Battle of the Bibles

[Berean]

 

 

Hi to all

 

Chapter Twenty-Three

The Romanising of the Bible Societies

In spite of an increasing stream of new versions, the Protestant nature of the Bible Societies in the
English-speaking world dominated well into the second half of the twentieth century. A case in point is
the history of the British and Foreign Bible Society in New South Wales, Australia. In a graph analysing
types of Bibles sales from the year 1961 to 1989 (supplied by the New South Wales Bible Society to the
author in May 1992), we find that in the years 1961 and 1962 one hundred percent of sales were King
James Versions. In 1963, a small percentage of Revised Standard Versions were sold and by 1966 we
find that sales of the RSV had outstripped sales of the KJV.
67
In 1970, the New English Bible showed up as a small percentage of sales and remained that way until it
vanished from the graph in 1977. In 1972 the Living Bible made its appearance and in 1977 there
commenced the reign of the Good News Bible. The New International Version arrived in 1979 and has
maintained steady sales of around ten percent of total sales. By 1989, the last year shown on the
graph, sales of the KJV represented a mere 5.63 percent of total sales!
Such records reflect the scene in most Bible House showrooms where it has become increasingly
obvious that little space is devoted to the display of the King James Bibles. How has this state of affairs
come about in such a short period of time?
We have already seen how early in its history, the British and Foreign Bible Society showed a surprising
capacity to give into the demands of its affiliate societies, especially in European countries. We noted
how the Trinitarian Bible Society came into being in response to such vacillation and, in spite of the
trend to modern versions, it still maintains its resolve to distribute only Bibles based on the Received
Text. The obvious inference is that one Society has succumbed to the will of man, while the other has
retained its resolve to make known to man, the will of God.
So, to answer our question, we shall now go behind the scenes and look at the out-working of Rome’s
continuing plan to subvert Protestantism by displacing its Bible with what Rome is pleased to call
“interconfessional Bibles”. And, as in the past, we shall see how Rome clearly uses professing
Protestant organisations and institutions to do her subversive work.
Let us never forget that all of Rome’s schemes and efforts are designed with the sole purpose of
achieving the goal set at the Council of Trent – to bring about unity on Rome’s terms. Remove the basis
of Protestantism by destroying confidence and faith in the Bible as God’s revelation of His will for man,
and then it becomes relatively easy to replace Biblically-based faith with trust in a religious system – a
system whose priests then become the sole guardians of the gateway to heaven.
Those who are tempted to think that Rome’s ideas on unity allow for compromise on her part will do
well to ponder her history and take note of her numerous considered statements. At a Catholic
Conference held in Preston on September 10, 1894 Cardinal Vaughan appealed to “the conscience of
our separated brethren “:
“The Catholic Church cannot accept reunion or communion on the condition of change, or modification,
or compromise in her own Divine constitution. The charter of constitution was drawn up by her Divine
Founder. It is therefore altogether outside her power to alter it …. But the Church is free for the sake of
some greater good to admit change and modifications in her discipline and legislation which concern
time and circumstances” (Quoted by Trinitarian Bible Society, “Rome and Reunion” Tract No 4 pp 3, 4).
Rome was willing to make such a “change or modification” in her attitude to the availability of
Scripture in order to break down Protestant opposition and capture the great Bible Societies. She
therefore was willing to demonstrate an important change in attitude by relaxing her restrictions which
heretofore has banned the possession of the Scripture by her laity. But at the same time she made sure
that the versions approved for their use carried appropriate notes and explanations – all designed to
interpret certain readings in line with her doctrines and liturgy.
It was not long before wishful-thinking Protestants saw this change as a healthy Roman move towards
accepting Scripture as authority, and they took the bait. In this regard, we could mention the Council of
68
Churches, formally a professedly Protestant group who were largely responsible for forming the
“United Bible Societies” (UBS) in 1946. Under the umbrella of this “Bible Society wing” of the World
Council of Churches are to be found most of the World’s Bible Societies. One notable exception is the
Trinitarian Bible Society with headquarters in England.
With some seventy-five Bible Societies thus affiliated, the UBS presented an ideal medium which, if
infiltrated by Rome’s agents, would allow her great influence, if not virtual control of the vast majority
of Bible Societies.
With this objective in mind, the Second Vatican Council, held from 1962 to 1965, recommended that
Roman Catholics cooperate with Protestant organisations in the translation and distribution of
Scripture. Interestingly, as noted by the graph of sales supplied by the New South Wales Bible Society,
a modern version shows up for the first time in 1963 in the form of the Revised Standard Version – right
in the middle of Vatican II!
The recommendation was acted upon almost immediately, when in June 1964 the Roman Catholics
attended a major conference of Bible Societies in Driebergen. The Trinitarian Bible Society did not
attend. (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 122).
This conference turned out to be a watershed in the UBS policy on Bible distribution. It was agreed:
“To prepare a ‘common text’ of the Bible in the original languages, acceptable to all Churches, including
Roman Catholics; and to explore the possibility of preparing a ‘common translation’ in certain
languages, which could be used by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. It was further recommended
that the Bible Societies should consider translating and publishing the Apocrypha when Churches
specifically requested it” (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 122).
In 1966 the British and Foreign Bible Society acted on this recommendation and amended its
constitution to allow the Apocrypha to be included in their translation, and the same policy was
adopted by the United Bible Society. (Trinitarian Bible Society, “Ecumenism and the United Bible
Societies”, Article No 72, p 8).
Simultaneously, talks between the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the Executive
Committee of the United Bible Society got under way. So fruitful were those meetings that it was
publicly announced in 1968 that Pope Paul VI had approved a document agreed to by both parties
entitled, “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Co-operation in Translating the Bible”.
As the American Bible Society had become associated with the National Council of Churches in 1950
and, like the British and Foreign Bible Society, had become a member of the UBS, Rome now
succeeded in co-opting the resources of two of the world’s great Bible Societies in producing and or
distributing interconfessional Bibles. In plain language, this means Bibles that are doctrinally and
liturgically acceptable to both Rome and present-day Protestants would be distributed as a united
team effort.
All that was needed now was for Rome to work through various Protestant churches to bring about a
spirit of tolerance and ecumenism, and a preference for the coming avalanche of corrupted versions.
With this object in mind, the Vatican formed an organisation known as the: “World Catholic Federation
for Biblical Apostolate”.

to be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi to all

Chapter Twenty-Four

Inter-confessional Bibles and Ecumenism

The World Catholic Federation for Biblical Apostolate (WCFBA), is a Roman Catholic organisation
formed solely for the purpose of promoting ecumenism through participation in the translation of
inter-confessional Bibles. But it does seem that the Vatican is quite happy to let so-called Protestant
organisations such as the Bible Societies bear the brunt of the cost of production and distribution of
these Bibles.
As an example, an examination of the Bible Society’s (New South Wales, Australia) report on donations
received from denominations during the 1990/1991 financial year is revealing. Of the seventeen
contributing denominations listed, by far the strongest supporter was the Anglican Church
($129,864.00). This probably reflects the continuing ties with the British and Foreign Bible Society, in
spite of the relatively recent name change to “The Bible Society in Australia”. But the Roman Catholic
Church’s contribution during that year was a mere ~, $917.00! This compared unfavourably with one
of the smaller Protestant churches – The Seventh-day Adventist Church, which gave $4,045.00.18.
(18 -Evidently the SDA’s admiration for the Bible Society’s ecumenical role and the type of Bibles being
sold, has now increased considerably. A report on Page 11 of the SDA’s March 13, 1993 issue of “The
Record” carries a report containing the gratitude expressed by the NSW Director of the Bible Society in
Australia for the SDA’s magnificent contribution during the year of 1992 which amounted to
$24,148.00!)
Although insignificant in monetary terms, the fact that Rome is contributed anything at all is highly
significant, and is indicative of her perception of success in changing the original purpose of the British
and Foreign Bible Society.
Rome’s previous attitude to the Society’s Protestant Version of the Bible was revealed by Pope Pius X
when in 1911 his prescribed “Larger Catechism” stated:
“If a Christian should be offered a Bible by a Protestant, or by some emissary of the Protestants, he
ought to reject it with horror, because it is forbidden by the Church; and if he should have accepted it
without noticing what it was, he should at once pitch it into the fire, or fetch it to his Pastor” (Cited,
“The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 121).
The reason for such drastic behaviour is explained by Rome while stating her hostility toward the Bible
Societies:
“The attitude of the Church toward the Bible Societies is one of unmistakable opposition. Believing
herself to be the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ she cannot, without turning
traitor to herself, approve the distribution of Scripture without note or comment” (“The Catholic
Encyclopedia”, Vol. II, p 545).
The obvious implication of such a radical change in attitude is that the Roman Catholic Church no
longer regards the Bible Societies as an effective instrument of Protestantism. No doubt it is joyfully
aware that, throughout Australia at least, the value of the Protestant King James Versions sold
(1990/1991) has shrunk to a paltry 9.9 percent of total sales (Source, “Bible Society in Australia”, May Architects of this successful capture of Bible Societies which come under the umbrella of the United

Bible Society, such as Monsignor Alberto Ablondi, must experience smug satisfaction with the results.
Back in 1984, while Bishop of Livorno, Italy, he was a member of the General Committee and European
Regional Executive Committee of the UBS. Undoubtedly his influence on the Societies helped to shape
their present-day policies. He views the interconfessional translations of the Bible as:
“One of the important advancements of post Vatican II ecumenism – an important step towards unity”
[and that they] “will help overcome prejudice in a divided church” (“Word-Event”, No 57/1984 p 6), as
reported in the Trinitarian Bible Society, (“Ecumenism and the United Bible Societies”, Article No 72, p
9).
And, overcome prejudice they did! In that same year:
“Several Bible Societies changed their constitution, allowing them to have members of Christian
denominations on their Board” (“1984 Annual Report of United Bible Society”, p 5).
This, of course, is an indirect way of informing the world that Roman Catholics may serve on the Boards
of former Protestant Bible Societies. They wasted no time in claiming their advantage.
“Word-Event” No 56/1984 happily confirms that many Roman Catholics, including several Bishops,
were now members of National Bible Society Boards and/or regional committees and that Roman
Catholics are serving as Bible translators.
We are indebted to the Trinitarian Bible Society for revealing that:
“One of the joint editors of the widely used United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament is a Roman
Catholic Cardinal, namely, Carlo M. Martini, the Bishop of Milan” (“United Bible Society”, Article No 72,
p 9).
This information should be of particular interest to those Christians who feel that in the New
International Version of the Bible they have discovered God’s revelation to man. They should be aware
that the New International Version (NIV) has generally followed the United Bible Society’s Greek
Translation of the New Testament (Third Edition) which in turn, like Westcott and Hort’s New
Testament, is largely based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts (See Trinitarian Bible Society
article No 74, p 16).
Mind you, the translators of the NIV in their Preface, prefer to tell it another way:
“The Greek text used in the work of translation is an eclectic one “.
In plain language, this means selecting the text that best suits one’s fancy or need. What a convenient
device for facilitating a subjective translation!
When such a device is employed in selecting texts from the great variety of Bible versions now
available, the mind boggles at the possibility of finding some semblance of Biblical support for
practically any doctrine which man is capable of devising! As a case in point, let us briefly consider the
“New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures”, the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
According to J. P. Lewis, the unidentified translators used the Westcott and Hort Greek Text: “But many
other sources were utilised” (“The English Bible from KJV to NIV”, p 229).

So, like many other translators, they took an eclectic approach in order to support their doctrines.
Especially is this so in respect to their Unitarian belief. Hence in Mark 1:1, all reference to Jesus Christ
as the “Son of God” is deleted:
“[The] beginning of the Good news about Jesus Christ”.
So blatant has been this eclectic approach, that this version has been categorised among “Tendentious
translations because it fosters the distinctive views of a particular sect” (ibid p 230).
We have seen how Rome has infiltrated the main Bible Societies through its ecumenical approach and
relegated the King James Version to a mere asterisk in their business. But such success would not have
been possible had there not been a demand for the modern versions. It is quite obvious that the
Protestant churches have co-operated with Rome to replace the very Bible, which has been
responsible for bringing them into existence, with other Bibles, which are approved by Rome. In
Section IV to follow, we shall see how one of the formerly most ardent of Protestant denominations
has co-operated with Rome in her grand plan to discredit the Protestant Bible and in the process has
turned to corrupted versions which are now being used to negate and even remove the very basis of
its distinctive beliefs!

 

To be continued

God bless

 

[Berean]

Continuation

The battle of the bibles 

Chapter Twenty-Three 

The Romanising of the Bible Societies

In spite of an increasing stream of new versions, the Protestant nature of the Bible Societies in the
English-speaking world dominated well into the second half of the twentieth century. A case in point is
the history of the British and Foreign Bible Society in New South Wales, Australia. In a graph analysing
types of Bibles sales from the year 1961 to 1989 (supplied by the New South Wales Bible Society to the
author in May 1992), we find that in the years 1961 and 1962 one hundred percent of sales were King
James Versions. In 1963, a small percentage of Revised Standard Versions were sold and by 1966 we
find that sales of the RSV had outstripped sales of the KJV

