Jump to content
Online Baptist - Independent Baptist Community


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


brandplucked last won the day on January 2 2012

brandplucked had the most liked content!


About brandplucked

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Recent Profile Visitors

4,949 profile views
  1. Stop Lying About It!

    Hi guys. I understand your points and your clarification was needed, because the way he phrased the question "in your inerrant Bible" it certainly sounded like so many other bible agnostics I hear from. And, Yes, I did post the response on Facebook. In any event, I will be happy to edit out the parts you object to. I hope that the brother who asked the question is really a King James Bible believer and not a modern perversion promoter. God bless.
  2. Stop Lying About It!

    Matthew 2:23 and Bible Mockers A professing Bible believer at a Christian forum writes: “With your infallible Bible could you please tell me who these prophets were and list chapters and verses so I can mark the references? Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by THE PROPHETS, He shall be called a Nazarene.” My response - This is not just an issue with the King James Bible but with ALL Bibles. They all say the same thing in Matthew 2:23. There IS a reasonable way to explain this verse. First, it should be pointed out that there is no specific prophet mentioned here, as there are in many other Scriptural references. So, what is Matthew referring to when he is writing his gospel account under the inspiration of God? I think it is actually pretty easy to explain. The Explanation. “A Nazarene” was a well known term of contempt. Those living in this region were in close contact with the vile Gentiles referred to as dogs. We see this in places like John 1:46. “And Nathanael said unto him (Philip), Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.” And in John 7:52 - “They (the Pharisees) answered and said unto him (Nicodemus), Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” And Luke 4:16 to 30 describe the reaction of those in the hometown of Nazareth reacted to the Lord Jesus when he began his public ministry. Jesus goes into the synagogue and reads a section of Scripture from the book of Isaiah, and then tells the people “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.” And what was the reaction of the people from Nazareth? Jesus said that “No prophet is accepted in his own country.” (Luke 4:24). “And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong. But he passing through the midst of them went his way. Even later in the book of Acts we see this association of Nazareth (the town where Jesus was brought up) as a term of contempt that was used against the apostle Paul, when the Jews are seeking his death before the governor Felix. “For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5) What we see it that to be called a Nazarene was a term of contempt, and this is what we see foretold by several Old Testament prophets concerning their promised Messiah. “But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake their head” (Psalms 22:6-7) “I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them.” (Psalms 69:11) “Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee.” (Psalms 69:19) “Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers…” (Isaiah 49:7) “and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him: he is despised, and we esteemed him not.” (Isaiah 53:2-3) This understanding of what the verse means when it says “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” is nothing new or unique. Several Bible commentators have offered this same explanation. Matthew Henry - “As a name of reproach and contempt. To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren Ps. 69:7, 8. Let no name of reproach for religion's sake seem hard to us, when our Master was himself called a Nazarene.” John Lightfoot’s Bible Commentary - “Matthew may be understood concerning the outward, humble, and mean condition of our Saviour. And that by the word, Nazarene, he hints his separation and estrangement from other men, as a despicable person, and unworthy of the society of men.” “Therefore, by the signification of an angel, he is sent away into Galilee, a very contemptible country, and into the city Nazareth, a place of no account: whence, from this very place, and the name of it, you may observe that fulfilled to a tittle which is so often declared by the prophets, that the Messias should be Nazor, a stranger, or separate from men, as if he were a very vile person, and not worthy of their company.” B. W. Johnson’s Bible Commentary - “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived… the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who "was despised and rejected." Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “The little town of Nazareth, mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor in JOSEPHUS, was probably so called from its insignificance: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree; and a special contempt seemed to rest upon it--"Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46) --over and above the general contempt in which all Galilee was held, from the number of Gentiles that settled in the upper territories of it, and, in the estimation of the Jews, debased it. Thus, in the providential arrangement by which our Lord was brought up at the insignificant and opprobrious town called Nazareth, there was involved, first, a local humiliation; next, an allusion to Isaiah's prediction of His lowly, twig-like upspringing from the branchless, dried-up stump of Jesse; and yet further, a standing memorial of that humiliation which "the prophets," in a number of the most striking predictions, had attached to the Messiah.” McGarvey and Pendleton Bible Commentary - “That he should be called a Nazarene. The Hebrew word "netzer" means "branch" or "sprout". It is used figuratively for that which is lowly or despised (Isaiah 17:9; Ezekiel 15:1-6; Malachi 4:1). Now, Nazareth, if derived from "netzer", answered to its name, and was a despised place (John 1:45-46), and Jesus, though in truth a Bethlehemite, bore the name Nazarene because it fitly expressed the contempt of those who despised and rejected him.” The King James Bible is right, as always, and this Bible Mocker is wrong, as they always are.
  3. Before the KJV

    Hi Sword. What you have there in "the" Hebrew is Jay P. Green's own, personal translation. Jay Green did NOT believe several readings in the particular TR that underlies the KJB were inspired Scripture. He did not believe 1 John 5:7 was inspired. How does, not Green, but the Hebrew text you have there read in Psalms 22:16 where the KJB says "they pierced my hands and my feet"? How do you reconcile the two different ages of Jehoiachin in the Hebrew text? How Old Was Jehoiachin, 8 or 18? 2 Chronicles 36:9 KJB (ESV 2001 edition) - "Jehoiachin was EIGHT years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days." 2 Kings 24:8 KJB - "Jehoiachin was EIGHTEEN years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months." And regarding that Greek copy you show here, it looks like it is the Scrivener text of 1894, right? Are you aware that NO Bible in any language and NO other Greek New Testament read the same way in many places before 1894? Do you know how Scrivener came up with his Greek text? So, what exactly was this " preserved Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW." BEFORE this particular Greek text by Scrivener that you show us here?
  4. Before the KJV

