

Gen 5:25 & 28 ages in the LXX have Methuselah living 14 years AFTER Noah's flood!

1 Sam 17:4 in the LXX has Goliath at only about 6 1/2 feet tall rather than 9 1/2 as in the KJV.

John 5:2 reads Bethsaida or Bethzatha instead of KJV Bethesda.

The identity of the pool of Bethesda was obscured after Titus sacked Jerusalem in 70 A.D. But the KJV, and it's underlying texts, knew what was true BEFORE 70 A.D. The modern versions and the Alexandrian Septuagint did not. Therefore, their texts are not older or better.

Luke 1:26 (Sin Aleph) And the angel Gabriel was sent to a city of JUDEA, named Nazareth.

Luke 4:44 where they say that Judea is inside Galilee.

Luke 23:45 where it says the sun was “eclipsed” during a full moon.

These are demonstrable ERRORS, not just a matter of interpretation. Some of these errors in the Hebrew and Greek were not retained in the modern English versions. This only shows their inaccuracy and dishonesty in avoiding their own underlying manuscripts. Their translators realized how preposterous those errors were and realized if they left them in their English versions, people would see how ridiculous they were.

****************************************

ENDLESS ERRORS

Here are some of the other clear errors of lesser importance, but obvious errors just the same:

1 Thess 2:7 (Vat and Sin) But we were BABIES among you. (KJV: "gentle")

They are babies. They have no meat of the word, all they might have is milk of some "message". They are just being honest about themselves here. We can't fault them for that, can we?

Gen 2:2 has God ending His creative work a day earlier in the LXX than the KJV.

Luke 3:33 – Aleph engages in one of its many magic tricks and makes two names out of one, viz., instead of “Aminadab” Aleph has “Admin” and “Adam.”

Luke 3:22 – Aleph has “Balls” instead of “Boaz.”

Matt 1:7 and following that Asaph the psalmist was in the royal lineage instead of Asa the king.

John 1:4 where they omit “of men”. Or where they omit “of the will of man” in John 1:13.

John 1:14 where they say “full of grace truth”, thus omitting the connective “and”.

Luke 23: where they omit the word of Jesus, “Father forgive them”.

Jonah 3:4 (LXX) Yet THREE days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown. (KJV: 40 days)

Rev 7:4 and 14:3 both mention the 144,000 in the KJV. However Sinaiticus has 140,000 in 7:4 and 141,000 in 14:3.

Rev 10:1 Sinaiticus says: "clothed with a cloud with hair on his head.", instead of a "rainbow" (KJV).

****************************************

There are countless more, but these show what kind of corrupted abominations we're dealing with. How could any honest Christian use anything connected with such egregious errors to line their bird cages for fear their parakeet might repeat some of it?

Anyone with the brain waves of lime jello can see Satan's fingerprints all over the MVs and the Alexandrian mss. If the devil inspired a version, these are just the kind of changes I'd expect him to make.Remember, the first two things noted about the serpent in the Bible (Gen 3:1):

1) He is the most SUBTLE creature

2) He questions God's word

I would not expect Satan to make glaring, wholesale, changes. Even the MVers might notice in that case. I would expect the serpent to make subtle, minor, wording changes that he can get the most mileage out of.

SNATCHING CONTROVERSY FROM THE JAWS OF VICTORY

A Controversy About a Victory.

 KJB 1 Cor 15:54-55 ... Death is swallowed up in victory. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?

1 Cor 15:54-55 (Vat B) ... Death is swallowed up in controversy. O death, where is your sting? O grave, where is your controversy. 

Why shouldn't MV proponents be swallowed up in controversy? They have no absolute scripture, what else could they be swallowed up in? How can they have victory when they don't even have a sure scripture? The whole difference between us and them is that we have certain victory, and they have confusion and controversy. This is just the reading that should be in their versions. I'm surprised they leave it out of their English versions, it fits so well with what they believe to just leave it as it reads in the Alexandrian Greek.

Swallowing a controversy about victory can lead to death.

Here are the details on the Vaticanus rendering of:

1 Cor 15:54-55 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in VICTORY. 55 O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy VICTORY?