In 1970, the New English Bible showed up as a small percentage of sales and remained that way until it
vanished from the graph in 1977. In 1972 the Living Bible made its appearance and in 1977 there
commenced the reign of the Good News Bible. The New International Version arrived in 1979 and has
maintained steady sales of around ten percent of total sales. By 1989, the last year shown on the
graph, sales of the KJV represented a mere 5.63 percent of total sales!
Such records reflect the scene in most Bible House showrooms where it has become increasingly
obvious that little space is devoted to the display of the King James Bibles. How has this state of affairs
come about in such a short period of time?
We have already seen how early in its history, the British and Foreign Bible Society showed a surprising
capacity to give into the demands of its affiliate societies, especially in European countries. We noted
how the Trinitarian Bible Society came into being in response to such vacillation and, in spite of the
trend to modern versions, it still maintains its resolve to distribute only Bibles based on the Received
Text. The obvious inference is that one Society has succumbed to the will of man, while the other has
retained its resolve to make known to man, the will of God.
So, to answer our question, we shall now go behind the scenes and look at the out-working of Rome’s
continuing plan to subvert Protestantism by displacing its Bible with what Rome is pleased to call
“interconfessional Bibles”. And, as in the past, we shall see how Rome clearly uses professing
Protestant organisations and institutions to do her subversive work.
Let us never forget that all of Rome’s schemes and efforts are designed with the sole purpose of
achieving the goal set at the Council of Trent – to bring about unity on Rome’s terms. Remove the basis
of Protestantism by destroying confidence and faith in the Bible as God’s revelation of His will for man,
and then it becomes relatively easy to replace Biblically-based faith with trust in a religious system – a
system whose priests then become the sole guardians of the gateway to heaven.
Those who are tempted to think that Rome’s ideas on unity allow for compromise on her part will do
well to ponder her history and take note of her numerous considered statements. At a Catholic
Conference held in Preston on September 10, 1894 Cardinal Vaughan appealed to “the conscience of
our separated brethren “:
“The Catholic Church cannot accept reunion or communion on the condition of change, or modification,
or compromise in her own Divine constitution. The charter of constitution was drawn up by her Divine
Founder. It is therefore altogether outside her power to alter it …. But the Church is free for the sake of
some greater good to admit change and modifications in her discipline and legislation which concern
time and circumstances” (Quoted by Trinitarian Bible Society, “Rome and Reunion” Tract No 4 pp 3, 4).
Rome was willing to make such a “change or modification” in her attitude to the availability of
Scripture in order to break down Protestant opposition and capture the great Bible Societies. She
therefore was willing to demonstrate an important change in attitude by relaxing her restrictions which
heretofore has banned the possession of the Scripture by her laity. But at the same time she made sure
that the versions approved for their use carried appropriate notes and explanations – all designed to
interpret certain readings in line with her doctrines and liturgy.
It was not long before wishful-thinking Protestants saw this change as a healthy Roman move towards
accepting Scripture as authority, and they took the bait. In this regard, we could mention the Council of Churches, formally a professedly Protestant group who were largely responsible for forming the
“United Bible Societies” (UBS) in 1946. Under the umbrella of this “Bible Society wing” of the World
Council of Churches are to be found most of the World’s Bible Societies. One notable exception is the
Trinitarian Bible Society with headquarters in England.
With some seventy-five Bible Societies thus affiliated, the UBS presented an ideal medium which, if
infiltrated by Rome’s agents, would allow her great influence, if not virtual control of the vast majority
of Bible Societies.
With this objective in mind, the Second Vatican Council, held from 1962 to 1965, recommended that
Roman Catholics cooperate with Protestant organisations in the translation and distribution of
Scripture. Interestingly, as noted by the graph of sales supplied by the New South Wales Bible Society,
a modern version shows up for the first time in 1963 in the form of the Revised Standard Version – right
in the middle of Vatican II!
The recommendation was acted upon almost immediately, when in June 1964 the Roman Catholics
attended a major conference of Bible Societies in Driebergen. The Trinitarian Bible Society did not
attend. (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 122).
This conference turned out to be a watershed in the UBS policy on Bible distribution. It was agreed:
“To prepare a ‘common text’ of the Bible in the original languages, acceptable to all Churches, including
Roman Catholics; and to explore the possibility of preparing a ‘common translation’ in certain
languages, which could be used by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. It was further recommended
that the Bible Societies should consider translating and publishing the Apocrypha when Churches
specifically requested it” (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 122).
In 1966 the British and Foreign Bible Society acted on this recommendation and amended its
constitution to allow the Apocrypha to be included in their translation, and the same policy was
adopted by the United Bible Society. (Trinitarian Bible Society, “Ecumenism and the United Bible
Societies”, Article No 72, p 8).
Simultaneously, talks between the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the Executive
Committee of the United Bible Society got under way. So fruitful were those meetings that it was
publicly announced in 1968 that Pope Paul VI had approved a document agreed to by both parties
entitled, “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Co-operation in Translating the Bible”.
As the American Bible Society had become associated with the National Council of Churches in 1950
and, like the British and Foreign Bible Society, had become a member of the UBS, Rome now
succeeded in co-opting the resources of two of the world’s great Bible Societies in producing and or
distributing interconfessional Bibles. In plain language, this means Bibles that are doctrinally and
liturgically acceptable to both Rome and present-day Protestants would be distributed as a united
team effort.
All that was needed now was for Rome to work through various Protestant churches to bring about a
spirit of tolerance and ecumenism, and a preference for the coming avalanche of corrupted versions.
With this object in mind, the Vatican formed an organisation known as the: “World Catholic Federation
for Biblical Apostolate”.

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi all,

The battle of the bibles

Chapter Twenty-Three 

The Romanising of the Bible Societies
In spite of an increasing stream of new versions, the Protestant nature of the Bible Societies in the
English-speaking world dominated well into the second half of the twentieth century. A case in point is
the history of the British and Foreign Bible Society in New South Wales, Australia. In a graph analysing
types of Bibles sales from the year 1961 to 1989 (supplied by the New South Wales Bible Society to the
author in May 1992), we find that in the years 1961 and 1962 one hundred percent of sales were King
James Versions. In 1963, a small percentage of Revised Standard Versions were sold and by 1966 we
find that sales of the RSV had outstripped sales of the KJV.

In 1970, the New English Bible showed up as a small percentage of sales and remained that way until it vanished from the graph in 1977. In 1972 the Living Bible made its appearance and in 1977 there

commenced the reign of the Good News Bible. The New International Version arrived in 1979 and has
maintained steady sales of around ten percent of total sales. By 1989, the last year shown on the
graph, sales of the KJV represented a mere 5.63 percent of total sales!
Such records reflect the scene in most Bible House showrooms where it has become increasingly
obvious that little space is devoted to the display of the King James Bibles. How has this state of affairs
come about in such a short period of time?
We have already seen how early in its history, the British and Foreign Bible Society showed a surprising
capacity to give into the demands of its affiliate societies, especially in European countries. We noted
how the Trinitarian Bible Society came into being in response to such vacillation and, in spite of the
trend to modern versions, it still maintains its resolve to distribute only Bibles based on the Received
Text. The obvious inference is that one Society has succumbed to the will of man, while the other has
retained its resolve to make known to man, the will of God.
So, to answer our question, we shall now go behind the scenes and look at the out-working of Rome’s
continuing plan to subvert Protestantism by displacing its Bible with what Rome is pleased to call
“interconfessional Bibles”. And, as in the past, we shall see how Rome clearly uses professing
Protestant organisations and institutions to do her subversive work.
Let us never forget that all of Rome’s schemes and efforts are designed with the sole purpose of
achieving the goal set at the Council of Trent – to bring about unity on Rome’s terms. Remove the basis
of Protestantism by destroying confidence and faith in the Bible as God’s revelation of His will for man,
and then it becomes relatively easy to replace Biblically-based faith with trust in a religious system – a
system whose priests then become the sole guardians of the gateway to heaven.
Those who are tempted to think that Rome’s ideas on unity allow for compromise on her part will do
well to ponder her history and take note of her numerous considered statements. At a Catholic
Conference held in Preston on September 10, 1894 Cardinal Vaughan appealed to “the conscience of
our separated brethren “:
“The Catholic Church cannot accept reunion or communion on the condition of change, or modification,
or compromise in her own Divine constitution. The charter of constitution was drawn up by her Divine
Founder. It is therefore altogether outside her power to alter it …. But the Church is free for the sake of
some greater good to admit change and modifications in her discipline and legislation which concern
time and circumstances” (Quoted by Trinitarian Bible Society, “Rome and Reunion” Tract No 4 pp 3, 4).
Rome was willing to make such a “change or modification” in her attitude to the availability of
Scripture in order to break down Protestant opposition and capture the great Bible Societies. She
therefore was willing to demonstrate an important change in attitude by relaxing her restrictions which
heretofore has banned the possession of the Scripture by her laity. But at the same time she made sure
that the versions approved for their use carried appropriate notes and explanations – all designed to
interpret certain readings in line with her doctrines and liturgy.
It was not long before wishful-thinking Protestants saw this change as a healthy Roman move towards
accepting Scripture as authority, and they took the bait. In this regard, we could mention the Council of Churches, formally a professedly Protestant group who were largely responsible for forming the
“United Bible Societies” (UBS) in 1946. Under the umbrella of this “Bible Society wing” of the World
Council of Churches are to be found most of the World’s Bible Societies. One notable exception is the
Trinitarian Bible Society with headquarters in England.
With some seventy-five Bible Societies thus affiliated, the UBS presented an ideal medium which, if
infiltrated by Rome’s agents, would allow her great influence, if not virtual control of the vast majority
of Bible Societies.
With this objective in mind, the Second Vatican Council, held from 1962 to 1965, recommended that
Roman Catholics cooperate with Protestant organisations in the translation and distribution of
Scripture. Interestingly, as noted by the graph of sales supplied by the New South Wales Bible Society,
a modern version shows up for the first time in 1963 in the form of the Revised Standard Version – right
in the middle of Vatican II!
The recommendation was acted upon almost immediately, when in June 1964 the Roman Catholics
attended a major conference of Bible Societies in Driebergen. The Trinitarian Bible Society did not
attend. (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 122).
This conference turned out to be a watershed in the UBS policy on Bible distribution. It was agreed:
“To prepare a ‘common text’ of the Bible in the original languages, acceptable to all Churches, including
Roman Catholics; and to explore the possibility of preparing a ‘common translation’ in certain
languages, which could be used by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike. It was further recommended
that the Bible Societies should consider translating and publishing the Apocrypha when Churches
specifically requested it” (Brown, “The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 122).
In 1966 the British and Foreign Bible Society acted on this recommendation and amended its
constitution to allow the Apocrypha to be included in their translation, and the same policy was
adopted by the United Bible Society. (Trinitarian Bible Society, “Ecumenism and the United Bible
Societies”, Article No 72, p 8).
Simultaneously, talks between the Vatican Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and the Executive
Committee of the United Bible Society got under way. So fruitful were those meetings that it was
publicly announced in 1968 that Pope Paul VI had approved a document agreed to by both parties
entitled, “Guiding Principles for Interconfessional Co-operation in Translating the Bible”.
As the American Bible Society had become associated with the National Council of Churches in 1950
and, like the British and Foreign Bible Society, had become a member of the UBS, Rome now
succeeded in co-opting the resources of two of the world’s great Bible Societies in producing and or
distributing interconfessional Bibles. In plain language, this means Bibles that are doctrinally and
liturgically acceptable to both Rome and present-day Protestants would be distributed as a united
team effort.
All that was needed now was for Rome to work through various Protestant churches to bring about a
spirit of tolerance and ecumenism, and a preference for the coming avalanche of corrupted versions.
With this object in mind, the Vatican formed an organisation known as the: “World Catholic Federation
for Biblical Apostolate”.

 

To be continued

Blessings

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

Chapter Twenty-Four

Inter-confessional Bibles and Ecumenism

The World Catholic Federation for Biblical Apostolate (WCFBA), is a Roman Catholic organisation
formed solely for the purpose of promoting ecumenism through participation in the translation of
inter-confessional Bibles. But it does seem that the Vatican is quite happy to let so-called Protestant
organisations such as the Bible Societies bear the brunt of the cost of production and distribution of
these Bibles.
As an example, an examination of the Bible Society’s (New South Wales, Australia) report on donations
received from denominations during the 1990/1991 financial year is revealing. Of the seventeen
contributing denominations listed, by far the strongest supporter was the Anglican Church
($129,864.00). This probably reflects the continuing ties with the British and Foreign Bible Society, in
spite of the relatively recent name change to “The Bible Society in Australia”. But the Roman Catholic
Church’s contribution during that year was a mere ~, $917.00! This compared unfavourably with one
of the smaller Protestant churches – The Seventh-day Adventist Church, which gave $4,045.00.18.
(18 -Evidently the SDA’s admiration for the Bible Society’s ecumenical role and the type of Bibles being
sold, has now increased considerably. A report on Page 11 of the SDA’s March 13, 1993 issue of “The
Record” carries a report containing the gratitude expressed by the NSW Director of the Bible Society in
Australia for the SDA’s magnificent contribution during the year of 1992 which amounted to
$24,148.00!)
Although insignificant in monetary terms, the fact that Rome is contributed anything at all is highly
significant, and is indicative of her perception of success in changing the original purpose of the British
and Foreign Bible Society.
Rome’s previous attitude to the Society’s Protestant Version of the Bible was revealed by Pope Pius X
when in 1911 his prescribed “Larger Catechism” stated:
“If a Christian should be offered a Bible by a Protestant, or by some emissary of the Protestants, he
ought to reject it with horror, because it is forbidden by the Church; and if he should have accepted it
without noticing what it was, he should at once pitch it into the fire, or fetch it to his Pastor” (Cited,
“The Word of God Among All Nations”, p 121).
The reason for such drastic behaviour is explained by Rome while stating her hostility toward the Bible
Societies:
“The attitude of the Church toward the Bible Societies is one of unmistakable opposition. Believing
herself to be the divinely appointed custodian and interpreter of Holy Writ she cannot, without turning
traitor to herself, approve the distribution of Scripture without note or comment” (“The Catholic
Encyclopedia”, Vol. II, p 545).
The obvious implication of such a radical change in attitude is that the Roman Catholic Church no
longer regards the Bible Societies as an effective instrument of Protestantism. No doubt it is joyfully
aware that, throughout Australia at least, the value of the Protestant King James Versions sold
(1990/1991) has shrunk to a paltry 9.9 percent of total sales (Source, “Bible Society in Australia”, May Architects of this successful capture of Bible Societies which come under the umbrella of the United
Bible Society, such as Monsignor Alberto Ablondi, must experience smug satisfaction with the results.
Back in 1984, while Bishop of Livorno, Italy, he was a member of the General Committee and European
Regional Executive Committee of the UBS. Undoubtedly his influence on the Societies helped to shape
their present-day policies. He views the interconfessional translations of the Bible as:
“One of the important advancements of post Vatican II ecumenism – an important step towards unity”
[and that they] “will help overcome prejudice in a divided church” (“Word-Event”, No 57/1984 p 6), as
reported in the Trinitarian Bible Society, (“Ecumenism and the United Bible Societies”, Article No 72, p
9).
And, overcome prejudice they did! In that same year:
“Several Bible Societies changed their constitution, allowing them to have members of Christian
denominations on their Board” (“1984 Annual Report of United Bible Society”, p 5).
This, of course, is an indirect way of informing the world that Roman Catholics may serve on the Boards
of former Protestant Bible Societies. They wasted no time in claiming their advantage.
“Word-Event” No 56/1984 happily confirms that many Roman Catholics, including several Bishops,
were now members of National Bible Society Boards and/or regional committees and that Roman
Catholics are serving as Bible translators.
We are indebted to the Trinitarian Bible Society for revealing that:
“One of the joint editors of the widely used United Bible Society’s Greek New Testament is a Roman
Catholic Cardinal, namely, Carlo M. Martini, the Bishop of Milan” (“United Bible Society”, Article No 72,
p 9).
This information should be of particular interest to those Christians who feel that in the New
International Version of the Bible they have discovered God’s revelation to man. They should be aware
that the New International Version (NIV) has generally followed the United Bible Society’s Greek
Translation of the New Testament (Third Edition) which in turn, like Westcott and Hort’s New
Testament, is largely based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts (See Trinitarian Bible Society
article No 74, p 16).
Mind you, the translators of the NIV in their Preface, prefer to tell it another way:
“The Greek text used in the work of translation is an eclectic one “.
In plain language, this means selecting the text that best suits one’s fancy or need. What a convenient
device for facilitating a subjective translation!
When such a device is employed in selecting texts from the great variety of Bible versions now
available, the mind boggles at the possibility of finding some semblance of Biblical support for
practically any doctrine which man is capable of devising! As a case in point, let us briefly consider the
“New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures”, the Bible of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.
According to J. P. Lewis, the unidentified translators used the Westcott and Hort Greek Text: “But many other sources were utilised” (“The English Bible from KJV to NIV”, p 229).

So, like many other translators, they took an eclectic approach in order to support their doctrines.
Especially is this so in respect to their Unitarian belief. Hence in Mark 1:1, all reference to Jesus Christ
as the “Son of God” is deleted:
“[The] beginning of the Good news about Jesus Christ”.
So blatant has been this eclectic approach, that this version has been categorised among “Tendentious
translations because it fosters the distinctive views of a particular sect” (ibid p 230).
We have seen how Rome has infiltrated the main Bible Societies through its ecumenical approach and
relegated the King James Version to a mere asterisk in their business. But such success would not have
been possible had there not been a demand for the modern versions. It is quite obvious that the
Protestant churches have co-operated with Rome to replace the very Bible, which has been
responsible for bringing them into existence, with other Bibles, which are approved by Rome. In
Section IV to follow, we shall see how one of the formerly most ardent of Protestant denominations
has co-operated with Rome in her grand plan to discredit the Protestant Bible and in the process has
turned to corrupted versions which are now being used to negate and even remove the very basis of
its distinctive beliefs!