    Hi Scott. You tell us: " I DO with conviction believe that the Lord our God HAS preserved His Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW. I DO believe with conviction (even if you do not believe me, and prefer to call me a "liar") that the Lord our God has so preserved His Holy Word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text and the Greek of the Received text." Scott, again, I do not believe you. It looks like you are more of a Greekophile than a King James Bible believer. I am not ignorant of the textual issues. So, my question (which I think you are going to dodge) is WHICH "the" Greek Received text do you believe is the complete and inerrant New Testament that (according to you) is this "preserved Word with perfect purity for EVERY generation since those words have been originally given, preserved unto this very generation right NOW."??? Was there an inerrant Bible in English before the King James Bible? If so, which one was it? And Scott, there is no such animal as "the" Received Text. The Textus Receptus has had over 25 revisions, all varying from one another. No absolute definition of the TR actually exists... A few of these revisions are: 1516 - Erasmus' first edition 1519 - Erasmus' second edition - More than 400 changes from the first edition 1522 - Erasmus' third edition - More than 100 changes from his second edition 1527 - Erasmus' fourth edition - More than 100 alterations of the third edition, 90 of them in Revelation 1546 - Stephanus's first edition 1549 - Stephanus's second edition - more than 60 changes from the Stephanus's first edition 1550 - Stephanus's third edition - Includes varient readings in the margins 1551 - Stephanus's fourth edition - The first time the text is divided into numbered verses 1565-1604 - Beza's eleven editions - Minor changes in Stephanus's text. All of Beza's editions vary somewhat from Stephanus's and from each other 1624 Elziver edition - You can see it online here - https://www.bible.com/bible/182/mat.1.tr1624 1633 - Elziver's second edition - First called the Textus Receptus (22 years after the publication of the KJV) 1650 - Elziver's third edition - Differs from the second edition in about 287 places In addition, the TR that is used today (published by the Trinitarian Bible Society) is not identical to any of the references above, but is an "eclectic" text that draws its readings from different sources. The modern day TR that underlies the King James Bible can be called “a variety of the Textus Receptus” Scott, you can show us a copy of what you say is this inerrant Bible you believe in because all these things in their various forms are on the internet. I can show you a copy of my inerrant Bible. You can see it here at this site https://www.biblegateway.com
  5. Stop Lying About It!