There is a minor difference in the Greek between the word of victory and the word for controversy. The Greek word "nikos" means victory whereas "neikos" means controversy. The difference between the two Greek words is just the letter 'e'.

Vaticanus has neikos (controversy) and the TR has nikos (victory). Just to show it wasn't an inadvertent typo (before they had typewriters) Vaticanus makes the blunder TWICE in a row in verses 54 and 55, virtually contradicting itself while disagreeing with the KJB and common sense at the same time.

1 Cor 15:54 ... Death is swallowed up in CONTROVERSY. 55 O grave, where is your CONTROVERSY?

We don't have to take the opinions of biased KJB proponents. The Alexandrian supporters themselves admit it readily:

Bruce M. Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament, 3rd Edition, p 191. -

"This kind of error, which is commonly called itacism, accounts for several extremely odd mistakes present in otherwise good manuscripts. For example, in 1 Cor. xv. 54 the statement 'Death is swallowed up in victory (nikos)' appears in P46 and B as 'Death is swallowed up in conflict (neikos)'."

Kurt & Barbara Aland, The Text Of The New Testament, p 286. -

"The sounds ei and i were also identical: in 1 Cor. 15:54-55 P46 B D 088 twice read neikos for nikos, so that death is swallowed up by controversy instead of victory, and the question is asked where the controversy of death is."

Of course, what the textual critics fail to divulge is that both B and Aleph and P46 are literally bursting at the seams with itacisms and outright gross misspellings, along with all their other manifest inaccuracies.

One wonders how an educated man who realizes that a text contains "several extremely odd mistakes" could consider it an "otherwise good text". If it wasn't for the odd fact of all the people he killed, Al Capone might have been an otherwise nice guy.

That's not all. 1 Cor 15:54 is supposed to be a quotation of Isa 25:8. It's one of the verses the LXX proponents think shows the New Testament quotes from an already-existing Greek Old Testament. Let's look at that verse:

Isa 25:8 He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces ...

The Vaticanus LXX (from Brenton's LXX) renders the first part of that verse:

Isa 25:8 Death has prevailed and swallowed men up ...

In the LXX, DEATH WINS! Death (and the grave) gets the victory over us and over Jesus Christ. DEATH swallows us up instead of death being swallowed up in victory. I guess that should be a controversy. What is not at controversy is the fact that the modern versions turn the VICTORY of the KJB and Jesus Christ into CONTROVERSY and DEATH.

It's a shame they have to kill trees to print those modern versions.

METHUSELAH SURVIVES FLOOD!

http://www.ccel.org/bible/brenton/Genesis/5.html
http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Genesis/index.htm

Here is a comparison of the genealogy of Noah's relatives from the Alexandrian Septuagint Vaticanus and the KJB from the Masoretic Hebrew. I've put the ages in numerics to make them easier to identify. The discrepancies are bolded.

LXX Gen 5:25 And Mathusala lived 167 years, and begot Lamech. 26 And Mathusala lived after his begetting Lamech 802, and begot sons and daughters. 27 And all the days of Mathusala which he lived, were 969 years, and he died. 28 And Lamech lived 188 years, and begot a son. 29 And he called his name Noe ... 30 And Lamech lived after his begetting Noe, 565 years, and begot sons and daughters. 31 And all the days of Lamech were 753 years, and he died. 6:1 And Noe was 500 years old, and he begot three sons, Sem, Cham, and Japheth. ... Gen 7:6 And Noe was 600 years old when the flood of water was upon the earth.

KJB Gen 5:25-32 And Methuselah lived 187 years, and begat Lamech: And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech 782 years, and begat sons and daughters:  And all the days of Methuselah were 969 years: and he died. And Lamech lived 182 years, and begat a son: And he called his name Noah, ... And Lamech lived after he begat Noah 595 years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Lamech were 777 years: and he died. And Noah was 500 years old: and Noah begat Shem, Ham, and Japheth. ... Gen 7:6 And Noah was 600 years old when the flood of waters was upon the earth.

The KJB has the ages work out so Methuselah dies in the exact year the flood begins. According to the LXX however, Methuselah was 167 years old at the birth of Lamech and lived for 802 years after that, for the total of 969. Lamech was 188 years old when Noah was born, making Grandpa Methuselah 355 at that time. Noah was 600 years old when the flood began. Adding that 600 to Methuselah being 355 at Noah's birth means that Methuselah was 955 years old at the start of the deluge.