 

To be continued

 

God bless

 

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

Battle of the Bibles

Section Four
Chapters Twenty-Five to Twenty-Eight
The Ecumenical Trap
“It is certainly a remarkable circumstance that so many of the Catholic readings in the New Testament,
which the Reformation and early post-Reformation times were denounced by Protestants as
corruptions of the pure text of God’s Word, should now … be adopted by Revisers of our time-honoured
English Bibles” (Edgar, “Bibles of England”, pp 347, 348).
Chapter Twenty-Five
Unheeded Warnings
As Protestant publications increasingly contained articles by scholars and ministers who used modern
Bible versions for reference and general purposes, so a number of the Evangelical churches began to
express concerns.
In the year 1955, The Eye Opener Publishers of Junction City Oregon published a book by J.A. Ray, “God
Wrote Only One Bible”, which to the author’s knowledge continues to be published. This book, which
champions the Received Text, contains a valuable table of forty-four Bible Versions which are tested by
162 scriptures selected by Ray for comparative purposes.
Another strong scholarly defence of the Protestant Bible was made by Dr Edward F. Hills in his book,
“The King James Version Defended”, published in several editions between 1956 and 1984 by The
Christian Research Press of Des Moines, Iowa.
Perhaps no other publisher has in recent times, more consistently warned Christians of Scriptural
perversions than Grand Rapids International Publications” of Grand Rapids, Michigan. In 1970 and
through into the ‘eighties it has published Dr D.O. Fuller’s edited books, which include, “Which Bible?”
“True or False” and “Counterfeit or Genuine”.

Very nearly half of Fuller’s popular book, “Which Bible?” consists of an abridged republication of B. G.
Wilkinson’s Our Authorised Bible Vindicated” (1930). This is the book which, we recall, was rejected by
the leaders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Because Wilkinson had to publish his book privately,
it had received little exposure outside his own denominational fraternity. In fact, it is easy to believe
that Seventh-day Adventist authors and publishers went out of their way to nullify Wilkinson’s
warnings.
We have seen how Wilkinson traced the history of the New Testament text and convincingly proved
that the pedigree of the Received Text went right back to the apostolic era. Furthermore, he refuted
the idea that the older manuscripts must necessarily be purer by providing documentary evidence that
the most serious corruptions of Scripture took place in the second century AD.
Yet, in 1947, the Seventh-day Adventist’s own “Review and Herald Publishing Association” published a
book which entirely ignored Wilkinson’s argument as well as the facts of history. Having acknowledged
that the Westcott and Hort text “Leans towards the Vulgate” it claimed:
“This in itself is not a blemish, for it is reasonable to believe that Jerome, when he was working out that
standard Latin version, had access to older manuscripts than any that were available to the translators
of the Authorised Version” (M.E. Olsen, “The Prose of Our King James Version”, p 186).
Such a statement would do credit to the most ardent Roman defender of the Vulgate and is supportive
of the claim that the Roman Catholic Church has been the guardian of God’s Word. It also ignores the
fact that the Catholic Latin Version (Vulgate) has always been in conflict with the Waldensian Bibles
(Traditional Text) whose pedigree dates back to the apostolic area of the Antioch church. The martyr
Reformers would not be impressed!
Here indeed, is an intriguing mystery. Wilkinson’s own “received him not”. At first they denounced him
and finally ignored him. Yet Dr Fuller, in his preamble to the section of his book featuring Wilkinson,
was able to say that although Dr Wilkinson is practically unknown to scholars, a careful study of his
book reveals his thorough knowledge of his subject which shows him to be: “A scholar of the first rank”
(“Which Bible?”, p 174).19
(19 The author has been told that when Wilkinson’s work is occasionally mentioned by students in the
Seventh-day Adventist Colleges and Seminaries, his efforts are curtly dismissed with the statement that
the denomination has long since Proven his arguments to be worthless. The facts are quite different!)
In 1930 a General Conference committee, appointed to review Wilkinson’s book, delivered a blistering
attack on his “unauthorised” work. The author fortunately has a copy of Wilkinson’s reply in which he
methodically proceeds to dismantle the committee’s feeble and puerile arguments. Never again did
the General Conference risk another thrashing by attempting to gainsay his book – so it was just
ignored.
Furthermore, even as Dr Fuller had decided to arrange his book around Wilkinson’s masterful defence
of the King James Version, the Seventh-day Adventist Church had decided to launch into a career,
which can be described as, “Rome’s Little Helper”. Far from being content to mal-advise their own
church members to “Use the version of their choice” (“Problems in Translation”, 1954, p 75), they now
launched a campaign of public education in which they indiscriminately promoted the modern
version.

Throughout their history, Seventh-day Adventists have placed great reliance on the printed word for
the spreading of their concept of the gospel – a gospel which they prefer to describe as “The everlasting
gospel”, as found in Revelation 14. It is because they insist on following the Bible as their only guide
and rule of faith that their pioneers arrived at some beliefs that are practically, if not totally, unique to
Seventh-day Adventism. In order to spread their beliefs they have built up a sizeable publishing
business and a system of door-to-door distribution of books through a large network of supervised
colporteurs.
One such project was a profusely-illustrated book published in 1959 by the denominationally owned
Review and Herald Publishing Association in Washington D.C., titled, “Your Bible and You”. It has
become well known over the intervening a years, not only to Seventh-day Adventists, but to scores of
thousands who recognised the author, Arthur S. Maxwell, as Uncle Arthur of “Bedtime Story” fame.
“Your Bible and You”, as the name implies, sets out to give people confidence in the Bible as the true
Word of God, and it then proceeds to present Adventist beliefs from the Bible and the Bible only.
Inexplicably, as it must have seemed to those who knew Maxwell, he promoted all versions of the Bible
as of equal value. Referring to the multiplicity of versions available to his readers, he said:
“Perhaps you too are wondering whether the book you hold in your hand is really the Bible. You need
not worry. No matter what version it may be, it is still the Word of God” (p 43).
Such a sweeping statement is all the more puzzling when it is realised that only a few years earlier
(1946), another of the Adventist presses was still reprinting one of Wilkinson’s books, “Truth
Triumphant”. In this classic history of Christianity, Wilkinson showed that the churches which upheld
the apostolic faith throughout the Dark Ages had two things in common. They all had the Traditional or
Received Text and they all observed the Biblical seventh-day Sabbath. He convincingly demonstrated
that historically there were two lines of Bibles, which have persisted down to this day. One was
guarded and handed on to Protestants by the churches in the wilderness, and the other of which Rome
was the author and custodian.
This historical fact was completely ignored by Maxwell. He briefly traced the origins of the Bible as
emanating from the Codex Vaticanus, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus which,
incredibly, he portrayed as the “original text” (p 35). In such a statement we have an example of an
“official” trend which is in utter defiance of Adventism’s respected author and commentator Ellen G
White, who, on behalf of the denomination, specifically denies that Rome has been the custodian of
truth:
“‘The church in the wilderness’, and not the proud hierarchy enthroned in the world’s great capital, was
the true church of Christ, the guardian of the treasures of truth which God had committed to His people
to be given to the world” (“Great Controversy”, p 64).
Maxwell continued his platitudes:
“You need to entertain no doubt concerning the essential accuracy of the original text” meaning the
aforementioned codices (p 35).
In answer to the question, “Which version is best?” Maxwell was able to lump both Roman and
Protestant Bibles together, and impute to them equal authority:

“For through this book, in all its multiplicity of versions and translations, God has chosen to speak to
human hearts in all the world” (p 44).
While this is true, it is equally true that in many modern versions Satan also has spoken. Mixing a little
deadly error with truth makes a dangerous potion. Maxwell then proceeded to present the messages
of Seventh-day Adventism by selectively quoting from the King James Version and the Revised
Standard Version. Admittedly, he did give precedence to the KJV by identifying the RSV each time he
quoted from it. This man, whom we have every reason to believe was sincere, probably unwittingly
demonstrated his confidence in the primacy of the KJV.
But did he realise that he was helping his church in what now appears to be a crusade for public
acceptance of the modern versions in accordance with the plans laid down at the Council of Trent and
modified at the Vatican II Council, and now being put into practice by the United Bible Society – the
Bible Society wing of the ecumenical World Council of Churches?
We wonder if any Seventh-day Adventist noticed the danger in this eclectic approach to selecting
doctrinal texts; for just as most modern translators adopt an eclectic approach to the text which best
suits their purpose, so with the plethora of versions available it is now possible to search for a text that
translates a particular verse of Scripture to suit a particular doctrinal belief.
Maxwell did just that – he could hardly do otherwise and successfully uphold the doctrines of his
church! Just one example should show the utter inconsistency of such an approach.
We have noted how Seventh-day Adventists have some unique beliefs. One which their pioneers
worked out from their study of the King James Version concerns the state of man in death. They
believe that death is like a sleep from which the dead are resurrected bodily at Christ’s second coming
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-16). In accordance with Ecclesiastes 9:5: “The dead know not anything” and Job
14:21: “His sons come to honour, and he knoweth it not”, the dead of all ages still lie “sleeping” in the
grave awaiting the resurrection day.
Is it not surprising then, that in the chapter, “Shall we Meet our Loved Ones Again?”, Maxwell kept well
clear of the Revised Standard Version and stuck entirely to the KJV. Had he quoted Job 19:25, 26 from
the RSV it would have been very embarrassing for this text reflects the belief of H. E. Fosdick, a leading
radio preacher of the National Council of Churches which sponsored the RSV. Fosdick is reported to
have bluntly declared:
“I do not believe in the resurrection of the flesh” (Ritchie, “Why We Reject the National Council Bible”, p
16).
Just what does the Revised Standard Version say?
“For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at last He will stand upon the earth; and after my skin has thus
been destroyed, then without my flesh I shall see God” (1957 Edition Published by Thomas Nelson,
Edinburgh. Emphasis supplied).
Whatever happened to the bodily resurrection? No, that text would never do. So Maxwell wisely stuck
to the King James Version which is supportive of his belief, yet flatly contradicting the RSV. The KJV
says:

And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God” (See “Your Bible and
You”, p 341).
Pastor Arthur Maxwell would have been wiser had he not played around with modern versions at all,
let alone patronise the RSV and thus elevate it to a position of equality with the KJV.
It is not as though he and his Seventh-day Adventist publishers had not been warned, especially
regarding the depraved nature of the Revised Standard Version; for no sooner had it arrived on the
market than there was an outcry from Evangelical Fundamentalists. Articles protesting the RSV
spontaneously appeared in such magazines as the “Sunday School Times”, “Moody Monthly”,
“Christian Life”, “Action” and “Eternity Magazine”, while lecturers denouncing the new version sprang
into action in numerous parts of the United States of America.
One theme was predominant among the protests – the pedigree of the RSV. It was sponsored by the
National Council of Churches in America, which in its earlier form, the Federal Council of Churches, had
been suspected by United States Naval Intelligence of being a subversive organisation with Socialist
ideals (H.G. Ritchie, “Why We Reject the National Council Bible”, p 9).
One of the Council-sponsored preachers, Dr E. S. Jones, showed a propensity to mix politics with the
gospel – a trend which has characterised much of the Council’s history:
“When the Western world was floundering in an unjust and uncompetitive order … God reached out
and put His hand on Russian Communists to produce a juster [sic] order and to show a recumbent
church what it has missed in its own gospel” (ibid pp 9, 10).
Among the revisers of the RSV we find quite an assortment of what we might call critical liberal
modernists. Their rejection of the Received Text is clearly revealed in the Preface to their “Revision”:
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by
mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying” (Preface,
1957 Edition).
Such an attitude reveals the “revisers” hopeless infatuation with the Roman Catholic line which has
been debunked through documentation presented in the book you are now reading. It is quite
unworthy of the Protestant heritage under which the majority of the revisers sheltered and gained
their living. They failed to recognise that had there been no Received Text, such as used by Tyndale and
the King James Version translators, there would be no Protestant denominations in which they could
masquerade as believers.
It is not surprising then that we find others of their fraternity exposing their traitorous intentions:
“The leaders of the [RSV] committee are active in the ecumenical movement, the World Council of
Churches, which desires to include the Roman Catholics, and have a ‘one world church’. All this fits into
a pattern” (Carl McIntire, “The New Bible, Why Christians Should Not Accept It”, Second Ed. p 21).
That the revisers had indeed succeeded in producing an ecumenical Bible is verified by an article by
priest Bernard Orchard in a popular Roman Catholic Weekly:
“The most recent and best (translation) in the Englishspeaking world is the Revised Standard Version
which in 1957 was brought to completion by the careful revision of the deuteroncanonical books,
roughly speaking identical with the Protestant apocrypha. The result is a scholarly rendering of Scripture which is a delight to read and with very little editing could be made entirely acceptable to
English-speaking Catholics” (“The Commonweal”, October 9, 1959, p 48).
As if such warnings were not sufficient to alert the Seventh-day Adventist Church to the modernistic￾cum-Roman nature of the RSV, there appeared in 1953 a particular warning aimed specifically at
Adventists by none other than the son of B.G. Wilkinson, Dr Rowland F Wilkinson. Three editions of his
pamphlet: “The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible” appeared in that year alone, all emanating
from Takoma Park, Washington, where the Headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist Church was
located.
Wilkinson’s pamphlet caused quite a stir among Adventists as, one by one, he singled out corrupted
texts which generally impinge on the Protestant faith and Seventh-day Adventism in particular. (For
further information see “The Comparison of Texts” in Chapter twenty-seven).
In June 1960, Dr Rowland Wilkinson brought out an amplified edition of his pamphlet. His writings
revealed an insight into Rome’s strategy and the background of the RSV which would have done his
father proud:
“A religious revolution is now shaping up in Western Christendom. The world ecumenical movements in
Protestantism and Catholicism recognise that to unite there must be a mutually acceptable Bible” (p 3).
And how right subsequent events have proved him to be! Dr Wilkinson went on to demonstrate the
incompatibility of the ecumenical Bible with the King James Version by quoting Dr Luther Weigle,
Chairman of the Revised Standard Version Revision Committee who while addressing a capacity
audience of religious leaders on September 30, 1952 in Washington said in effect:
“That you cannot use the King James Version and the Revised Standard Version together. It will bring in
confusion; use one or the other. (Of course he recommended the RSV. “) (ibid).
But far from heeding such warnings, it seems that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had enjoyed its
little excursion into the realm of ecumenical modernism. Within three years, the services of Arthur
Maxwell’s son, A. Graham Maxwell, were enlisted by the editor of its public outreach journal, the
prestigious “Signs of the Times”. The May 1969 issue asked the title question: “Can We Trust Modern
Bible Versions?” Maxwell told the public:
“You can trust the modern versions. Read as many as you can” (p 31).20
(20 One cannot help but wonder if Maxwell would now extend this advice to include the New
International Version (NIV), which is now being vigorously promoted by his church. If so, he would have
to change his belief in what his church calls the Investigative Judgment which, according to its teaching
corresponds to the yearly atonement made by the High Priest in the Most Holy part of the earthly
sanctuary. From their very inception, Adventists have claimed, according to their interpretation of the
time prophecy of Daniel 8:14, that Christ commenced His priestly role of cleansing the Heavenly
Sanctuary (atonement) by moving into the Most Holy Place in Heaven in 1844. Yet, according to the
NIV and the New KJV, Christ went straight into the Most Holy Place at the time of His ascension:
“But He entered the Most Holy Place once and for all by His own blood, having obtained redemption”
(Hebrews 9:12 NIV).