    Stop Lying About It! Why do so many Christians today continue to LIE about what they really believe about “the Bible”? For example, James White SAYS he believes The Bible IS the infallible words of God. I asked him this question personally on his radio program. But when I asked Mr. White where we can see a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to believe in, he immediately changes the subject. The simple fact is this - When James White, and others like him, says "I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God" he is not referring to a real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read Book at all. He is referring to a mythical, imaginary, hypothetical, invisible and non-existent, phantom "bible" that he has never seen, does not have and certainly cannot give to anybody else. In other words, he is professing a fantasy faith in a Fantasy Bible. And then he thinks we King James Bible believers who have a real Bible printed on paper between two covers we can actually hold in our hands and give to anybody that asks to see it are "a cult", and even heretics. In his way of thinking, those of us who confess faith in a tangible, preserved, and inerrant Bible are "heretics" and "cultic", but people like him who LIE when they say they believe the Bible IS (as though it really exists) the infallible words of God" are somehow "Orthodox". Actually, the polls show that there are many who, at least privately in an anonymous poll, are beginning to be more honest about their beliefs and admit that they do NOT believe “The Bible IS the inerrant words of God”. See the documented facts for this here: “The Bible is NOT the infallible words of God” - http://brandplucked.webs.com/thebiblenotinspired.htm God is a God of truth and He cannot lie (Titus 1:2) and we His people are supposed to speak truth one with another. “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: (Eph. 4:25) God says in His word - “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight.” Proverbs 12:22 God’s word also tells us that the last days will be characterized by LYING. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (Yea, hath God said...?) SPEAKING LIES IN HYPOCRISY...” 1 Timothy 4:1-2 If you go to almost any Christian website or Church home page they tell you what they supposedly believe about “The Bible”. You will usually read words to the effect of “We believe the Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.” Notice their use of a present tense verb “is” as though it were something that EXISTS now. However, if you press them about it, you soon come to find out they are not talking about any real or tangible “hold it in your hands, read and believe every word is true” type of Bible. No, they don’t really believe such a thing exists. Then they begin their backtracking, Double-Speak Dance by saying something like “Oh well, only the originals ARE inspired and inerrant.” Well, my Christian friend, there ARE no originals and everybody knows it. Two such prominent Liars and "highly respected men in the Christian Community" are James White and Daniel Wallace. Both men profess to believe "The Bible IS the infallible words of God." But if you ask either of them where we can get a copy of this inspired and inerrant words of God Bible they SAY they believe in, they will NEVER tell us. See 'James White - the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions" here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/jameswhiteppopevv.htm Likewise Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and main creator of the well known NET version, has written an article called "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today”. See my rebuttal to his article here. http://brandplucked.webs.com/danwallacenut.htm The very first thing Dan Wallace says in his article where he criticizes the King James Bible is: “First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, INERRANT, INSPIRED AND OUR FINAL AUTHORITY FOR FAITH AND LIFE.” Notice that Dan Wallace is using a present tense verb here - IS - when he professes to believe The Bible IS the word of God, inerrant, inspired and our final authority." Sounds great, right? So where IS this inerrant Bible he piously professes to believe in? A little later in this same article Dan Wallace writes - "NO TRANSLATION IS INFALLIBLE”. Wait a minute. What's going on here? At this point it behooves us to ask Dan Wallace and James White and others like them, WHERE exactly IS this "inerrant and inspired Bible" you guys piously PROFESS to believe in? Do you perhaps have an UN-translated Bible in “the original languages” of Hebrew and Greek that you can show us that you honestly believe IS the inspired and infallible words of God? Not a chance. They will NEVER actually SHOW you this inerrant Bible they SAY they believe in, and they know they can't. In simple, biblical words, folks, they are lying. Ad hominem At this point in the argument I usually hear from other "Bible agnostics" (they don't know for sure what God may or may not have written) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language comments like - "Hey, you're using "ad hominem" arguments and I'm not going to listen to you." The fancy Latin words "ad hominem" simply mean "against the man" and are usually used by those who cannot answer your arguments to mean "You are attacking the man and not his arguments" and it is appealing to a person's feelings and prejudices rather than his intellect. I think this whole "ad hominem" argument that has infected much of the professing Christian church today and people resort to calling you when they can't win the argument is nothing more than carnal, humanistic, worldly philosophy that turns men into wimps. The Bible itself, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ would ALL be accused by today's compromising, "tolerant" Christians as being guilty of "ad hominem". "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matthew 23:14 "Ye fools and blind" Matthew 23:19 "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27 "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Matthew 23:33 "Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do." John8:44 "Go ye, and tell that FOX, Behold, I cast out devils..." Luke 13:32 (Jesus speaking of Herod) "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:8 "But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption." 2 Peter 2:12 (Peter speaking of the false prophets that would enter the church) "His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber." Isaiah 56:10 "The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith." Titus 12-13 "...thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars." Revelation 2:2 Note - After I wrote this article a brother posted an interesting article called The Virtue of Name Calling. The man uses one of the modern bible versions in his article, but what he says is right on. See his article here - http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=8 In the ongoing discussion about the Bible Version issue many Christians come up with an empty and meaningless statement like the one found in the well known Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. See http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm “Translations of Scripture ARE the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.” Pious sounding statements like this are absurdly hypocritical on several levels. First of all, they have never seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives and the originals never did make up a 66 books in one volume Bible to begin with. Secondly, it is absurd to affirm that "translations are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original", when they HAVE no original to compare ANY translation to! So how could they possibly know if what they have come up with at their Bible of the Month Club “represents the original” or not? They try to give you the impression that they have “the originals” or a copy of them right there in front of them and they’re looking to see if their “late$t and be$t ver$ion” matches the originals or not. THEY ARE LYING. To take the position of “ONLY the originals ARE inspired and inerrant” is to leave the Christian with no inerrant Bible NOW, and there is no getting around this obvious truth. A far more honest “statement of inerrancy” based on what they really believe (and most other Christians today too) would go something like this: “IF the originals had survived and WOULD HAVE BEEN placed into a single volume consisting of 66 inspired books, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant and 100% historically true Bible we could have believed in. Unfortunately God did not do it this way and so we just have to do the best we can with what we have and nobody is really sure about or in total agreement with everybody else about what any particular reading or text might be. So, go with God and hope for the best.” Even AFTER I pointed these things out to a Christian man named Matthew, he came back with this statement: “I believe the originals are inerrant and I believe the stream and transmission we have is the best we can expect. I do not see any reason to assume error as we continue to strive forward we have more access to affirming a bible as close to the originals as possible.” He still doesn’t get it, does he. There ARE no originals, so how could he possibly know he is “close to the originals as possible” or not? By the way, this Matthew also posted that he “likes” the NKJV, the NASB and the ESV. Apparently he is either unaware or “sees no reason to assume error” in the fact that among these three modern versions they differ textually by literally thousands of words, including numerous whole verses, and a couple of them reject scores of Hebrew readings, and hundreds of verses have completely different meanings. Matthew also tells us that he thinks Mark 16:9-20 and 1 John 5:7 don’t really belong in the Bible, but he still maintains that he “sees no reason to assume error.” Does this modern day Christian’s lackadaisical attitude toward the words of the living God look anything like what we see in the Bible of those “that tremble at His word”? (Isaiah 66:5) All I am asking for is more honesty from folks when it comes to saying what they REALLY believe about the Bible. I, along with thousands of other Christians, am a King James Bible believer. We do not have to LIE when we say we believe the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God. That is what we really believe. You do not have to agree with us on this. You may think we are completely wrong, ignorant, uneducated, “divisive”, the spawn of Satan, a “Cult” or what seems to be even worse - a Ruckmanite :-0 But at least we tell you what we really believe and are not LYING ABOUT IT. By the way, this same Matthew posted a poll called “Is KJV onlyism a cult”. It seems more than a tad ironic that in his mind Christians who actually believe their Bible IS the inerrant words of God belong to a Cult, but apparently those who don’t believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS inerrant are now considered to be “Orthodox”. We do live in interesting times, don’t we. It is comments like these when they call us Bible believers "a cult" or "idolaters" that caused me to write an article called Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"? If interested, you can see it here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbsidolaters.htm IF you are an “originals only” type of Christian who believes that ONLY the originals ARE/were inspired and inerrant, and that “No translation is perfect”, then just say so. Be honest about it. But don’t stand in the pulpit or write on your blog things like “We believe the Bible IS the inerrant words of God”, when you have no such Bible anywhere in print to give to anyone, and you know you don’t. STOP LYING ABOUT IT! If you are an “originals only” type of Christian with a non-existent, hypothetical “word of God” and all you can hope for is an ever changing, evolving, ballpark approximation to what you think God may or may not have written (though none of you agree even among yourselves), then just say so. Go ahead with your “I believe only the originals were inspired and inerrant” and leave it at that. It is good that you say “The Bible contains the truth that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead and those that believe on Him shall receive forgiveness of sins.” We believe that too and want it preached. But don’t use pious sounding words or religious phrases like “the Bible IS infallible” or “the Scriptures ARE the inerrant words of God” when you don’t really believe it for a second. STOP LYING ABOUT IT! “Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.” Isaiah 66:5 Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
  6. Before the KJV