Now then, since Methuselah lived to be 969 (in both texts), this means that - according to the LXX - METHUSELAH SURVIVED THE FLOOD by 14 years.

Either he was a very strong swimmer (strong enough to thwart God's flood to destroy all flesh), or the Alexandrian texts are so ridiculous you shouldn't use them to line your bird cage lest your parrot repeat any of that profane perversion unwittingly.

GOLIATH TOO SHORT FOR NBA!

THE MODERN VERSION "GOLIATH"

In a blunder almost as unpardonable as having Methuselah survive Noah's flood, the Vaticanus Septuagint (which is the basis for the modern versions) text also cuts Goliath down to size before David gets to take him on. Here's the verse in the Authorized Bible:

1 Sam 17:4 And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

The KJB has Goliath at SIX cubits and a span. A standard 18" cubit would make him NINE and a half feet tall. A cubit my size puts Goliath at over TEN feet tall. That's a giant.

Now here's how the Alexandrian text has it, from the Vaticanus manuscript:

http://www.ecmarsh.com/lxx/Kings%20I/index.htm

4 And there went forth a mighty man out of the army of the Philistines, Goliath, by name, out of Geth, his height was four cubits and a span.

The LXX has Goliath at only FOUR cubits instead of six, making him only about 6'6".

Why in the world all of Israel would be scared to death of one man who was hardly tall enough to play in the NBA is unfathomable, but that's the situation in the LXX.

1 Sam 9:2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people.

As a young man, Saul was at least a good foot taller than anyone else around. That would make him likely between seven and eight feet tall. Why a warrior approaching eight feet in height would be afraid of a little six foot shrimp like the LXX Goliath is difficult to conceive. But the LXX is infested with such incredible lunacy.

What sane person, even a sane lost person, would adhere so fiercely to a text that has the soldier kill Christ (rather than Christ giving up the ghost willingly), that has death swallowed up in controversy instead of victory (just like the Bible debate, KJBOs have assurance and victory, modern versionists have confusion), has Methuselah survive Noah's flood, and cuts Goliath shorter than an average NBA player?

DRAGONS

Dragons were what dinosaurs were called before the word dinosaur was coined in the mid-1800's. Dinosaurs were created on day 6, lived with humans, were on the ark, survived the flood, and some might still be alive today in remote jungle areas. How do the modern versions deal with dragons? Changing the word to something else removes the connection with dinosaurs - something evolutionists would prefer. We will look at the KJB and five of the more common modern translations, or this would be unbearably long. No doubt the other modern versions fall in line.

Deut 32:33 Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, CEV "serpents"
(NIV, TNIV, HCSV, CEV also change asps to cobras)

Job 30:29 I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, CEV "jackals"
(ESV, HCSV also change owls to ostriches).

While serpents or monsters might be similar kinds of creatures (albeit removing the connection to dinosaurs), jackal isn't even close.

Ps 74:13 Thou didst divide the sea by thy strength: thou brakest the heads of the dragons in the waters.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, CEV "monsters"

Ps 91:13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, "serpent" CEV "snakes"

Ps 148:7 Praise the LORD from the earth, ye dragons, and all deeps:

ESV, NIV, TNIV, CEV "sea creatures" HCSB "sea monsters"

Isa 27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.

NIV, TNIV, HCSB, CEV "monster"

Isa 35:7 And the parched ground shall become a pool, and the thirsty land springs of water: in the habitation of dragons, where each lay, shall be grass with reeds and rushes.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, "jackals" CEV "wild dogs"

Yeah, jackals and dogs inhabit the waters, reeds, and rushes.

Jer 10:22 Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, CEV "jackals"

Yep, fear those jackals.

Jer 14:6 And the wild asses did stand in the high places, they snuffed up the wind like dragons; their eyes did fail, because there was no grass.

ESV, NIV, TNIV, HCSB, "jackals". The CEV at least realized it was absurd to have jackals snuffing up wind, so they simply omitted the creature.