It is probably no coincidence that the NIV is being acclaimed and vigorously promoted by Adventists,
for a large section of their scholars no longer believe that 1844 has any relevance to Christ’s Heavenly
Ministry.)
By this time, the British and Foreign Bible Society and the United Bible Society had amended their
constitutions to include the Apocrypha in some versions and were enjoying the fruits of Vatican II
Council in the form of interconfessional cooperation.
What dangerous advice the Seventh-day Adventist Church was giving to the Societies potential
customers! “Read as many as you can” (and get thoroughly confused!). Surely, the “People of the
Bible” were now well on the way to forsaking the Bible of the Reformation from which they had
worked out their own particular beliefs! Certainly they had disregarded previous warnings of their
church against the uncompromising and consistent efforts of the papacy to make the United States a
Roman Catholic Country.
During the years 1909 to 1912, Seventh-day Adventists had published: “The Protestant Magazine”. In
the issue dated Second Quarter, 1911 an article captioned: “A Remarkable Document” described as
“the Roman Catholic Confession publicly prescribed and propounded to Protestants in Hungary and
Germany on their reception into communion with Rome ” (Circa 1673). Part of that Confession which
defies God’s warnings of eternal damnation for those who add and take away from His Word
(Revelation 22:18, 19) reads thus:
“We confess that the Pope has the power of changing Scripture and of adding to it, and taking from it,
according to his will” (Cited, “The Protestant Magazine”, p 106).
The following year an editorial in The Protestant Magazine astutely observed:
“The Protestant reformation of the sixteenth century was an organised movement to set aside the
authority of the popes, councils and tradition, and to return to the unadulterated teaching of Holy
Scripture. The present partial failure of Protestantism is due to the repudiation of this fundamental
feature of that movement” (ibid p 293).
Fortunately, by the ‘seventies, Adventists were still taking such Protestant warnings seriously.
Maxwell’s advice was largely ignored as Seventh-day Adventist congregations clung tenaciously to their beloved King James Version.

To be continued

God bless

 

[Berean]

 

Hi all

Continuation

Battle of the Bibles

 
<h2>Chapter Twenty-Six</h2>
<h2>
Rome’s Little Helper</h2>
It is historically demonstrable that denominational apostasy usually comes from the top. It is the result
of organisational heresy which filters through its employees to the church congregations. Furthermore,
it is a fact that such changes come slowly, for time and funerals are an integral part of the process.
It should never be forgotten that the term “apostasy” means a turning away from a position previously
espoused. Therefore, when we speak of “Apostate Protestantism”, we are referring to churches that
have turned their back on the Reformation and have, or are going back to the “Mother Church” –
Rome.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church has used this term ever since its inception to describe the decline in
Protestantism generally. Few realised that by the mid-twentieth century the process was well under
way within their own denomination!
A few people had pondered the increasing efforts to replace the King James Bible with the National
Council of Churches Revised Standard Version. Its failure to be accepted by Adventist congregations
defused any serious attempt to probe the real purpose behind the introduction of those modern
versions, which of course was an attempt to provide Biblical support for a developing conspiracy to
lead “The Truly Protestant Church” back into the arms of Rome. 21
21 Said L.E. Froom, Secretary of the general Conference Ministerial Association, in the official SDA
Church magazine, Review and Herald: “We see that the Seventh-day Adventists are truly Protestant, in
taking the prophecies of the Bible from ‘the Bible and the Bible only”‘ (Sept 23, 1948, p 10). Further
evidence of Adventists genuine protest against Roman Catholicism is their refusal to worship on the
day set apart by Rome – “the venerable day of the Sun”.
Ever since their fledgling church had published its views on “The Great Controversy Between Christ and
Satan”, back in 1887, Seventh-day Adventism had gained the particular attention of the Papacy. The
book itself was proscribed. (22 Proscribe – to denounce and condemn as dangerous, to prohibit.) No
wonder! Its author, Ellen G. White, a convert to Adventism from the Methodist Church, made it quite
plain that Protestantism in America was imperilled by Roman Catholic action.
In a chapter titled: “The Aims of the Papacy” she wrote: “Protestants have tampered with and
patronised popery; they have made compromises and concessions which papists themselves are
surprised to see, and fail to understand. Men are closing their eyes to the real character of Romanism,
and the dangers to be apprehended from her supremacy. The people need to be aroused to resist the
advances of this most dangerous foe to civil and religious liberty” (P 566).
She continued:
“The papacy that Protestants are now so ready to honour is the same that ruled the world in the days
of the Reformation, when men of God stood up, at the peril of their lives, to expose her iniquity. She
possesses the same pride and arrogant assumption that lorded it over kings and princes, and claimed
the prerogatives of God. Her spirit is no less cruel and despotic now than when she crushed out human
liberty, and slew the saints of the Most High.
“The papacy is just what prophecy declared that she would be, the apostasy of the latter times” [2
Thessalonians 2:3, 4] (p 571).
The book, “Great Controversy” was an outstanding success. With numerous reprints and editions still
coming off the press, it must have sent its message to millions and is credited with bringing more
people into the Adventist faith than any other book.
Because of this book it is alleged by the reformed Jesuit priest Dr Alberto Rivera that the Papacy took
the Seventh-day Adventist Church seriously as a truly Protestant organisation and therefore targeted it
for infiltration and subversion. (“Alberto”, p 28).
But a group of Protestant Christians who perceive that they have a Biblical injunction to take God’s
“judgment hour message” to a doomed world are not easily diverted from their goal. The rise of Protestantism amidst the ever present threat of persecution and annihilation had driven this fact home
to Rome – and the lesson had been well and truly learned; hence the Council of Trent (1545 to 1563) at
which the Jesuit schemes of infiltration and internal subversion were adopted.
Since then the Jesuits have shown themselves masters in the art of seduction and subversion, a
technique which relies on the frailties of human nature.
A sober warning was issued to members of a General Conference Committee of Seventh-day
Adventists in the year 1903, by a committee member, Dr P.T. Magan. At this time a committee was
refraining the organisational procedures of the General Conference enabling it to govern in a hierarchal
manner resembling that of the Roman Catholic Church 23 Magan Said:
I have always felt that the hardest place that any man could be put in his life is to have to stand
conscientiously opposed to what the majority of his brethren believe to be right. To me it has always
appeared to be a much easier thing to stand in a position of opposition to the world, for your faith,
than to have to face your brethren for your faith” (Cited in “Watchman, What of the Night”, (XXVI – 2
(93) p 4).
23 In a letter of censure written by A.T. Jones to General Conference President, A.G. Daniels, dated
January 26, 1906, dealing with the change in the Constitution in 1903, Jones summed up his feelings
thus:
“The Seventh-day Adventist denomination is more like the Catholic Church than is any other Protestant
church in the world” (Meyers, “With Cloak and Dagger”, p 73).
(Jones had been editor of the SDA religious liberty magazine, the “American Sentinel” and was
regarded as the Denomination’s most prominent public advocate of religious liberty. SDA Commentary,
Vol. 10, p 634).
This is a human frailty which has been exploited to the full by Rome and, as we shall now see has,
according to the ex Jesuit Dr Alberto Rivera, met with outstanding success in the muting of Adventism’s
perceived role in preaching the “everlasting gospel” (See Revelation 14:6-11). In his book “Alberto”,
Rivera tells how he was one of many young seminarians trained by the Jesuits to infiltrate Protestant
institutions. He claims:
“The first Protestant groups they [Jesuits] moved on were the 7th day Adventists [sic] and the Full
Gospel Business Men”, (p 28).
Such claims help provide a rational explanation for the otherwise inexplicable conduct of certain
leaders whose actions appear more in keeping with the role of ‘false prophets, which come to you in
sheep’s clothing but inwardly they are ravening wolves” of which Christ had warned His church
(Matthew 7:15; Mark 13:22).
Dr Rivera has also written of the way in which Rome has carried out her plans (as formulated at the
Council of Trent) to subvert Protestantism through what he calls the “Alexandrian cult”:
“Today in many Bible colleges, professors who are in the Alexandrian cult are constantly altering the
King James Bible with the Greek and English versions of the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate. Naturally the
students lose confidence in the Bible and lack power when they become preachers” (“Sabotage”, p 30).

It follows then, that if Rivera is correct in his claim that the Seventh-day Adventist Church had been
substantially infiltrated by Rome, we should expect that much of the Adventist administration and the
academics whom it employs would be avid promoters of the modern versions. Let us see!
As the decade of the sixties was drawing to a close, it became evident to the more discerning Seventh￾day Adventist that there was much more to the fad for modern versions than the wish to be seen to be
in line with “reverent scholarship”. For instance, when the Ministerial Secretary of the Australasian
Division of Seventh-day Adventists, Pastor L.C. Naden was appraised of the RSV, he immediately
reacted by circularising the ministry, warning them of its pedigree and its pitfalls. But it was not long
before a young man by the name of Desmond Ford was appointed head of theology at the Seventh-day
Adventist’s main ministerial training centre in Australia. He had spent quite some time training
overseas and had picked up quite a bit of the “reverent scholarship”, part of which was his predilection
for the National Council of Church’s Revised Standard Version of the Bible.
He wrote a thesis which was published under the title of “Daniel” but his interpretation of prophecy
was at variance with historic Adventism. In fact, he went for the futuristic interpretation of prophecy
invented by the Jesuit Ribera which lets the papacy off the beastly hook of Revelation. Throughout his
book, Ford used the RSV to support his position and no more objections to the use of the RSV were
heard from the ministerial staff!24
acquiescent attitude to the new teachings began to develop among leaders who compromised their
principles – a failing which was to characterise the church’s rapid acceleration towards Protestant
impotency.
But such enthusiasm for corrupted Scripture was not yet shared by the laity. Changes in the pews came
slowly. As young Seventh-day Adventist pastors introduced the modern versions into their pulpits,
many of the congregations resented the intrusion. In the October 1982 edition of “The Ministry”
magazine, issued at the Seventh-day Adventist headquarters in Washington, there appeared an article
by Elder Charles Case under the title: “Use the Bible Your People Use”. In the same article appeared the
findings of a “Ministry” survey which indicated that an overwhelming majority of church members in
North America wished that their pastor would stick to the King James Version.
Probably, a similar situation existed in Australia and New Zealand, for a veritable barrage of poorly
documented articles upholding certain modern versions as superior to the KJV were appearing in the
official church paper, “The Australasian Record”.
Simultaneously, and ever increasing number of church writers were using modern versions. The
Sabbath School Lesson Quarterlies, published by the General Conference for its world Bible study
program, decreasingly used the KJV as authority. Very significantly, its “Sabbath School Lessons” began
to drop the traditional pattern of systematic study of doctrine in favour of a decidedly timorous approach to Scripture.

Implementing this radical change was the almost complete introduction of modern versions into the
church’s significantly large educational system – from its primary school to tertiary theological training.
And, all this, in spite of the results of the survey published in its official church journal!
Such “meritorious” conduct did not escape the notice of Rome and her ecumenical lackeys. Was the
Seventh-day Adventist Church now sufficiently within the ecumenical fold to have its co-operation in
the translation of interconfessional Bibles? Apparently it was! The October 1985 “Quarterly Record” of
the Trinitarian Bible Society documents Adventism’s new found dimension in ecumenism:
“The work of the Bible Society (United Bible Society) acquired a new dimension with the setting up of a
consultative committee made up of three representatives from the Roman Catholic, the Anglican and
Seventh-day Adventist churches. This committee will supervise the translation, reproduction and
distribution in the Seychelles” (“United Bible Society Report”, 1984).25
25 A decade later the SDA Church in the South Pacific Division proudly announces its current
ecumenical activities. Writing of the translation of the N.T. into the ChiLanji language in Zambia which
began in 1990, we read in “The Record”:
“The project is interdenominational and involves Baptist, Seventh-day Adventist and Roman Catholic
Churches” (“Record”, May 1, 1993 p 5).
An indication of Rome’s remarkable success with her interconfessional brainwashing of Adventistism is
revealed in a most unlikely New Zealand publication, “New Zealand Truth and TV Extra”. Featured on
the front page were the headlines: “Kiwi Church Cranks in Pope Smear”. (The “Cranks” turned out to be
SDA lay people who had emulated the spirit of the original “Protestant Magazine” editors early this
century).
According to “Truth” a paper called the “Protestant” had recently been circulated throughout New
Zealand. Although the message, like that of its name sake was distinctly Adventist Protestant in nature,
it failed to please the Adventist hierarchy in NZ. Pastor Larry Laredo from the Adventist Headquarters
in Auckland publicly distanced his Church from the “underground” publication by allowing himself to
be photographed in the act of tearing up the “Protestant”. David Ross, a spokesman for Catholic
Communications, clearly revealed his church’s perception of its success in hoodwinking Adventist
administrators through the ecumenical process when he was reported as saying:
“The Protestant paper is an example of bigotry by a few Adventists which will not upset the ecumenical
relationship being developed between Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists” (“Truth”, October 16,
1992).
The laity were still not impressed. Lagging behind and failing to celebrate the interconfessional exploits
of their adventurous administrators, they would soon be made to see what was good for them.
The coup de grace came in 1985 in the form of “The Seventh-day Adventist Hymnal”. This is the first
time that the contents of any hymn book has received the imprimatur of the General Conference of
Seventh-day Adventists by the incorporation of its name in the title.
After voting for this hymnal, mostly sight unseen, church members were in for a real shock. Aside from
some hymns that were distinctly Roman Catholic in sentiment and even liturgy, it contained an extensive section of Scriptures for corporate reading as well as a smaller section for corporate prayers
and canticles – a new and radical departure for an historically conservative Protestant church.
In view of the craven desire of the church leadership to promote modern versions, it should not be
surprising to find that the Hymnal Committee and the hierarchy which supported them, took this
opportunity to coerce Adventist congregations into mouthing Scriptures which they had hitherto
rejected and ignored. Members were shocked to find that this hymnal slighted their beloved King
James Bible by practically ignoring it! Out of some 224 Scripture Readings and prayers intended for
corporate worship, taken from eight Bible versions, the KJV was relegated to a very poor seventh place
in frequency of use. It was utilised fourteen times only!
The Roman Catholic Jerusalem Bible came in second place being used thirty-eight times – nearly three
times more than the KJV! The New International Version topped the list, being used sixty-eight times!
One reading, No 852, purporting to be a rendition of Psalm 63:1-5 is nothing more than an anonymous
paraphrase!
Indicative of the Roman influence behind the selection of these readings is the use of liturgical
terminology which this hymnbook has introduced to Adventist worship. No 833, taken from Isaiah 6
carries the label: “The Sanctus “; No 835 from Luke 1, titled: “The Song of Mary” carries the notation,
“Commonly called The Magnificat “; and No 836, also from Luke 1, is “Commonly called the
Benedictus”. All three are New King James Version renditions. No 837, a rendition of a portion of Luke
2 from the Jerusalem Bible, is “Commonly called The Nunc Dimittis “.
The few times the King James Version is used is when very well known and oft repeated texts are
quoted. Presumably, the Selection Committee was afraid of offending reader’s sensibilities by trying to
rephrase ingrained memory verses. If so, the Committee failed the test of consistency by quoting John
3:16 from the Jerusalem Bible (No 782). And again, in No 730, they destroyed a beautiful message
which announces God’s comprehensive plan of salvation for all mankind by quoting Luke 2:14 from the
NIV. This rendition promotes a selective type of gospel with which the Roman Church undoubtedly
agrees – “Glory to God in the highest and on earth peace to men on whom His favour rests”.
Another reading selected from the NIV (“Zondervan”, 1978) which not only carries overtones of
Catholicism, but is positively preposterous, is to be found in No 756. Here, David is made to say in
Psalm 51:5: “Surely I have been a sinner from birth and sinful from the time my mother conceived me”.
It is on this assumption that all babies are born sinners that Rome hastens to baptise as soon as
possible after birth. But this rendition goes further; all are sinners from the moment of conception!
But, by the time the SDA Hymnal was published in 1985 the publishers of the New International
Version had seen fit to delete this outrage: “and in sin did my mother conceive me” (“Zondervan”,
1984).
The Biblical definition of sin is found in 1 John 3:4. “For sin is the transgression of the law”. In No 790,
Adventists are asked to repeat the RSV’s definition of sin: “Sin is lawlessness”. (And, so is exceeding the
speed limit. Is that sin?)
What a mix up! Far from the ludicrous image of a sinful, lawless foetus, depicted in their hymnal, the
Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary prepared in the ‘fifties gives a perfectly rational exposition of
Psalm 51:5. On page 755 of Vol. 3 we read: “David recognises that children inherit natures with propensities to evil “. 4

This fully accords with David’s declaration in the KJV:
“Behold I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me”.
It is on this obfuscation of God’s plain definition of sin that the “new theology” of apostate
Protestantism is predicated! The logical conclusion to this postulate will inevitably support Rome’s
dogma of the Immaculate Conception with its Mary Worship. How else could Christ be incarnated
through humanity and, yet be born sinless! (according to Rome’s definition of sin).
It would be difficult to imagine a more striking vindication of Dr Rivera’s claim regarding Rome’s
infiltration of Seventh-day Adventism than the above recitation of behaviour which must surely merit
the title of Rome’s Little Helper!