    Hi Scott Markle. You are still not answering my question. Can you SHOW US A COPY of this complete and inerrant words of God Bible you say you believe in? Yes or No? To help you better understand my position on this issue, may I recommend you read my article Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? If you think there was, or is now, in ANY language, then simply answer the question and show it to us. http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbonlyblowup.htm God bless.
  7. Before the KJV

    Scott Markie says: "YES, absolutely, I believe that the Lord our God both has promise and has been faithful unto His promise to preserve His pure and holy Word in the original languages of their originally inspired authorship, that is -- in the original Hebrew for the Old Testament and the original Greek for the New Testament. I believe that those pure and preserved words are to be found in the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Old Testament and in the Received text of the Greek New Testament." Hi Scott. Two things. You did not answer my question, and I don't believe you. There IS NO original Hebrew or Greek, and you know there isn't. You are confessing a faith in a Phantom bible that you not only have never seen (and probably could not read even if you had it) but in something that YOU KNOW DOES NOT EXIST. I asked you if you can SHOW ME a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in. You did not do that. All you did was give me some vague, ballpark approximation of what you think may be the complete and inerrant words of God, and they are in languages that most people in this world can't even read. All modern versionists maintain that "the" Hebrew text (there is no such animal) has been corrupted in many places, and as far as 'the' Received Text, again, there is no such animal. Two questions. Can you show me a copy of this inerrant Bible you supposedly believe in? Yes or No? Do you believe that any English bible is inerrant? If not, which one do you think comes the closest? Thank you.
  8. Hi Scott Markle. Thank you for your comments and criticism. I do disagree with you about your understanding of who and what the seed is. You state: "Furthermore, I would contend that your use of Matthew 13:25, 39 to explain Genesis 3:15 is also faulty. In Genesis 3:15 the "seed" is specifically described as the seed of a woman. However, in Matthew 13:25, 39 the "seed" is specifically described as the seed of some plant-crops. These two forms of "seed" are in no manner equivalent. Therefore, Matthew 13:25, 39 is not a legitimate passage of explanation for Genesis 3:15." Matthew 13 is NOT just talking about some "plant crops". It specifically refers to the two different seeds planted by the Sower and others by the devil. As I stated - Here we read of two different seeds. There are the children of the devil and the children of God. See Matthew 13:25, 39. Christ sowed good seed in his field. The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the enemy who is the devil sowed tares and these are the children of the wicked one. Compare Galatians 3:16 and 29. "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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abraham's seed is both Christ and His people. God calls his people "the planting of the LORD" (Isaiah 61:) and "the branch of my planting, the work of my hands" (Isaiah 59:21) And we are called "God's husbandry" 1 Cor. 3:9 All of God's elect from Adam to the last saint saved are God's planting and his seed. Christ is the head of his people, and we are in him. Anyway, that is how I understand the passage. You, of course, are entitled to see it differently. I am not going to die on this mountain. There are lots of things I do not understand about God's words. God bless.
  9. Genesis 3:15 - "IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." In this 7 minute video, Bible corrector John Ankerberg and some “expert” criticize the King James Bible and tell us that the translators of the King James Bible were “being chicken” for not using the third-person singular pronoun "he" instead of "it" in Genesis 3:15. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRjZWvHEk_0&app=desktop Are they right? Of course not. They are missing an important truth found in the King James Bible, but they are just too dull to see it. The great promise of Genesis 3:15 has been altered in many versions. God speaks to the serpent whom He had just cursed and says: "I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; IT shall BRUISE thy head, and thou shalt BRUISE his heel." Here we read of two different seeds. There are the children of the devil and the children of God. See Matthew 13:25, 39. Christ sowed good seed in his field. The good seed are the children of the kingdom, but the enemy who is the devil sowed tares and these are the children of the wicked one. In the KJB the seed that will bruise the serpent's head is referred to as IT. Why is this? I believe it is because the seed refers not only to Christ but also to His people who will bruise the head of Satan. Christ is the seed, but we are also in Christ and are the promised seed as well. Compare Galatians 3:16 and 29. "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. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." Abraham's seed is both Christ and His people. The clincher is Romans 16:20, but it has been messed up in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT. In the King James Bible we read: "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." The KJB has "bruise" in both Genesis 3:15 and in Romans 16:20, thus tying the two verses together. But the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Catholic versions and the Jehovah Witness NWT have changed "bruise" to "crush" in Romans 16:20 and thus obscure this connection. We also read a related promise to the saints of God in Psalm 91:13 "Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet." We read of the enmity of Satan with the seed of the woman in Revelation 12:17 "And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." In Genesis 3:15 the NKJV, NIV, NASB, Holman, ESV, Jehovah Witness NWT, the Catholic St. Joseph NAB 1970 unite in changing the seed being referred to as "IT" to "HE" thus limiting it to only Christ. The Catholic Douay version 1950 and the Work of God's Children Bible 2011 have "SHE shall bruise your head", probably referring to Mary. While the New English Bible 1970, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Revised English Bible 1989 and The New Jewish Version 1985 have "THEY shall bruise your head", which would also include the saints of God. The “they” can be seen as to include both the promised Messiah and His seed together who will bruise Satan. Dan Wallace and company have translated Genesis 3:15 this way: "And I will put hostility between you and the woman and between your offspring and her offspring; HER OFFSPRING will attack your head, and you will attack HER OFFSPRING'S heel." This translation also allows the inclusion of both the Christ and His people." The Jubilee Bible 2000-2010 translated it as: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and between thy seed and her seed; THAT SEED shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise HIS heel." Even those who criticize the King James Bible (none of whom believes that ANY Bible in any language is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God) will at least admit that the Hebrew text can be translated as "IT." Tyndale 1534, Matthew's Bible 1549, God's First Truth 1999, the Jubilee Bible 2010 all say "THAT SEED shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." Coverdale's Bible of 1535 and The Great Bible of 1540 both read: "I will also put enemytie betwene the & the woman, betwene thy sede and hyr sede: THE SAME shall treade downe thy head, and thou shalt treade vpon hys hele." The words "the same" refers back to the seed. It is not masculine, but the neuter singular, which refers to seed and can include the Christ and His chosen seed. "IT shall bruise thy head" Other Bible translations that read IT along with the KJB are the Bishops' Bible 1568, Webster's translation 1833, the Julia Smith Translation 1855, The Wellbeloved Scriptures 1862, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Revised Version 1885 - “IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, the Bond Slave Version 2012, and The Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011 - “IT shall crush thy rosh, and thou shalt strike his akev (heel).”