Jer 51:34 Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon hath devoured me, he hath crushed me, he hath made me an empty vessel, he hath swallowed me up like a dragon, he hath filled his belly with my delicates, he hath cast me out.

ESV , CEV , HCSB "monster" NIV, TNIV "serpent"

Ezek 29:3 Speak, and say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, Pharaoh king of Egypt, the great dragon that lieth in the midst of his rivers, which hath said, My river is mine own, and I have made it for myself.

NIV, TNIV, HCSB "monster" CEV "crocodile"

If you were an evolutionist, would you prefer the KJB, or modern versions?

OLDEST AND BETHESDA

A few new items added to this article. Much of the original material was from Scott Jones, the new additions are from Marty Shue.

OLDEST AND BETHESDA

Due to the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 A.D., the pool of Bethesda was virtually unknown beyond that generation. Its exact identity and location was a complete mystery. Not even Eusebius got the name right. The actual location of Bethesda was not discovered until the late 19th century, and it was not excavated and fully confirmed until the mid 20th century. Bethesda is now a confirmed FACT.

The pool of Bethesda in the KJV in John 5:2 has been conclusively affirmed as being the correct reading since it has been irrevocably confirmed archaeologically. None of the major Alexandrian manuscripts, have Bethesda, and the modern English versions follow their lead and replace it with Bethzatha or Bethsaida (even though Bethsaida is nowhere near Jerusalem). Codex Bezae (D) renders it Belzetha. They all thought no such place as Bethesda existed, and decided to “correct” this “error” in the KJV.

The Byzantine (TR-KJV) manuscripts could not possibly have known about Bethesda unless they had come from manuscripts PRIOR to the Alexandrian manuscripts. In other words, the superior claim to antiquity goes to the Byzantine manuscripts which take us back to remote antiquity, FAR EARLIER than ANY of the Alexandrian MSS. The KJV (and it's source texts) knew what the situation was BEFORE 70 A.D. The modern versions, and their source texts do not.

Among the scrolls discovered at Qumran was the Copper Scroll (35 to 65 A.D. - BEFORE Titus sacked Jerusalem and 200-300 years before the false witnesses of Aleph and B were penned). The Copper Scroll of Qumran gives the Hebrew word for this pool as "Bethesda". The Hebrew word for "Bethesda" as found in the Copper Scroll is written with a dual ending. The Aramaic "Bethzatha" is not written with a dual ending but carries what is known as an emphatic plural termination.

Thus, the evidence (textual and archaeological) shows that the KJV comes from truly older sources, and is completely accurate.

Here are various renderings for John 5:2 -

KJV - Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

CEV - In the city near the sheep gate was a pool with five porches, and its name in Hebrew was Bethzatha.

RSV - Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Hebrew called Beth-za'tha, which has five porticoes.

NRSV - Now in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate there is a pool, called in Hebrew Beth-zatha, which has five porticoes.

TEV - Near the Sheep Gate in Jerusalem there is a pool with five porches; in Hebrew it is called Bethzatha.

NWT- Now in Jerusalem at the sheepgate there is a pool designated in Hebrew Bethzatha with five colonnades.

NCV - In Jerusalem there is a pool with five covered porches, which is called Bethzathan in the Jewish language.

BBE - Now in Jerusalem near the sheep-market there is a public bath which in Hebrew is named Beth-zatha. It has five doorways.

MLB - Now there is in Jerusalem by the sheepgate, a bathing pool called in Hebrew Bethzath, with five entrances.

Williams - Now in Jerusalem near the sheep-gate there is a pool called in Hebrew Bethzatha, which has five porticoes.

Moffatt - Now in Jerusalem there is a bath beside the sheep-pool, which is called in Hebrew Bethzatha; it has five porticoes.

ICB - In Jerusalem there is a pool with five covered porches. In the Jewish language it is called Bethzatha.

The  NIV and TNIV get Bethesda right, but they call it an "Aramiac" name rather than a Hebrew name. Also be aware that often the online versions fix some of these things, but they are still wrong in their print versions. I haven't checked all my print versions. The older Catholic Bibles read "Bethzatha", but the newest update corrects that.

Another point from the passage - which word is more difficult and archaic, porticoes, colonnades, or porches?