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi all

Continuation

Chapter Twenty-Seven 

Fruits of Anti Christ

The story of the Battle of the Bibles would remain little more than one of historical interest unless its
relevance to present day Christianity can be demonstrated. There are those who love to assure us that
textual variations have little or no bearing on basic Christian doctrine. If this be so, then we can only
conclude that the leading contenders for the revision of the King James Version failed miserably in
their expectations; for the leading agitator for revision, who also became chairman of the New
Testament Committee of Revision, made no secret of his desire for change, meaning doctrinal change.
Said Bishop Ellicott:
“Here our duty is obvious. Faithfulness and loyalty to God’s truth, require that the correction should be
made unhesitatingly” (Ellicott, “Considerations”, p 88).
Accordingly, we shall here offer some comparisons of texts from five Bible versions “against” that of
the King James Version. In the process, it will be noticed that Ellicott’s expectations have been realised
– not only in the Revised Version, but progressively more so in subsequent versions.
The five versions chosen are representative of changes in translations approximating the period
between the publication of the Douay and Jerusalem Versions, both of which are Roman Catholic
Bibles. This is the period covering roughly the era of the development of Protestantism until its virtual
demise following Vatican II Council (1962 to 1965). The reader may compare other versions with this
fairly representative selection.
The versions selected for this exercise of comparison with the KJ V are:
1. The Douay Version (1914 Edition) published and revised from the Rheims (1582) and the Douay
(1609) version.
2. The Revised Version (RV 1897).
3. The Revised Standard Version (RSV published by Thomas Nelson 1957).
4. The Jerusalem Bible (JB 1971).
5. The New International Version (NIV 1978).

It is here pertinent to note some ways in which attacks on Scripture are launched. By injecting seeds of
doubt by means of marginal or foot notes; by changes which effect the meaning either subtly or by
outright contradictions; or by omission of words, phrases, sentences and whole verses.
We shall group these attacks on the Received Text under broad doctrinal headings and list the
Scriptural comparisons in the order in which they appear in the Bible. This is by no means an attempt
at a detailed analysis, but it will be sufficient to demonstrate that important doctrines are effected.
When any of these five versions do not appear in our analysis, it is because it is in thought-agreement
with the KJV.
The doctrines with which we will be here concerned are:
1. Messianic Prophecies.
2. Christ’s divinity and Creatorship.
3. Christ’s miraculous birth.
4. Christ’s incarnation into true humanity.
5. The gospel of salvation.
6. Christ’s resurrection, ascension and second advent.
Group 1. Attacks on the Messianic Prophecies
Undoubtedly the greatest attacks on the Holy Scriptures have been directed against Jesus Christ as the
eternal, uncreated Son of God Who was incarnated in our flesh that He might triumph over sin in our
nature and conquer death.
The record of this world shattering achievement is known as the ‘Gospel” or the “Good News”. Like it
or not, the civilised world honours this event every time the date is recorded, by relating it to the year
of our Lord – Anno Domini (AD).
Yet, it has never been in the interests of the Satan-led Gnostics and the Jewish hierarchy that the
Biblical predictions of Christ’s first advent be obscured in order that Christ be not identified as the
Messiah. (The first quotation for each Scripture considered will be from the KJV).
Genesis 12:3
“And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all the
families of the earth be blessed”.
We see that this blessing would come through the lineage of Abraham and be made available to all
people. Protestants and Roman Catholics have traditionally seen this text as a promise of the Messiah.
RSV “And by you all the families of the earth will bless themselves “.
Here we are given a useless self-blessing (as epitomised in the history of Israel during the Christian
era).
JB “Bless themselves by you”
A senseless rendition!

Genesis 49:10
“The sceptre shall not pass from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shilo come; and
unto him shall the gathering of the people be”
Douay “The sceptre shall not be taken away from Judah, nor a ruler from his thigh, till he come that he
is to be sent: and he shall be the expectation of the nations”.
RV Note “Till he come to Shilo, having the obedience of the peoples “.
RSV, JB and NIV “Until he comes to whom it belongs “.
In ancient times, the sceptre was a sign of authority. When on the throne, monarchs would rest it
between their knees. Here we are told that Judah would retain leadership among the tribes until the
coming of Shilo who would take over the leadership of Israel. Hence we here have a Messianic
prophecy which has been progressively blunted and garbled from the time of the appearance of the
Douay onward.
Isaiah 7:14
“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel”.
RV Note and RSV “Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son… “.
JB “the maiden is with child”.
Notice how the ambiguous, doubt fostering note which was inserted into the RV to placate the
Unitarian, Dr Vance Smith, is developed into a textual omission of the virgin birth in the RSV.
Jeremiah 31:22
“For the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man”.
RSV “For the Lord has created a new thing on the earth; a woman protects a man “.
JB “For Yahweh is creating something new on earth: the Woman sets out to find her husband
again”.
NIV Note “A woman will go about [seeking]; or will protect a man “.
Early Christian expositors, (and Augustine) are almost unanimous in attributing this “new thing” to
Jesus being encompassed in Mary’s womb. Notice that while the Douay did not tamper with this text,
yet Rome’s interconfessional Jerusalem Bible joins in with the modern versions in postulating a
ridiculous concept. What is new about a woman seeking or protecting a man? Even Rahab did that!
Zechariah 9:9
‘Behold, thy king cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass”.
Here we have the forecast of Christ, the Saviour, triumphantly entering Jerusalem while humbly riding
on an ass (Matthew 21:5-9). Now, note the progressive elimination of Christ’s role as Saviour, as
introduced by the doubtful note in the RV, which eventually is adopted by the JB
RV Note “He is just and having ‘saved’ or ‘victory”‘.

RSV “Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he “.
JB “See now, your king comes to you; he is victorious, he is triumphant, humble and riding on a
donkey”. This prophecy of a coming Saviour is missing.
Matthew 27:35
“And they crucified him and parted his garments, casting lots; that it might be fulfilled which was
spoken by the prophet” (See Psalm 22:18).
RV “And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments among them, by casting lots “.
RSV “They divided his garments among them by casting lots”.
JB “They shared out his clothing by casting lots “.
NIV “They divided up his cloths by casting lots”.
Only the Douay agrees with the KJV by referring to the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy.
Mark 15:28
“And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors”.
RV and RSV This verse is omitted but recorded in a note.
JB and NIV The entire verse is omitted.
Group 2. Attacks on Christ’s Divinity, His Eternal Pre-Existence and His Creatorship.
Daniel 3:25
“Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the
fourth is like the Son of God”.
RV “and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods”.
RSV “and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods “.
JB and NIV “and the fourth looks like a son of the gods”.
The translators of the KJV and the Douay reflect the early Christian view that the fourth person was the
second person of the Godhead. In doing so, they are acknowledging Christ’s preexistence. The above
four versions which fail to make this point ignore the context where Nebuchadnezzar acknowledged
the superiority of Israel’s God (Daniel 3:26-29; 4:2). They are in line with Origenism.
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”.
RV Note “whose goings forth are from of old, or from ancient days “.
RSV “whose origin is from of old, from ancient days “.

JB “His origin goes back to the distant past, to the days of old “.
NIV “whose origins are from of old, from ancient times”.
It will be noted that there is an eternity of difference between the terms: ‘from everlasting” and from:
“ancient of days” or “times “. Again, the progression of error from the note in the RV to the later
versions is obvious. Christ’s everlasting coexistence in the Godhead is denigrated.
Matthew 27:54
“Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and
those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God”
RV Note and RSV “Truly this was a son of God”.
JB “In truth, this was a son of God”.
“A son of God” does not equate with “the Son of God”. All believing Christians may become sons of
God: “Beloved now are we the sons of God” (1 John 3:2).
NIV Note “a Son of God”.
John 6.69
“And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God”.
RV “Thou art the Holy One of God”.
RSV, JB and NIV “You are the Holy One of God”.
The translators of these four versions all avoid Peter’s declaration that Jesus is “that Christ”, the Son of
the living God. The term “Christ” or “anointed one” is synonymous with the Hebrew “Messiah”. Neither
translation makes the sense specific (or plainer as most publishers of modern versions claim) because
such titles as the “Holy One of God” have been bestowed upon a variety of religious leaders, such as
gurus, lamas, mullahs and popes.
Acts 8:37
“And he [Philip] answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God”.
RV This verse is missing, but a note tells us that some ancient authorities “insert” verse 27.
RSV, JB and NIV All omit verse 27.
Note that this important declaration on the divinity of Christ in the KJV is upheld by Rome in the Douay
but not in her later Jerusalem Bible.
Ephesians 3:9
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”.

Douay “And to enlighten all men that they may see what is the dispensation of the mystery which hath
been hidden from eternity in God who created all things”.
We have noticed the inclination on the part of Rome to uphold the divinity of Christ in the Douay
version. However, this admirable trait is subservient to the opportunity of appearing to support dogma
– in this case, the priestly dispensing of the Mass and the “re-creation” of Christ in the form of a wafer.
RV “hath been hid in God who created all things”.
RSV “hidden for ages in God, who created all things”.
JB “but also of explaining how the mystery is to be dispensed. Trough all the ages, this has been kept
hidden in God, the creator of everything”.
NIV “was kept hidden in God, who created all things”.
None of the five versions attributes creatorship to Jesus Christ. If Christ is not the Creator, how can He
be expected to create new hearts within us?
Ephesians 3:14
“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ”.
RV and RSV “I bow my knees unto the Father from whom every family in heaven and on earth is
named”.
JB “This, then, is what I pray, kneeling before the Father, from whom every family, whether
spiritual or natural, takes its name “.
NIV “For this reason I kneel before the Father, from whom the whole family in heaven and on earth
derives its name”.
Once again we see the overriding desire of the modern translators to eliminate reference to the
Sonship of Christ – even the Roman Jerusalem Bible, though the Douay got it right!
Hebrews 1:2
“[God], Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things,
by whom also He made the worlds;”
RV Note “hath at the end of these days spoken unto us in a Son … through whom also He made the
ages “.
RSV “He has spoken to us by a Son through whom He created the world”.
Notice how Gnosticism comes through in the revised versions. Paul’s declaration of Christ’s divine
Sonship is missing, while the RV presents Christ as the creator of something intangible.
Group 3. Attacks on the Virgin Birth
Isaiah 7:14 has been cited in the section dealing with Messianic passages of Scripture and it is also
applicable here. Now look at some attacks in the New Testament. Predicably, we should not expect the
Douay Version to join in these attacks, yet, in keeping with Vatican II Council, Rome’s interconfessional
plans are evident in her Jerusalem Bible.

Matthew 1:25
“And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS”.
RV “and knew her not till she had brought forth a son “.
RSV “But knew her not until she had borne a son “.
JB “and, though he had not had intercourse with her, she gave birth to a son”.
NIV “But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son “.
As a virgin, Mary’s child must of necessity be a first-born, and the KJV and the Douay make this point.
But the best the revisionists can do is to indicate that Joseph was not the father, thus leaving the
possibility that some other man might have been the boy’s father! Notice the emerging pattern of
resemblance between the post-Vatican II Bibles – JB and NIV.
Luke 2:33
“And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him”.
We note how the King James Version translators were careful to avoid naming Joseph as Jesus’ father.
Not so the following versions.
Douay “And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning
him”.
It would appear that Rome has here made a surprising mistake. It is explained by B.G. Wilkinson who
says: “In preparing the Latin Bible, Jerome would gladly have gone all the way in transmitting to us the
corruptions in the text of Eusebius, but he did not dare” (“Our Authorised Version Vindicated”, p 48).
But in this case, Jerome must have been determined to support Origen and his Gnosticism, for
Wilkinson cites “Jerome against Helvidius” to say that Helvidius accused Jerome of translating Luke
2:33 from corrupt Greek manuscripts (ibid p 48).
RV and RSV “And his father and mother”.
JB “As the child’s father and mother stood there wondering at the things that were being said
about him “.
NIV “The child’s father and mother marvelled”.
John 3:16
“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”.
RSV “For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son… ”
The omission of the term: “begotten” is entirely consistent with the Gnostic philosophy of the RSV
revisers who shunned the supernatural. “Only begotten” comes from two Greek words meaning
“alone” and “I am born”, thus signifying Christ’s lack of an earthly father. That the omission is
deliberate, there can be no doubt, as witness John 1:14,18; John 3:18 and 1 John 4:9.
JB “God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son”.

NIV “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only son “.
Again, we see the Jerusalem Bible and the NIV pairing up, except that a note in the NIV admits the
omission: “Or God’s only begotten Son “.
To be continued

God bless

 

 

[Berean]

Hi to all

Continuation

Group 4. Against Christ’s Incarnation and True Humanity 

Acts 2:30
“Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God hath sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of
his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne”
Here we have Peter reminding the believers that Christ’s incarnation through the flesh (of David’s line)
had been both promised and fulfilled (2 Samuel 7:12-16).
In 1 John 4:3 God has warned that: “every spirit that confesseth not that Christ is come in the flesh is
not of God”. Notice how the following versions fail to identify the “One” who came in the flesh as
Christ.
Douay “that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne “.
RV “that of the fruit of his loins he would set one upon his throne “.
RSV “he would set one of his descendants upon his throne “.
JB “to make one of his descendants succeed him on the throne “.
NIV “he would place one of his descendants upon his throne “.
1 Timothy 3:16
“And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in
the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory”.
Douay “great is the mystery of Godliness, which was manifest in the flesh, was justified in the spirit… “.
RV “He who was manifested in the flesh… “.
RSV “Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested in the flesh… “.
JB “Without any doubt, the mystery of our religion is very deep indeed. He was made visible in the
flesh… “.
NIV “He appeared in a body… “.
All five versions fail to identify who or what appeared in the flesh. The NIV demolishes the doctrine of
the incarnation by saying: “He appeared in a body “. We may well ask, who appeared in a body? Don’t
we all! But how many gods have been “manifest in the flesh”?
Hebrews 2:16
“For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham”.
It will be noted in the KJV that the words: “him the nature” have been supplied, indicating a problem
with the Greek text. But whereas this translation makes sense within the context of verse seventeen, which outlines the credentials of a high priest, other translators have succeeded in making it
meaningless.
Douay “For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels, but of the seed of Abraham he taketh hold”.
RV “For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he taketh hold of the seed of Abraham “.
RSV “For surely it is not with angels that he is concerned but with the descendants of Abraham “.
NIV “For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants “.
Notice the progressive degeneration of the text.
1 John 4:3
“And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is
that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now is already in the
world”.
Douay “And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus is not of God”.
Here we have further evidence of Rome tampering with Holy Scripture – in this case, a senseless
rendition designed to avoid evidence that could implicate her as the antichrist. Bishop Simpson in his
“Yale Lectures on Preaching”, says: “The Romanists have been trying to get the human nature of Christ
as far away from our humanity as possible and hence have taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary
“.
With such teaching, Christ could not have inherited any sinful tendencies from Mary and hence did not
come in the flesh of fallen humanity.
RV “and every spirit which confesseth not Jesus is not of God; and this is the spirit of the
antichrist”.
RSV “and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This spirit is of the antichrist “.
NIV “but every spirit which does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. this is the spirit of
antichrist”.
Not one of these four renditions confess that “Jesus is come in the flesh”.
Group 5. Attacks on the Gospel – Salvation Matthew 9:13
“I will have mercy and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to
repentance”.
Here, Christ enunciates a basic pre-requisite to salvation – first an acknowledgment of our sinful state,
and then a repentance that turns us away from sin. This process of repentance does not seem to be
understood by Rome.
Douay “For I am not come to call the just, but sinners”.
RV and RSV “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners”.
JB “I did not come to call the virtuous, but sinners “.