. And this Interlinear Hebrew Old Testament - "IT shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." - http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%203:15 The word "it" referring to the seed plural is also found in Genesis 16:10. "And the angel of the LORD said unto her, I will multiply thy seed exceedingly, that IT shall not be numbered for multitude." Foreign language Bibles There are also some foreign language Bibles that translate the passage in a similar way. The Spanish Cipriano de Valera of 1602, the Valera of 1865 and the Reina Valera of 1909 and 1995 all read: - "Y enemistad pondré entre ti y la mujer, y entre tu simiente y la simiente suya; ésta te herirá en la cabeza, y tú le herirás en el calcañar." Here the word "ésta" is a feminine singular that can only refer back to "the seed" (which is feminine in Spanish), just as in the KJB the word "it" refers back to the seed, which includes the Messiah and His people. It is not the masculine "he". So too the Portuguese Almeida Corrigida E Fiel Bible of 1681 which reads: "E porei inimizade entre ti e a mulher, e entre a tua semente e a sua semente; esta te ferirá a cabeça, e tu lhe ferirás o calcanhar. " Once again, the word "ESTA" is feminine singular referring to "the seed", just as "it" does in the English Bible. The French Martin Bible of 1744 reads: "Et je mettrai inimitié entre toi et la femme, et entre ta semence et la semence de la femme; cette [semence] te brisera la tête, et tu lui briseras le talon." = "THAT seed will bruise your head". Likewise the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the Riveduta Bible of 2006 both say: "Ed io metterò inimicizia fra te e la donna, e fra la tua progenie e la progenie di essa; questa progenie ti triterà il capo e tu le ferirai il calcagno." = "THAT SEED (or, offspring) will crush your head". Once again it is a singular feminine which can only refer to the seed, and can include the Messiah and His people. Luther's German Bible of 1545 reads: "Und ich will Feindschaft setzen zwischen dir und dem Weibe und zwischen deinem Samen und ihrem Samen. Der selbe soll dir den Kopf zertreten, und du wirst ihn in die Ferse stechen." = "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. THE SAME shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel." And finally the Modern Greek Bible is very interesting because it agrees with the King James Bible translation, even in the word "IT". It reads: "και εχθραν θελω στησει αναμεσον σου και της γυναικος, και αναμεσον του σπερματος σου και του σπερματος αυτης· αυτο θελει σου συντριψει την κεφαλην, και συ θελεις κεντησει την πτερναν αυτου." = "IT will bruise your head". The Greek word "auto" is a NEUTER and not a masculine or feminine. It would be translated exactly as it stands in the King James Bible and others that say "IT shall bruise thy head". The Greek masculine word for "he" is "autos". This is clearly the Greek neuter nominative case, meaning "IT". Isn't is wonderful to know that we are in Christ and are His seed, members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones; and that His victory is also ours because we are in Him and that shortly God will bruise Satan under our feet? John Calvin also understood the passage in this way. He comments: John Calvin - “It shall bruise . This passage affords too clear a proof of the great ignorance, dullness, and carelessness, which have prevailed among all the learned men of the Papacy. The feminine gender has crept in instead of the masculine or neuter. There has been none among them who would consult the Hebrew or Greek codices, or who would even compare the Latin copies with each other. Therefore, by a common error, this most corrupt reading has been received. Then, a profane exposition of it has been invented, by applying to the mother of Christ what is said concerning her seed. There is, indeed no ambiguity in the words here used by Moses; but I do not agree with others respecting their meaning; for other interpreters take the seed for Christ, without controversy; as if it were said, that some one would arise from the seed of the woman who should wound the serpent's head. Gladly would I give my suffrage in support of their opinion, but that I regard the word seed as too violently distorted by them; for who will concede that a collective noun is to be understood of one man only? Further, as the perpetuity of the contest is noted, so victory is promised to the human race through a continual succession of ages. I explain, therefore, the seed to mean the posterity of the woman generally. But since experience teaches that not all the sons of Adam by far, arise as conquerors of the devil, we must necessarily come to one head, that we may find to whom the victory belongs. So Paul, from the seed of Abraham, leads us to Christ; because many were degenerate sons, and a considerable part adulterous, through infidelity; whence it follows that the unity of the body flows from the head. Wherefore, the sense will be (in my judgment) that the human race, which Satan was endeavoring to oppress, would at length be victorious....But because one stronger than he has descended from heaven, who will subdue him, hence it comes to pass that, in the same manner, the whole Church of God, under its Head, will gloriously exult over him. To this the declaration of Paul refers, "The Lord shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly," (Romans 16:20.) By which words he signifies that the power of bruising Satan is imparted to faithful men, and thus the blessing is the common property of the whole Church.” Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - 15. thy seed--not only evil spirits, but wicked men. seed of the woman--the Messiah, or His Church it shall bruise thy head--The serpent's poison is lodged in its head; and a bruise on that part is fatal. Thus, fatal shall be the stroke which Satan shall receive from Christ, though it is probable he did not at first understand the nature and extent of his doom.” Matthew Poole’s English Annotations on the Holy Bible also saw the same truth, saying: “and by way of participation, all the members of Christ, all believers and holy men, who are called the children of Christ, Hebrews 2:13, and of the heavenly Jerusalem, Galatians 4:26. All the members whereof are the seed of this woman; and all these are the implacable enemies of the devil, whom also by Christ’s merit and strength they do overcome.” Whedon’s Commentary shares the same view as well. He comments - “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. But this prophecy, given in Paradise before the expulsion of the transgressors, should not be explained exclusively of the personal Messiah. That promised seed comprehends also the redeemed humanity of which he is Head — that great company who both suffer with him and with him shall also be glorified. Romans 8:17…So only those who belong to Christ as their great head and leader, are the seed of promise; all others, though born of woman, by espousing the serpent’s cause and doing the lusts of the devil (John 8:44) are of the seed of the serpent, a “generation of vipers,” (Matthew 23:33) whose end is perdition.” The Seed, the "IT" in Genesis 3:15, that shall ultimately bruise the head of Satan is Both the Lord Jesus Christ and all the redeemed who are His Seed together. The victory is ours as well because we are in Him and Scripture clearly promises to every saint of God - "And the God of peace SHALL BRUISE SATAN UNDER YOUR FEET shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you. Amen." Romans 16:20 This truth is lost in these modern versions. The King James Bible is right, as always, and none of those who criticize and "correct" it will ever show you a copy of any Bible in any language that they honestly believe is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They are all version rummagers and their own authority as they piece together their individual "bible" versions which differ from every body else's. "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes." Judges 21:25 The King James Bible is God’s true “Book of the LORD” - Isaiah 34:16 - “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” All of grace, believing the Book, Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
  10. Before the KJV