OLDEST AND BEST

OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPTS 

Rather than just pointing out flaws in the modern versions, let’s look at some of the evidences favoring the KJV. These show that the text the KJV lines up with is older and superior than the Alexandrian texts, despite the oft-parroted claim that the Alexandrian texts are the oldest:

******* ******* *******

OLDEST AND BETHESDA

By the second or third century, the pool of Bethesda was virtually unknown. Its exact identity and location was a complete mystery. Not even Eusebius got the name right. Moreover, it is doubtful that the location and identity of Bethesda even made it into the 2nd century due to the utter destruction of Jerusalem. The actual location of Bethesda was not discovered until the late 19th century, and it was not excavated and fully confirmed until the mid 20th century. Bethesda is now a confirmed FACT.

The pool of Bethesda in the KJV in John 5:2 has been conclusively affirmed as being the correct reading since it has been irrevocably confirmed archaeologically. None of the major Alexandrian manuscripts, have Bethesda, and the modern English versions follow their lead and replace it with Bethzatha or Bethsaida. They all thought no such place as Bethesda existed, and decided to “correct” this “error” in the KJV.

The Byzantine (TR-KJV) manuscripts could not possibly have known about Bethesda unless they had come from manuscripts PRIOR to the Alexandrian manuscripts. In other words, the superior claim to antiquity goes to the Byzantine manuscripts which take us back to remote antiquity, FAR EARLIER than ANY of the Alexandrian MSS.

Thus, the evidence shows that the KJV comes from truly older sources, and is completely accurate.

******* ******* *******

JOHANINE COMMA BEFORE 250 A.D.

The “Johanine Comma” is the name given to 1 John 5:7, the definitive verse about the Trinity in scripture.

1 John 5:7  For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Only a few of the late Greek Received Texts contain this verse, so many scholars discount it as part of scripture. They forget that the KJV committee had source texts that are no longer available today.

But Cyprian, in 250 A.D. quoted (Second revised edition c. AD 256), De catholicae ecclesiae unitate. (CSEL 3:215) The LORD says "I and the Father are one" and likewise **IT IS WRITTEN** of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. "And these three are one."

Cyprian is QUOTING scripture in 256 A.D. that (according to the critics) didn't exist until the 16th century! What an amazing feat!

Regardless of how many *extant* Greek texts contain the verse, or how old  they are, the texts from BEFORE 250 A.D., that were actually USED (and worn  out) contained the verse.

THE OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPT

The "London Times" reported the discovery of the OLDEST New Testament manuscript remains
.
Using a high-magnification device and the epifluorescent confocal laser scanning technique, the fragment was dated at 66 AD! Many of the New Testament ORIGINALS were not even written by 66 AD! You are not going to find a manuscript portion of any kind much before then. Mark had just been written (63 AD), Luke (68 AD) and John (85 AD) were not yet written.

Paparyologist Carston Theide dated the portion at 60-66 AD. Even his detractors conceded a pre-200 AD date, which would still make it older than the Alexandrian manuscripts.

The portion is from Matt 26:22, and as "fate" would have it, it's a portion that differs between the Antioch line of the KJV and the Alexandrian line of the modern versions.

The portion reads "hekastos auton" - "every one of them".

Mat 26:22 And they were exceeding sorrowful, and began *every one of them* to say unto him, Lord, is it I?

The Alexandrian texts read "heis hekastos" - "each one" or "one after the other". It may not be a great theological difference, but it indicates which text is accurate to the oldest manuscripts.

The REAL oldest and best manuscript supports the King James Bible!

******* ******* *******

OLDEST SCRIPTURE

In the last 25 years, two silver amulets have been discovered in the Valley of Hinnom which dated at 700 B.C., some 500 years BEFORE the Dead Sea Scrolls. These amulets were worn around the neck of OT Jewish priests and contained a small scroll with the text of Numbers 6:24-26, called the “Priestly Benediction”.

Num 6:24-26  The LORD bless thee, and keep thee: 25 The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee: 26 The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

The amulets not only vindicate the KJV text, but they vindicate the Masoretic Hebrew text used by the KJV translators for rendering the Hebrew tetragrammation JHVH as Jehovah, rather than Yahweh, as other texts render it. The KJV identifies the term by capitalizing the entire word LORD, in English.