NIV “I came not to call the righteous but sinners “.
Not one of these renditions speak of repentance.
Matthew 18:3
“Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter the kingdom of heaven”.
RV “Except ye turn, and become as little children “.
RSV “Except you turn and become like children”.
JB “Except you change and become like little children “.
NIV “Unless you change and become like little children “.
“Conversion” holds not only the thought of turning about, forsaking a present course, but has religious
and spiritual connotations which these versions all choose to ignore.
Matthew 18:11
“For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost”.
RV, RSV, JB and NIV The whole verse is missing because Westcott and Hort rejected it, but the Douay
having preceded them got it right.
Mark 2:17
“They that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance”.
Douay “For I came not to call the just, but sinners”.
RV and RSV “I came not to call the righteous, but sinners “.
JB “I did not come to call the virtuous, but sinners “.
NIV “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners “.
Again, as in Matthew 9:13, all versions avoid mentioning “repentance “.
Luke 2:14
“Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men”.
The heavenly host announced to the world the beautiful news of salvation to men – a generic term
encompassing the whole human race, without exception. But in the following renditions, this universal
message of hope has been prostituted with a restricted application to a favoured class.
Douay “Glory to God in the highest: and on earth peace to men of good will”.
Over the centuries, the Roman Church has made it painfully clear whom she regards as not meriting
good will.
RV “And on earth peace among men in whom He is well Pleased “.
RSV “and on earth peace among men with whom He is Pleased “. JB “and peace to men who enjoy His favour”.
NIV “peace to men on whom His favour rests”.
Such sentiments expressed in the modern versions could encourage the predestination philosophy of
Calvin on which “Apartheid” is predicated.

To be continued

God bless

 

[Berean]

Continuation

The battle of the bibles

John 6:47
“Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life”.
RV “He that believeth hath eternal life”.
RSV “he who believes has eternal life “.
JB “everybody who believes has eternal life “.
NIV “he who believes has everlasting life “.
According to the above versions, belief in something unspecified will ensure eternal life! Like Hinduism
or Buddhism?
1 Corinthians 5:7
“For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us”.
Douay “For Christ our pasch is sacrificed”.
RV “For our passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ “.
RSV “For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed”.
JB “Christ, our, passover, has been sacrificed”.
NIV “For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed”.
For those who are inclined to minimise the importance of the two missing words: ‘for us”, it is here
pertinent to quote B.G. Wilkinson: “That Christ was sacrificed is an historical fact; that He was
sacrificed ‘for us” is a doctrine and the very basis of which the Gospel rests. Take away the fact that he
died for us, as the Revisers did in this text, and there is no Gospel left. The leading Revisers, in
particular, Westcott and Hort, rejected the idea that Christ was our substitute and sacrifice” (“Our
Authorised Bible Vindicated”, p 193).
Group 6. Against Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension, and Second Advent
If there is one thing the Gnostics and Rationalists cannot stomach, it is the fact of Christ’s resurrection
and ascension. It follows then that the doctrine of His second advent must be a nonsense to such
unbelievers.
Matthew 24:3
“Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming and of the end of the
world?”
Douay “And what shall be the sign of They coming and of the consummation of the world?’

RV Note “And what shall be the sign of Thy presence and of the consummation of the age?’
RSV “and what will be the sign of your coming and of the close of the age?”
NIV “and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?’
Not that all the above (except the Revised Version which relies on a note to inject uncertainty) are
indefinite as to the precise nature of the event. “The end of the age” could refer to any of earth’s
historical periods, such as the age of Roman rule, the supremacy of an empire, or a social era.
Mark 16:9-20
“Now, when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene
…After that he appeared in another form unto two of them … Afterward he appeared unto the eleven
as they sat at meat … So then after the Lord had spoken unto them he was received up into heaven,
and sat at the right hand of God”.
RV Note “The two oldest Greek manuscripts and some other authorities omit from verse nine to the
end”.
RSV Note The chapter ends with verse eight and verses nine to twenty are recorded in note .
NIV “The translators preface verses nine to twenty with the observation,: “The most reliable early
manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20-.
If “the most reliable manuscripts” do not include these verses, then why include them in a note? The
manuscripts which the revisers incorrectly describe are the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which, as we have
seen, have at times been rejected by Rome as inferior to the Itala; hence it is fairly predictable that
both the Douay and the Jerusalem Bibles should include these verses.
Luke 24:6
“He is not here but is risen; remember how he spake unto you when he was in Galilee”.
RSV Note “He is not here but is risen” is confined to the footnote.
This omission reflects the belief of some members of the National Council of Churches, as epitomised
by H.E. Fosdick who was against the resurrection (see page 148).
Luke 24:51
“And it came to pass, while he blessed them he was parted from them, and carried up into heaven”.
RV Note “Some ancient authorities omit “and was carried up into heaven “.
RSV “While he blessed them he parted from them”.
Again, we have the RSV building on the doubts introduced by Westcott and Hort in the Revised
Version.
Titus 2:13
“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ”.

Douay “Looking for the blessed hope and coming of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus
Christ”.
In this and following renditions of the text, nothing is said of Christ’s expected literal return.
RV and RSV “and appearing of the glory of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”.
JB “while we are waiting in hope for the blessing which will come with the Appearing of the glory of
our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ”.
Alterations Favouring Roman Catholicism
Genesis 3:15
“And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between they seed and her seed; it shall
bruise they head, and thou shall bruise his heel”.
This text has ever been recognised by Christians as the first Biblical promise of the Messiah. Here our
first parents were told that the “seed” would feel the enmity of the serpent (Satan) who would inflict a
non-lethal wound. But in contrast, the “seed” (Christ) would inflict a mortal wound to Satan’s head.
The Mariolaters have corrupted this text by deflecting the credit for this victory away from Christ to
Mary.
Douay “she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel “.
Matthew 3:2
“And saying, Repent ye for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”.
Douay “Do penance for the kingdom of heaven is at hand”.
Here, and in most other passages of Scripture where repentance is mentioned, the Douay Version
advocates penance in an endeavour to support the dogma of “salvation by works” (See in Douay,
Ezekiel 18:30; Matthew 4:17; Matthew 12:41; Mark 6:12; Luke 13:3, 5; Luke 16:30; Acts 2:38;
Revelation 3:3).
This is one of the corruptions that caused emerging Protestant England to look on the Rheims Douay
Bible with revulsion.
By the time Rome adopted the ecumenical mode – some three and a half centuries later (Vatican II
Council), she discontinued such abominations, as witness the Knox and Jerusalem Bibles. Rome will
yield only if she perceives a greater gain.
I Corinthians 11:29
“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning
the Lord’s body”.
RV “For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh judgment unto himself, if he discern not the body “.

RSV “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment upon himself”.
JB “a person who eats and drinks without recognising the Body is eating and drinking his own condemnation “.
NIV “For anyone who eats and drinks without recognising the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself”.
In all these versions here cited, not one uses the expression: “unworthily “. The inclusion of this word
in the KJV (and Douay) indicates that there could be any number of causes other than “not discerning the Lord’s body”. In fact, various causes could impair spiritual discernment of the emblem. The countless number of people burned at the Roman stakes accentuates the importance which Rome attaches to the dogma of “Transubstantiation”.

The recognition of the wafer as the literal body of Christ is the only concern shown in these renditions.

Note also the substitution of’judgment” for “damnation ”

 

To be continued

God bless

 

[Berean]

 

James 5:16
“Confess you faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed”.
Douay “Confess therefore your sins one to another: and pray one for another, that you may be saved”.
RV “Confess therefore your sins one to another, and pray for one another, that you may be saved”.
JB “So confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, and this will cure you “.
NIV “Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed”.
Faults and sins are not the same. In the KJV, verse 15, “sins” is used correctly in the context of God
forgiving sins. But in verse 16, ‘faults” is used in connection with human relationships. The Douay
blatantly tries to justify the priestly confessional by introducing “salvation” into verse 16. Notice that
the interconfessional Jerusalem Bible agrees with the modern versions by omitting “salvation”.
2 Peter 2:9
“The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day
of judgment to be punished’.
RV “and to keep the unrighteous under punishment unto the day of judgment”.
RSV “and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment “.
NIV “and to hold the unrighteous for the day of judgment, while continuing their punishment”.
It seems strange that the Roman Douay and Jerusalem Bibles do not go this far in upholding an
intermediate state of punishment such as purgatory. Rather, they seem content to leave it to the so￾called Protestant versions. However, the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) has yielded to interconfessional
desires as has the New King James Version!

[Berean]

 

Hi all

The battle of the bibles

Revelation 13:18
“Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast; for it is the number of a man; and the
number is Six hundred three score and six”.
It has been a source of strength among Waldenses and other Christians who have been persecuted by
the Church of Rome, and later among early Protestants, to know that God has identified their
persecutor as the “beast” of Revelation. The martyrs would not be impressed by the doubt-fostering
revisionists whose cankerous suggestions infest some versions.
RV Note “Some ancient authorities read, Six hundred and sixteen “.
RSV Note “Other ancient authorities read six hundred and sixteen “.
JB Note “Some commentators have claimed that 666 is the total of the number values of Nero Caesar”.
Dean Burgon has some pertinent and telling comments on this perversion. “Not one ancient version
advocates this reading”, but only one uncial and cursive copy. He claims that Iranaeus (170 AD) knew
of these corruptions by rejected them saying that 666 is, “Found in all the best and oldest copies and is
attested by men who saw John face to face” (“The Revision revised”, pp 135, 136).
It is hoped that all fair-minded readers will, after studying the foregoing brief analysis of Scriptural
deviations, realise that important Christian doctrines have been seriously undermined. We have not
attempted to examine the many seemingly minor alterations to Scripture that, on their own, do not
appear to be important. But let us not be complacent, for Drs Westcott and Hort, on whose critical
method of translation most of the modern translators rely, realised the importance of the cumulative
impact of even seemingly innocuous changes in translation. Commenting on the work of the 1881
revisionists, Westcott declared:
“But the value of the revision is most clearly seen when the student considers together a considerable
group of passages, which bear upon some article of the Faith. The accumulation of small details then
produces its fuller effect. Points on which it might have seemed pedantic to insist in a single passage
become impressive by repetition. ” (Westcott, “Some Lessons”, p 184, emphasis supplied).
Such an insight into the thoroughness of the “scheme” entered into by Westcott, Hort and Ellicott,
designed to tamper with articles of accepted faith, reflects on the probity of all those who engineered
the fraud of “revision”. Truly, it is axiomatic that dishonest enterprises must employ dishonest means.
Despite the fact that the charter handed to the revisers stipulated that changes were to be limited to
“plain and clear” errors, the finished revision brought forth a staggering 36,000 changes in the English
of the KJV and close to 6,000 in the Greek Text.
Canon Cook had no doubts as to the origin of those changes:
“By far the greatest number of innovations, including those which give the severest shocks to our
minds, are adopted on the authority of two manuscripts, or even one manuscript, against the distinct
testimony of all other manuscripts, uncial and cursive …. The Vatican Codex, … sometimes alone,
generally in accord with the Sinaitic, is responsible for nine-tenths of the most striking innovations in
the Revised Versions” (Cook, “Revised Version”, pp 227, 231; cited in “Our Authorised Bible Vindicated”,
pp 175, 176)

 

To be continued

God bless

[Berean]

Hi to all

Here is an Extract of

Antichrist Conspiracy
Inside the Devil’s Lair 

by Edward Hendrie

 

The Roman Catholic Attack on God’s Word
Satan knows that the word of God is the way to salvation. Satan also knows that God has
promised to preserve his words, and so it would be futile for him to try to destroy God’s words.
Therefore, instead of trying to destroy God’s words, Satan instituted a two prong strategy to keep the
Holy Scriptures from the people. The first prong of the strategy was to outlaw the possession and
reading of the Holy Bible. When, over the years, that strategy proved ineffective, Satan instituted
his second prong, which is to deny that God has preserved his words and offer counterfeit bibles to
the world and to deceive people into believing his counterfeits are the closest that they can get to
God’s genuine word.
The Roman Church knows that if the people are able to read for themselves God’s word they
will discover that the Catholic traditions and doctrines are not just in addition to the Scriptures, they
violate the Scriptures. The Catholic Church has a long history of trying to keep God’s word from
the people. For example, at the Council of Terragona in 1234 A.D. the Roman Catholic Church
prohibited anyone from possessing any part of the Old or New Testaments in any of the Romance
languages (Portuguese, Spanish, Catalan, Provencal, French, Rhaeto-Romance, Italian, Sardinian,
and Romanian). The council ruled that anyone owning a Bible was to turn it over to the local
Catholic bishop to be burned. In 1229 at the Council of Toulouse (Pope Gregory IX presiding), the
Catholic Church prohibited “laymen” from having the Holy Scriptures or translating them into the
“vulgar tongue” (common language of the country). In 1551 the Catholic Inquisitional Index of
Valentia forbade the Holy Bible to be translated into Spanish or any other “vernacular.” In 1559 the
Roman Catholic Index Librorum Prohibitorum (Index of Prohibited Books) required permission
from the Catholic Church to read the Catholic version of the Bible; all Christian Bible versions were
simply prohibited. On September 8, 1713, Pope Clement XI issued his Dogmatic Constitution,

Unigenitus, which in part condemned as error the teaching that all people may read the Sacred
Scripture. On May 5, 1824 Pope Leo XII issued his encyclical Ubi Primum which exhorted the
bishops to remind their flocks not to read the Bible. On May 24, 1829 Pope Pius VIII issued the
encyclical Traditi Humilitati, which exhorted Catholics to check the spread of Bibles translated into
the vernacular, because those Bibles endangered the “sacred” teachings of the Catholic Church. On
May 8, 1844, Pope Gregory XVI issued his encyclical Inter Praecipuas in which he described Bible
societies as plotting against the Catholic faith by providing Bibles to the common people, whom he
referred to as “infidels.” On January 25, 1897 Pope Leo XIII issued his Apostolic Constitution
Officiorum ac Munerum which prohibited all versions of the Bible in the vernacular tongue. The
1918 Catholic Code of Cannon Law, Index of Prohibited Books, Cannon 1385, § 1 prohibited
publishing any edition of the Holy Scriptures without previous Catholic “ecclesiastical censorship.”
The 1983 Catholic Code of Cannon Law, Cannon 825, § 1 prohibits the publishing of the Sacred
Scriptures without the permission of the Apostolic See or the Conference of Bishops.
The official doctrines of the Catholic Church prohibiting the publication, possession, or
reading of the Holy Bible, were not a mere suggestions, they were enforced. For example, on
October 6, 1536 at Vilvorde (outside Brussels, Belgium) William Tyndale was burned at the stake.1
His crime was that he translated the Holy Scriptures into English and was making copies available
to the people in violation of the rules of the Roman Catholic Church.2
The progenitors of the Catholic Church were around in the time of the apostles, wresting the
Holy Scriptures from the people.
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved
brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things
hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they
do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved,
seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error
of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. (2 Peter 3:15-17 AV)