  11. Before the KJV

  12. Cainan in Luke 3:36

    Luke 3:36 and the alleged LXX Who is Cainan in Luke 3:36? "Answers in Genesis" is usually a very good ministry which defends creationism versus evolution. However the textual consultant, Mr. Sarfati, does the usual tap dance when discussing the inspiration of Scripture. Here are some of his comments. Cainan: How do you explain the difference between Luke 3:36 and Genesis 11:12? by Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati - "The difference is that Luke 3:36 has the extra name Cainan. Some skeptics have used this difference to attack biblical inerrancy. However, it is important to note that Biblical inerrancy, derived from the teaching that Scripture is ‘God-breathed’ (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21 and ‘cannot be broken’ (John 10:35) and many other places, has to refer to the original autographs that God directly inspired, not to copies or translations. The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today. 1. The Bible is the written Word of God. It is divinely inspired and inerrant throughout. Its assertions are factually true in all the original autographs. It is the supreme authority in all matters of faith and conduct. So if a copyist of Luke’s gospel is responsible for the error, how come it is in the LXX as well? A clue to the solution is that the extra Cainan in Genesis 11 is found only in manuscripts of the LXX that were written long after Luke’s Gospel. The evidence shows conclusively that the extra name Cainan is not part of God’s original Word, but due to a later copyist’s error. The oldest LXX manuscripts do not have this extra Cainan." (End of Mr. Sarfati's comments) A Bible Believer's Response Mr. Sarfati starts off his "defense" of inerrancy with three huge whoppers. He says: "The Cainan difference is NOT an error in the original autographs of Scripture, but one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." He then assures us that the Bible's assertions are factually true in ALL THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS and that they are the supreme authority in all matters of faith. How can something that does not exit "be the supreme authority in all matters of faith"? Mr. Sarfati has never seen one of these "original autographs" a day in his life, simply because they do not exist, and he knows they don't exist when he says this. He has absolutely no way on earth of knowing for sure what or what was not "in the original autographs". His second big lie is implying "A COPYIST of Luke's gospel is responsible for the error". The simple fact is, the reading of Cainan in Luke 3:36 is not found in just one or two copies of Luke, but is the reading found in practically every known Greek manuscript in existence today. It is in the vast Majority of all Greek copies, including Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, as well as the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Coptic and Latin versions. It is also the reading of the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, the Portuguese Almeida, the French Martin and Ostervald and the Louis Second 2007 and Luther's German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three. His third big lie is telling us: "this is one of the EXTREMELY FEW copyist’s errors in the manuscripts available today." Mr. Sarfati should be well aware of the fact that there are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings, different names, numbers, phrases and entire verses found in some copies that that are not in others. The New Testaments of such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV (none of which totally agree with each other) differ from the New Testament of versions like the King James Bible, NKJV, Young's, and the Geneva Bible, by about 5000 words! This can hardly be called "extremely few". Mr. Sarfati also assures us that the oldest LXX manuscripts do not contain the name Cainan, though he has never seen one of these because, again, they don't exist. Mr. Sarfati continues to make his case for "Christian Logic 101" even worse by saying: "Either way, this extra name ‘Cainan’ cannot be used as an argument against biblical inerrancy." Why not, Mr. Sarfati? IF it is an ERROR found in every Bible on the earth today, then why is it not proof that the Christian Bible is not inerrant? Then Mr. Sarfati attempts to bolster his absurd arguments by quoting a certain Mr. Pierce who summarizes: "I think we have more than enough evidence that would stand up in any court of law to show that EVERY SINGLE COPY WE HAVE OF THE LXX TEXT WAS CORRUPTED SOME TIME AFTER AD 220." Notice here that Mr. Sarfati quotes from another man who tells us that every copy of the LXX we now have is corrupted, yet Mr. Sarfati earlier referred to the oldest LXX which did not contain the name of Cainan. BUT he himself has never seen, nor can he produce for us this hypothetical "would stand up in any court of law evidence", and he knows he can't. Do you see how the scholar's game is played? MORE COMMENTS ON THE LXX John Gill's commentary of Luke 3:36. Though I do not agree with everything John Gill states about this verse, (he does not believe Cainan should be in the text at all), yet it is to be noted that he too believed that the present copies of the LXX got their reading in Genesis from the already completed gospel of Luke. Gill says: "Which was the son of Cainan…This Cainan is not mentioned by Moses in (Genesis 11:12) nor has he ever appeared in any Hebrew copy of the Old Testament, nor in the Samaritan version, nor in the Targum; nor is he mentioned by Josephus, nor in (1 Chronicles 1:24) where the genealogy is repeated... it indeed stands in the present copies of the Septuagint, but was not originally there; and therefore could not be taken by Luke from thence... and (it was) SINCE PUT INTO THE SEPTUAGINT TO GIVE IT AUTHORITY." Scholars are a funny bunch. Get five scholars in a room, and you will come out with seven different opinions. Some scholars emphatically tell us that Luke got his