Once again, the KJV is perfectly accurate, and its sources are superior, and this is testified to by the most ancient item of scripture ever discovered. ALL of the most ancient sources vindicate the KJV and demonstrate it to be totally accurate.

MODERN VERSIONS HAVE NO SOUL

Man (Adam) is made in God's image. God is a Trinity. Body (Jesus), Soul (Father), and Spirit. Man is also body, soul, and spirit.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground [body], and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life [spirit]; and man became a living soul [soul].

The KJB shows the three parts of man. How about the modern versions?

NIV 7 ... formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

TNIV 7 ... formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. 

ESV 7 ... formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature. 

HCSV 7 ... formed the man out of the dust from the ground and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils, and the man became a living being.

CEV 7 The LORD God took a handful of soil and made a man. God breathed life into the man, and the man started breathing.

NASB 7 ... formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Nkjv 7 ... formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. 

The modern versions have no soul! They (including the ESV, NIV, and Nkjv) remove yet another reference to the Trinity!

ARE YOU WASHED?

1 Cor 6:11 And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

ESV 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

NIV 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

HCSB 11 Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

In the modern versions, you WERE washed, sanctified, and justified. Perhaps you no longer ARE. Apparently you can lose your salvation in the modern versions.

The song asks, "ARE you washed, in the blood? In the soul cleansing blood of the Lamb?" The modern version answer is, "NO, I WAS washed, but apparently not anymore."

MODERN VERSIONS REWARD RAPE

And 5 out of 6 Modern Bible versions reward it. Modern versions reward rapists by giving the rapist the damsel. These modern perversions give enemies of God great cause to blaspheme. See Deut 22:28-29 (the first NLT is from http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm, the other is from http://www.biblegateway.com):

NLT: 28 If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. 29 Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her,

HCSB: 28 If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered, 29 the man who raped her must give the young woman's father 50 silver [shekels], and she must become his wife because he violated her.

NIV: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her.

TNIV: 28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. 

NASB: 28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her;

MSG: 28-29 When a man comes upon a virgin who has never been engaged and grabs and rapes her and they are found out, the man who raped her has to give her father fifty pieces of silver. He has to marry her because he took advantage of her.

AMP: 28 If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her and they are found, 29 Then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her;

ESV: 28 If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her.

NCV: 28 If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged to be married and forces her to have sexual relations with him and people find out about it, 29 the man must pay the girl's father about one and one-fourth pounds of silver. He must also marry the girl, because he has dishonored her,

NLT: 28 Suppose a man has intercourse with a young woman who is a virgin but is not engaged to be married. If they are discovered, 29 he must pay her father fifty pieces of silver. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her,  

The modern versions have given men just cause to rape whom we desire, and be rewarded for it with the damsel. But look at the KJB: 

Deut 22:28-29 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her,  

Nothing necessarily about rape or violation in here. Maybe "date rape", where she was willing. Being humbled is not the same thing as being violated. Rape was already covered just a few verses earlier in the same chapter: 

Deut 22:25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 

See the word "force" instead of "find" and "lay hold"? Surprisingly, the CEV actually has the right idea: 

28 Suppose a woman isn't engaged to be married, and a man talks her into sleeping with him. If they are caught, 29 they will be forced to get married. He must give her father fifty pieces of silver as a bride-price ... 

Of course there are no important differences in the modern versions, right?

XEROX GREATER THAN GOD

According to the position of modern versionists: 

A Xerox machine has abilities that seem to have escaped God in the eyes of modern Christianity.

A Xerox machine can make exact copies of its source material.

God was not able to make exact copies of His source material.

A Xerox machine can make exact copies of the copies.

God was not able to make exact copies of the copies.

A Xerox machine pays careful attention to every word and preserves each word.

God has let many words escape his copies.

A Xerox machine can make its source CLEARER by making it darker, lighter, smaller, larger, etc.,

God's copies always tend to be corrupted and in a state of confusion.

So it seems that the Xerox machine is much more powerful in the eyes of the modern version bunch than God is. Perhaps Xerox should be magnified above all?

stolen from Chip Pardi