7. Satan’s Counterfeit Bibles
With the advent of the printing press (circa 1455) making Bibles available to the ordinary
man, it became obvious to Satan that he could not keep God’s word from the masses, so he instituted
the second prong of his attack on God’s word in earnest. He offered counterfeit bibles. The Holy
Scriptures reveal a pattern by Satan from the beginning to tamper with God’s word. God
commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou
mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt
not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
(Genesis 2:16-17 AV)

 

In Genesis 3:1-5 the serpent misquotes God, changing God’s words; he tricks Eve into eating
from the tree of knowledge of good and evil by asking her if God commanded that they not eat of
any of the trees in the garden. When Eve responds, she also misquotes God, saying that he
commanded that they should not touch the fruit, when God merely prohibited the eating of the fruit.
God told Adam that if he ate from the tree “thou shalt surely die.” Once Satan perceived that Eve
was ignorant of God’s true words he felt confident that he could convince Eve to disobey God by
subtly misquoting what God had said. Satan took the warning by God and added one word. Satan
said to Eve: “Ye shall not surely die.” What Satan said sounded authoritative. It sounded almost like
what God had said; but that one word corrupted God’s word and turned it from the words of God
to the words of Satan. The result of the corruption by Satan of God’s word was the greatest tragedy
in history, the fall of Adam and Eve!
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God
had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of
every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the
fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the
garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know
that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods,
knowing good and evil. (Genesis 3:1-5 AV)
In apparent reference to Satan’s corruption of God’s word in the Garden of Eden, Jesus
admonished Satan: “That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4
AV) Just as Satan did in the Garden of Eden, he now tries to confuse people about what God has
said: “Yea, hath God said . . . .” Pediatrician Dr. Lawrence Dunegan attended a lecture on March
20, 1969 at a gathering of pediatricians at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. The lecturer
at that meeting was a Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time of the lecture Dr. Day was
Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously, Dr. Day had served
as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr. Dunegan was well
acquainted with Dr. Day and described him as an insider in the “order.” Dr. Dunegan did not explain
what the “order” was, but from the lecture it was clear that it was a very powerful secret society
made up of minions in service to Satan. During the lecture Dr. Day revealed many of the satanic
plans that the members of the “order” had agreed upon that would change the United States from a
Christian society to a pagan society. One of the strategies was to introduce new bible versions. By
the time of the lecture in 1969, that strategy had long previously been implemented. Dr. Day was
indicating that the final success of that strategy was in sight as henceforth it would be implemented
with new vigor. Dr. Dunegan explains:
Another area of discussion was Religion. This is an avowed atheist speaking. And
he [Dr. Day] said, “Religion is not necessarily bad. A lot of people seem to need
religion, with it’s mysteries and rituals – so they will have religion. But the major
religions of today have to be changed because they are not compatible with the
changes to come. The old religions will have to go. Especially Christianity. Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down, the rest of Christianity will follow easily.
Then a new religion can be accepted for use all over the world. It will incorporate
something from all of the old ones to make it more easy for people to accept it, and
feel at home in it. Most people won’t be too concerned with religion. They will
realize that they don’t need it.
In order to this, the Bible will be changed. It will be rewritten to fit the new religion.
Gradually, key words will be replaced with new words having various shades of
meaning. Then the meaning attached to the new word can be close to the old word –
and as time goes on, other shades of meaning of that word can be emphasized. and
then gradually that word replaced with another word.” I don’t know if I’m making
that clear. But the idea is that everything in Scripture need not be rewritten, just key
words replaced by other words. And the variability in meaning attached to any word
can be used as a tool to change the entire meaning of Scripture, and therefore make
it acceptable to this new religion. Most people won’t know the difference; and this
was another one of the times where he said, “the few who do notice the difference
won’t be enough to matter.”3
In accordance with the aforementioned conspiracy, Satan and his minions now offer people
a whole assortment of different bible versions, which change and twist God’s word. God’s word is
with us today in the Authorized (King James) Version (referred to as AV or KJV). All other bible
versions are tainted by the hands of Satan and his minions, including the New King James Version
(NKJV). “Ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.”
Jeremiah 23:36. The corrupted bible versions are essentially Roman Catholic bible versions.4
Sadly,
most of the so called church leaders of today have accepted Satan’s counterfeit bibles.
The following is a partial list of the fraudulent bible versions: New International Version
(NIV), Contemporary English Version (CEV), New Century Version (NCV), New World Translation
(NWT), American Standard Version (ASV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), Revised
Version (RV), Revised Standard Version (RSV), New Revised Standard Version (NRSV), Amplified
Version (AMP), New King James Version (NKJV), 21st Century King James Version (KJ21), Third
Millennium Bible (TMB), Douay-Rheims Version (DRV), Good News for Modern Man (GNB),
Today’s English Version (TEV), Living Bible (LB), Darby Translation (DBY), Jerusalem Bible (JB),
and New Jerusalem Bible (NJB).
The Authorized (King James) Version is an English translation of the Masoretic (traditional)
Hebrew Old Testament, whereas the new bible versions are taken from an inferior and corrupted
mixture of the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament), Samaritan Pentateuch, Dead Sea Scrolls, and a
variety of other transcripts. The corrupt Septuagint used today was translated by Origen (185-254
A.D.), who was a unitarian evolutionist.5
Origen believed in reincarnation and denied the existence
of hell.6

There are approximately 4,489 Greek New Testament manuscripts known to be extant today.

 

Of these, 170 are papyrus fragments dating from the second to the seventh centuries; there are 212
uncial (capital letter) manuscripts, dating from the fourth to the tenth centuries; there are 2,429
minuscule (small letter) manuscripts, dating from the ninth to the sixteenth centuries; and there are
1,678 lectionaries, which are lesson books for public reading that contain extracts from the New
Testament.8
The vast majority of these manuscripts are in agreement and make up what is known
as the Textus Receptus (received text). There has been a recent discovery of a small fragment of the
earliest known New Testament manuscript not included in the above tally, which was dated to 66
A.D. and is in agreement with the Textus Receptus. The King James New Testament is based upon
the Greek Textus Receptus, whereas the new translations are based upon a very few number of
corrupt manuscripts including the Roman Catholic Greek texts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and a few
other texts, the origins of which are a mystery.
The manuscript Sinaiticus, which is often referred to by the first letter of the Hebrew
alphabet, Aleph, is written in book form (codex) on velum.9
It contains many spurious books such
as the Shepherd of Hermes, the Didache, and the Epistle of Barnabas.10 Sinaiticus was discovered
in a waste basket in St. Catherine’s monastery on Mount Sinai in February of 1859.11 Sinaiticus is
covered with alterations that are systematically spread over every page and were made by at least ten
different revisors.12 The alterations are obvious to anyone who examines the manuscript.13 Most of
the revisions to the text were made in the sixth or seventh century.14
The manuscript Vaticanus, often referred to by the letter “B,”originated in the Vatican library,
hence the name.15 Vaticanus was first revealed in 1841; where the transcript had been prior to that
date is unclear.16 One thing this is clear is that the manuscript omits many portions of scripture
which explain vital Christian doctrines. Vaticanus omits Genesis 1:1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms
106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Epistles; Revelation; and everything
in Hebrews after 9:14.17 It should not be surprising that the Vatican would produce a manuscript that
omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the mass as completely ineffectual and
deletes Revelation chapter 17, which reveals Rome as the seat of “MYSTERY, BABYLON THE
GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.” Notice that
the two primary manuscripts used by the new bible versions were found in the care and custody of
the Roman Catholic Church.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which make up less than one percent of the
existing ancient manuscripts, differ significantly from the Received Text. Vaticanus omits at least
2,877 words; it adds 536 words; it substitutes 935 words; it transposes 2,098 words; and it modifies
1,132 words; making a total of 7,578 verbal divergences from the Received Text. Sinaiticus is an
even worse corruption, having almost 9,000 divergences from the Received Text.18
John Burgon, Dean of Westminster and the preeminent Greek textual scholar of his time,
said the following about the Vaticanus and Sianaiticus manuscripts.
The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but
of fact. . . . In the Gospels alone Codex B (Vatican) leaves out words or whole

clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcription on every
page. Codex Sinaiticus abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not
indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.
On many occasions, 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness.
Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun
and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted
because it happens to end in the same words as a clause preceding, occur is no less
than 115 times in the New Testament.19
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts are so clearly corrupt that Dean Burgon was at a
loss to explain textual scholars accepting them as valid. He concluded that those manuscripts have
“established a tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the critics which can only be fitly
spoken of as blind superstition.”20 The following is Dean Burgon’s assessment of the new Greek
text, which was produced largely from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and which
underlies the new bible versions.
[T]he Greek Text which they have invented proves to be hopelessly depraved
throughout . . . t was deliberately invented . . . [T]he underlying Greek . . . is an
entirely new thing, is a manufactured article throughout. . . . The new Greek text was
full of errors from beginning to end. . . . Shame on [those] most incompetent men
who – finding themselves in a evil hour occupied themselves . . . with falsifying the
inspired Greek Text . . . Who will venture to predict the amount of mischief which
must follow, if the ‘New’ Greek Text . . . should become used.21
The Latin translation of the bible is called the Latin Vulgate. Incidently, the Catholic Church
used Jerome to pull a switch. The Latin text that is today called the Latin Vulgate is very different
from the traditional Latin Vulgate. Jerome used corrupted Greek texts from Alexandria, which he
translated into Latin, he then added 14 apocryphal books; the Catholic Church called Jerome’s new
Latin translation the Latin Vulgate.22 This corrupted Latin Vulgate text is the official bible text for
the Catholic Church and was the source text for the Jesuit Douay-Rheims English translation of the
bible.
How did the new versions of the bible become so corrupted? The personalities behind the
new texts have an occult new age agenda. The compilers and translators of the new editions aren’t
just unchristian they are antichristian. The compilers of the corrupted Greek text used in virtually
all of the new bible versions were Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort. They were
nominal Protestants, but they were defacto Roman Catholics. Hort denied the infallibility of the
Holy Scriptures, he did not believe in the existence of Satan, he did not believe in eternal
punishment in Hell, nor did he believe in Christ’s atonement.23 Hort, however, did believe in
Darwin’s theory of evolution, he believed in purgatory, and he also believed in baptismal
regeneration.24 Hort hated the United States and wished for its destruction during the civil war,
because he was a communist who hated all things democratic.25

 

To be continued if God want

 

God bless

[Berean]

Continuation of

Antichrist conspiracy…..

Westcott was equally Romish in his beliefs.26 He, like Hort, rejected the infallibility of the
Holy Scriptures.27 He viewed the Genesis account of creation as merely an allegory.28 He did not
believe the biblical account of the miracles of Jesus.29 He did, however, believe in praying for the
dead and worshiping Mary.30 Politically, Westcott was a devout Socialist.31
Westcott and Hort were both necromancers who were members of an occult club called the
“Ghostly Guild.”32 Westcott also founded another club and named it “Hermes.”33 According to
Luciferian H.P. Blavatsky, Hermes and Satan are one and the same.34 Hort viewed evangelical
Christians as dangerous, perverted, unsound, and confused.35 Westcot and Hort’s Greek text was
largely based on the fraudulent Catholic texts Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
36
Assisting Westcott and Hort in their revision was Dr. G. Vance, a Unitarian, who denied the
deity of Christ, the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, and the Godhead (Jesus Christ, God the Father,
and the Holy Ghost).37 Jesuit Roman Catholic Cardinal Carlo Maria Martini, the prelate of Milan,
was the editor of the corrupted Greek text.38 Martini believed the occult new age philosophy that
man can become divine.39 Remember, that is the very lie that Satan used to deceive Eve into eating
the forbidden fruit: “ye shall be as gods.” Genesis 3:5.
In addition, the new bible versions use a method of translation known as dynamic
equivalence, rather than the formal equivalence used in the Authorized Version (AV), which is also
known as the King James Version (KJV). Formal equivalence is a word for word translation,
whereas dynamic equivalence is a thought for thought translation. A translator using dynamic
equivalence is less a translator and more an interpreter. Thus, the new versions of bibles should
more accurately be called interpretations, rather than translations. The dynamic equivalent
interpreters of the new bible versions have often made unfounded assumptions as to the meaning of
particular passage. Rather than translate what God wrote, they have, with some frequency, twisted
passages by injecting their own personal bias. Some of these interpreters have displayed malicious
intent and caused great mischief.
The subjective bias of the interpreters have caused changes in the new version English bibles
that are not supported by any of Greek or Hebrew texts. For example, dynamic equivalencies caused
6,653 English word changes in the New International Version (NIV), approximately 4,000 word
changes in the New American Standard Bible (NASB), and approximately 2,000 word changes in
the New King James Version (NKJV), none of which are supported by the words in any of the Greek
or Hebrew texts.40 Those word changes reflect the subjective bias of the interpreters. The combined
effect of having a corrupted text and then having that text interpreted using dynamic equivalence has
been that the NIV has 64,098 fewer words than the AV.41 That is a 10% loss in the bible. That
means that an NIV bible would have 170 fewer pages than a typical 1,700 page AV bible.42 The
new versions of the bible are materially different; they are the product of the imaginations of
interpreters who have applied their personal prejudices to slant already corrupted texts to comport
with their own ideas. They are truly counterfeit bibles.
The Holy Bible is a legal document prepared by God. It contains the Old and New Testaments of Jesus Christ. A testament is a memorialization of the will of a testator. It only has
legal effect once the testator has died. The New Testament, in reality, is the last will and testament
of Jesus Christ.
And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death,
for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they
which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. For where a
testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a
testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all
while the testator liveth. (Hebrews 9:15-17 AV)
A testator he is free to change the testament and add to it. That is what Jesus did when he
added the New Testament to the Old Testament. “By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better
testament.” (Hebrews 7:22 AV) However, it is only the testator who is allowed to change or add to
a testament. If anyone else adds to or changes a testament, the changes make the resulting document
a forgery.
When trying to determine the meaning of a last will and testament, courts always try to
interpret what is the will of the testator. That is why a person’s testament is called a will. If a will
is to be translated from one language to another, because the heirs or the court speak a different
language, courts always use formal equivalence because it is important that the heirs know exactly
what the testator said. In fact, a translator must take an oath to faithfully translate the will of the
testator. It is important not to allow any bias from a translator to affect what is the meaning of the
words used. If a court allowed dynamic equivalence to be used when translating a last will and
testament then the court would not be interpreting the will of the testator; the interpretation would
have already been done by the translator of the document when he interpreted the meaning of each
passage. The judge would be stuck with a document which has been injected with meaning by the
translator. The judge would, in effect, be interpreting the intent of the testator intermixed with the
intent of the translator. The final verdict regarding the intent of the testator would be corrupted by
the bias or errors of the translator.
In the case of the Holy Bible, it is the New and Old Testaments of God Almighty. They are
the most important legal documents ever written. God Almighty is the testator. He wrote both
testaments. In addition, he created the languages into which his original testaments would be
written. He also created the languages into which those testaments would be translated. Genesis
11:7-9. He has supernaturally controlled the process from beginning to end. “All scripture is given
by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness.” (2 Timothy 3:16 AV) In addition, he has promised to supernaturally preserve his
testaments. “[T]he word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel
is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:25 AV) The heirs of Christ are Christians. “The Spirit itself
beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs
of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified
together.” (Romans 8:16-17 AV)

God bless

To be continued

If God want

 

[Berean]

Continuation

Of Antichrist conspiracy….