reading of 'Cainan' from the LXX itself. Others tell us the opposite, saying that the LXX got it from Luke. And then there are those that tell us that the name Cainan was not in the original LXX NOR in the original gospel of Luke! Go figure. So there you have the thoughts of "scholars" who assume there is no way the Holy Bible can be correct as it stands today, yet they assure us there is really nothing to worry about, and that God's words were once inspired in the "originals", though they have never seen them. In a somewhat similar fashion to the appearance in the Bible of the name of Cainan, we have the names of two individuals listed in the New Testament, which are not found in the Old Testament. In 2 Timothy 3:8 we read: "Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." This is an interesting verse in light of those who criticize the Holy Bible and tell us it contains errors, isn't it? "Men of corrupt minds, reprobate concering the faith." It seems, though we are nowhere told this directly, that Jannes and Jambres were probably two of the magicians in Pharoah's court who performed miracles imitating those God did through Moses. Where did Paul get this additional information about the specific names of these individuals? God revealed it to him. The Bible is a supernatural book. Likewise I do not believe that the additional name of Cainan, who is listed as a "son" of Arphaxad is an error in the Holy Bible. Those who tell us the name Cainan is not in the original have only two manuscripts of very dubious character that either do not contain the name Cainan (Manuscript D) or, to quote many scholarly articles, "appears not to contain this name" - (P75). It should be noted that neither does manuscript D contain many other whole verses or sections of Luke's gospel, though found in the others. Manuscript D is notorious for adding large sections to the gospel of Luke which are not found in any other manuscript, and D is also well known for omitting other large portions of Luke's gospel. One example of many that could be provided is the additional reading found in manuscript D, also known as Codex Bezae, in Luke 6:5. There our Lord says: "And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath". Then D alone adds: "On the same day seeing some one working on the Sabbath, He said to him: man, if you know what you do, blessed are you; but if you do not know, you are cursed and a transgressor of the law." Manuscript D also omits all of Luke 23:34 "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do." It also alone omits Luke 24:6 "He is not here, but is risen"; Luke 24:12 "Then arose Peter, and ran unto the sepulchre; and stooping down, he beheld the linen clothes laid by themselves, and departed, wondering in himself at that which was come to pass."; Luke 24:36 "and saith unto them, Peace be unto you"; Luke 24:40 "And when he had thus spoken, he shewed them his hands and his feet."; and Luke 24:51 "and carried up into heaven." These are just a very few of the many omissions found in manuscript D. Not very reliable, is it? As for P75, not only does it "appear" to omit the name Cainan from Luke 3:36, but P75 also is missing all of Luke 3:23 to 3:33! It also is missing Luke 4:3 to 4:33; 5:11 to 5:36; 6:5 to 6:9; 7:33-34; 7:44-45; 17:16-18, and from Luke 18:19 all the way to Luke 22:3! Such is the scant evidence for the omission of the name Cainan from the gospel of Luke 3:36. So how do we explain who this man Cainan is? In Luke 3 we read of the lineage of the Lord Jesus from the side of Mary. There we see "Heber, which was the son of Sala (Salah), which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem (Shem), which was the son of Noah..." In the Bible, the words "begat" and "son" do not necessarily imply a direct father to son relationship. For example: Matthew 1:8 "And Asa begat Josaphat; and Josaphat begat Joram; and Joram begat Ozias." Did you know that Uzziah (Ozias) is the great-great-grandson of Joram? Yet the text says, "Joram begat Ozias". In the book of Ruth we read in 4:17 "And the women her neighbours gave it a name (the child Ruth just gave birth to), saying, There is a SON BORN TO NAOMI; and they called his name Obed; he is the father of Jesse, the father of David." Naomi was actually the grandmother of the child, yet Scripture calls the grandchild her son, and says he was BORN TO Naomi. Likewise the gospel of Matthew 1:1 starts off saying: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." Obviously the word "son" does not always mean a direct line from father to son. The word "son" is also used to denote a son-in-law. King David was Saul's son-in-law, yet Saul calls David his "son" several times in Scripture. In the book of Ruth, Naomi calls Ruth her "daughter", yet in fact she was her daughter-in-law. Among the various possibilities of who this man Cainan was are the following two. #1. Cainan may have been the firstborn son of Arphaxad who married at an early age. Cainan conceives Salah with his wife, but he dies before his son Selah is born. So Arphaxad, his father, adopts Salah and becomes his "father". Remember, the word "beget" does not necessarily mean direct father-son relationship. Or #2. Cainan may have married one of Arphaxad's daughters and Salah was his son. However, in the genealogy listed in Genesis chapter 11, Arphaxad is listed as having "begotten" Salah, even though he was the grandfather. Genealogies often skip over generations, and sons are not always listed in the order in which they were born. See Genesis 6:10 where Noah begat three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Though Japheth was the elder (Genesis 10:21) yet he is listed last. In Luke, Cainan is listed as Arphaxad's "son", even though he was in fact his son-in-law. These are the two possibilities that make the most sense to me, and do not in any way call into question the reliability or accuracy of the Scriptures. The King James Holy Bible is always right. Get used to it. Will Kinney Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm
  13. Before the KJV