In order for Christ’s heirs to understand his will they must have a faithful translation. If his
heirs try to interpret God’s will by using a translation that contains not the pure intent of God, but
instead the intent of the translator, then they can no longer determine God’s will. A will that has
been rewritten and corrupted with the thoughts of one other than the testator, it is considered a
forgery and a fraud. So also are the new translations of the bible forgeries and frauds.
Defenders of the new bibles claim that the essential doctrines of the Christian Faith are
expressed in the new bibles, even though they have been deleted or changed in many passages.
James H. Son, author of The New Athenians, likened the logic of that argument to removing a stop
sign from a busy street intersection and then justifying the removal because the other traffic signals
in the city were left intact. Even though the sign only contained one word, that word is of critical
importance to those who arrive at the intersection, just as each word in the Holy Bible is of critical
importance to those who are reading it. God has made the point in the Holy Bible that every word
of God is important. “And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread
alone, but by every word of God.” (Luke 4:4 AV) Incidently, the doctrine of Luke 4:4 is missing
in the new bible versions. The NASB, for example leaves out the last clause and simply states: “And
Jesus answered him, ‘it is written, MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE.’” (Luke 4:4
NASB) The new versions leave the reader in ignorance as to what it is other than bread by which
man lives.
And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which
thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that
man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the
mouth of the LORD doth man live. (Deuteronomy 8:3 AV)
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
(Proverbs 30:5 AV)
Look at the passage in Galatians 3:16, wherein God points out the importance of every one
of his words. In that passage God explains the importance of the distinction between the singular
word “seed” and the plural word “seeds.”
Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds,
as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (Galatians 3:16 AV)
If one looks at the AV passages that refer to the promises made to Abraham, one sees that
in fact God refers to Abraham’s “seed,” singular. In the NIV, however, the passages that prophesy
the blessings that were to flow from Abraham’s seed, Jesus Christ, are changed and obscured. If one
were to try to find the passages referred to in Galatians 3:16 in the NIV one would not be able to do
so, because the NIV does not use the word chosen by God but has substituted words chosen by man
as inspired by Satan.

And in thy seed shall all the nations of the
earth be blessed; because thou hast obeyed my
voice. (Genesis 22:18 AV)
NIV
[A]nd through your offspring all nations on
earth will be blessed, because you have
obeyed me. (Genesis 22:18 NIV)
AV
And I will establish my covenant between me
and thee and thy seed after thee in their
generations for an everlasting covenant, to be
a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
(Genesis 17:7 AV)
NIV
I will establish my covenant as an everlasting
covenant between me and you and your
descendants after you for the generations to
come, to be your God and the God of your
descendants after you. (Genesis 17:7 NIV)
It is important for God’s heirs to know who they are. His heirs are those who have the faith
of Abraham, not those that have the flesh of Abraham.
Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith,
preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham. (Galatians 3:6-
9 AV)
This point is understood by the passage in Galatians 3:16 that explains what is meant by the
precise word “seed” used in the Old Testament. “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed,
and heirs according to the promise.” (Galatians 3:29 AV)
Without the precise word “seed” the meaning of the will of God can be misinterpreted to
support false doctrines like that pretribulation rapture fraud, which makes Christ’s church a mere
parenthesis in history. Under the pretribulation rapture corruption, fleshly Israel is to inherit the
promises of God; contrary to God’s express intent that it is those who are chosen and justified by his
sovereign grace who are his heirs and not those who are born of the flesh of Abraham. “That being
justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.” (Titus 3:7
AV)
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel,
which are of Israel: Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all
children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children
of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise
are counted for the seed.” (Romans 9:6-8 AV)
That is one example of a false doctrine that is supported by the change of just one word.
There are other false doctrines that have sprung from other corrupt changes to God’s word in the new bible versions.

To be continued if God want

Blessings

 

[Berean]

Continuation

Antichrist conspiracy…

The promoters of the new bible versions claim that they are merely updating the archaicEnglish in the King James Bible. They are being disingenuous. The Holy Bible is a legal document.
The English of the King James Bible is not archaic, it is precise. The precise language used has
eternal importance. Thee, thou, thy, and thine are singular pronouns. Thou is the subjective second
person singular, thee is the objective second person singular, and thy and thine are possessive second
person singular. Ye is a is subjective second person plural pronoun. In the King James text the
precision of the language puts the reader in the midst of the narrative. The reader is able to tell
whether the person is the object of the action or the subject causing the action. The reader can also
tell if the subject or object is a group or an individual. The new versions use either the pronouns
“you” or “your” for all of the narratives and the reader is not able to know anything about the setting
of the narrative. All one need do is read Galatians 3:16 to know that singularity and plurality are
important to God.
The writers of the Authorized (King James)Version (AV) did not use the more precise
pronouns because that was the customary language of the 16th century, they purposely used those
words because they wanted to accurately and faithfully translate God’s word into English. To prove
the point, all one need do is read the dedicatory at the beginning of the Holy Bible (AV); the
dedicatory was written at the completion of the AV Holy Bible in 1611 A.D., not once was thee,
thou, thy, thine, or ye used in the dedicatory.
One of the arguments used by the promoters of the new versions is that the new versions are
easier to read than the King James Bible. Some Bible passages are hard to understand, but that is
no excuse to change the meaning of the passages just to make them more readable. Dr. Donald
Waite said it best: “Some people say they like a particular version because they say it’s more
readable. Now, readability is one thing, but does the readability conform to what’s in the original
Greek and Hebrew language? You can have a lot of readability, but if it doesn’t match up with what
God has said, it’s of no profit. In the King James Bible, the words match what God has said. You
may say it’s difficult to read, but study it out. It’s hard in the Hebrew and Greek and, perhaps, even
in the English in the King James Bible. But to change it around just to make it simple, or interpreting
it, instead of translating it, is wrong. You’ve got lots of interpretation, but we don’t want that in a
translation. We want exactly what God said in the Hebrew and Greek brought over into English.”43
Besides, it is simply not true that the new bible versions are easier to read. According to a readability
study the AV reads at the 5th grade level, whereas the NKJV and NASB read at the 6th grade level
and the NIV reads at the 8th grade level.44 When reading the Holy Bible one should understand that
“the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him:
neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14 AV) If a
passage is hard to understand pray for understanding and study the Bible for the answer. Let God’s
word explain God’s word.
God has promised to preserve his word forever (Psalms 12:6-7), that not one jot nor one tittle
will pass from his law (Matthew 5:18), and that heaven and earth will pass away but his words will
never pass away (Matthew 24:35). The promoters of the new bible versions call God a liar.

They assert that God’s word has not been preserved. They admit that they don’t know which version is
truly God’s word. If you ask them to present God’s word, they will tell you that parts of his word
are lost forever, but that they can come up with a text that they will try to convince you comes close
to God’s word. But God has stated emphatically: “[T]he word of the Lord endureth for ever. And
this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.” (1 Peter 1:25 AV) “[L]et God be true,
but every man a liar.” (Romans 3:4 AV)
S. Franklin Longsdon was assigned by Dewey Lockman of the Lockman Foundation to write
the guidelines for the translation of the NASB. Longsdon prepared the guidelines, but after much
study and prayer he wrote to Lockman that the NASB was terribly wrong and renounced any
attachment to the NASB version of the bible.45
The most popular version of the new bibles is the New International Version (NIV). Dr.
Virginia Mollenkott, the textual style editor for the NIV, is an admitted lesbian.46 The Chairman of
the NIV Old Testament Committee, Dr. Woudstra, was considered to be sympathetic to the interests
and practices of sodomites. The NIV chief editor vaunted the fact that the NIV showed that it is a
great error to believe that in order to be born again one has to have faith in Jesus as Savior. He also
thought that few clear and decisive Bible texts express that Jesus is God.47
Rupert Murdoch owns the exclusive rights to the NIV.48 Murdoch has been described as an
internationalist and a pornographer.49 Time magazine called Murdoch one of the four most powerful
people in the world, and for good reason, he has a media empire that includes Twentieth Century
Fox, Fox Television, cable television providers, satellites, and newspapers and television stations
throughout America, Europe, and Asia.50 The pope bestowed upon Murdoch the title of “Knight
Commander of St. Gregory” for promoting the interests of the Roman Catholic Church.51
The New King James Version (NKJV) and the 21st Century King James Version (KJ21) are
particularly misleading. They try to trade on the accuracy of the Authorized (King James) Version
of the Holy Bible (AV) by putting King James in their titles. They claim that their bibles are simply
updates of the King James. Their copyright, however, gives them away. What they don’t tell the
public is that in order to obtain a copyright on a book that is in the public domain, as is the King
James Bible, they are required to make substantial revision to the text, such that it can be clearly
distinguishable from the original. Essentially, it must be a new literary work. Otherwise, the
publisher of the revision cannot claim a copyright. The NKJV and the KJ21 are both copyrighted
books; which means they must be substantially different from the King James Bible. Yet, in order
to sell the new bible they tell the public that it is really the same as the old King James Bible, that
they have simply updated the archaic language in order to make it more readable.
The publishers of the NKJV and the KJ21 versions are being disingenuous when they claim
that their new versions are not new at all, but just easier to read updates of the original Authorized
(King James) Version (AV). The NKJV made over 100,000 word changes from the AV, deleting
2,289 words from the New Testament alone. The NKJV removed the word “Lord” 66 times,
removed the word “God” 51 times, and removed the word “Heaven” 50 times. Yet, Nelson publications has the nerve to advertise that “Nothing has been changed except to make the original
meaning clearer.”52
The KJ21 publishers claim that:
The 21st Century King James Version (KJ21®) is neither a new translation nor a
revision, but an updating of the King James Version (KJV) of A.D. 1611. While no
attempt has been made to “improve” the timeless message or literary style of the
KJV, words which are either obsolete or archaic, and are no longer understood by
literate Bible readers, have been replaced by carefully selected current equivalents.53
The KJ21 publishers state that in order to maintain the accuracy and keep the KJ21 faithful
to the original AV they even kept the thees and thous, etc. They have, in fact, made many
unnecessary changes to the text, which make their bible less clear and understandable. If one reads
the text of the KJ21, one sees that conjunctions are added when unnecessary and the word order is
changed in passages, not to make the passages clearer, but so that the revision is considered
substantially different from the King James Bible. They had to make substantial changes in order
to obtain a copyright on the publication. The KJ21 is, quite simply, about making money. The
publishers are not telling the truth when they claim that the KJ21 is not a revision but only an update.
George Shafer did a computer check of the verses in the four Gospels, comparing the KJ21 with the
original AV. He discovered that the KJ21 modified 2,200 of the 3,779 verses.54 That is a change
in approximately 60% of the verses in the four gospels. Why did they make so many changes, when
they claimed to have only updated it? Remember, they must make substantial changes in order to
get a copyright, but they also want to sell their corrupted bibles.
The KJ21 claims in their preface: “The KJ21® is unique among modern Bibles in that it is
closer in language to the original King James Version than any other Bible copyrighted in the
twentieth century. Unlike all other modern Bibles, it alone retains the power, beauty, and poetic
language of the glorious King James Version.”55 The KJ21 publishers are saying that they have
changed the powerful and beautiful King James Bible to a lesser degree than other copyrighted new
bible versions. The KJ21 publishers seem to be admitting that the leaven of changes to the King
James Bible are for the worse, so they made fewer of them. “A little leaven leaveneth the whole
lump.” (Galatians 5:9 AV) All it takes is a little poison to poison a well. These new bible versions
are spiritual poison.
The publishers of both the KJ21 and the NKJV fall all over themselves praising the accuracy
and literary beauty of the King James Bible. If it so accurate and beautiful, why change it? The
answer is MONEY! “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after,
they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10
AV) The new bible versions are evil.
The texts of the new bible versions, such as the NIV, manifest the pagan antichrist agenda
of its publishers. In Isaiah there is a passage about Lucifer that refers to him as “Lucifer, son of the morning.” In the NIV, the Isaiah passage is changed.
AV
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer,
son of the morning! how art thou cut down to
the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend
into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the
stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of
the congregation, in the sides of the north: I
will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I
will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be
brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
(Isaiah 14:12-15 AV)
NIV
How you have fallen from heaven, O morning
star, son of the dawn! You have been cast
down to the earth, you who once laid low the
nations! You said in your heart, “I will ascend
to heaven, I will raise my throne above the
stars of God: I will sit enthroned on the mount
of assembly, in the utmost heights of the
sacred mountain. I will ascend above the tops
of the clouds; I will make myself like the most
High.” But you are brought down to the
grave, to the depths of the pit. (Isaiah 14:12-
15 NIV)
Notice that the NIV has changed the subject of the passage from “Lucifer” to the “morning
star.” What is the significance of that change? In Revelation 22:16, Jesus calls himself the “morning
star.” Do you see what Satan has done? Jesus is the “morning star” in the NIV Isaiah passage.
Satan has taken a passage that refers to Satan’s destruction and has twisted it in the NIV to describe
the destruction of Jesus, who is Lord God Almighty.
The authors of the NIV, who are evil minions of the devil, have committed the unpardonable
sin by changing Isaiah chapter 14 in the NIV to blasphemously attribute to God the evil
characteristics of Lucifer. In their Satanic NIV, Isaiah chapter 14 has been changed to prophesy that
it is not Lucifer who will in the end be cast into hell, but rather the “morning star,” who is the Lord
God Jesus Christ.
But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but
by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto
them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city
or house divided against itself shall not stand: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is
divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand? And if I by Beelzebub
cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your
judges. But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come
unto you. Or else how can one enter into a strong man&#8217;s house, and spoil his
goods, except he first bind the strong man? and then he will spoil his house. He that
is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto
men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven
him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven  him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. (Matthew 12:24-32 AV)
In Revelation 20:12 the small and great stand before God, who is seated on a great white
throne. However, in the NIV, NASB and other corrupted versions Satan accomplishes his ultimate
goal of taking God from his throne; in those new versions all mention of God sitting on the throne
is deleted. The small and great are simply standing before the throne.
Another example of Satan’s twisting of God’s word is found in Luke in the new versions of
the bible. In the Authorized Version, Mary’s and Joseph’s relationship to Jesus is described as
“Joseph and his mother.” Whereas, in the NIV, and virtually every other new version of the bible,
Mary’s and Joseph’s relationship to Jesus is described as “the child’s father and mother.” We know
that Joseph was not Jesus’ father, because Mary, when she was still a virgin, conceived Jesus by the
Holy Spirit. God is Jesus’ Father. Jesus is the Son of God, not the son of Joseph. “. . . [T]hat
holy thing which shall be of thee shall be called the Son of God.” Luke 1:35.
AV
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at
those things which were spoken of him.
(Luke 2:33 AV)
NIV
The child’s father and mother marvelled at
what was said about him. (Luke 2:33 NIV)
Throughout the corrupted bible versions, passages that prove the deity of Jesus are removed
or changed. For example, the translators of the NIV, NASB, RSV, and most of the new translations
delete Jesus’ assertion in Revelation 1:11 that: “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last.” In
addition, the NIV and the other new bible versions delete the word “God” from 1 Timothy 3:16,
using the pronoun “He” in its place. 1 Timothy 3:16 clearly reveals that Jesus is God. The new bible
versions, however, remove the revelation that Jesus is God from that passage.
AV
And without controversy great is the mystery
of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached
unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world,
received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16 AV)
NIV
Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness
is great: He appeared in a body, was
vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations, was believed
on in the world, was taken up in glory. (1
Timothy 3:16 NIV)

 

To be continued

if God want

Blessings

[Author]

Posts