    Hi all. Interesting topic. I don't think it is that hard to answer, but of course, you may not agree with me on this. Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible? or Does the King James Bible only position “blow up”? “Seek ye out of THE BOOK OF THE LORD, and read” - Isaiah 34:16 “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise” - 1 Corinthians 1:19 The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?” Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn't write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated?" The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don't say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the "complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God" were located.” Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including "the" Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions. They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the 100% true words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don’t claim to have an infallible Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do. There are only Four options open to them. #1. “Only the originals were inspired and infallible.” It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these “originals” a day in their lives. At one Bible club I belong to there was one guy who objected to my King James Bible only position saying that he was against any form of "onlyism" because it was unbiblical and elitist. I then pointed out to him that if he bothered to check almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about "the Bible" they almost always say: "We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; no translation is inerrant." This most certainly is itself a form of "onlyism" and it is far worse than believing that the King James Bible is the only pure and perfect Book of the LORD. The "originals only" position leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW, and it is a profession of faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?!? (Note: See comments at end of this article regarding a Facebook interchange with an "originals" onlyist) #2. “All reliable bible versions (NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, KJV, Spanish, German etc.) are the inspired and infallible words of God.” How someone with the discernment of a poached egg can say such a thing is beyond me, but I do run into this type of nonsense. I call this intellectual suicide the "Fruit Loops Logic". In order to hold to view #2 they need to give new meanings to old words. "Infallible" no longer means "without errors"; it now must mean something like "ballpark close enough to be divinely useful" or something like that. These modern versions differ among themselves by omitting or adding literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament alone, and the modern versions change the meanings of hundreds of verses and often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places as the others. Not one of them agrees textually with any other in scores if not thousands of places. For a person to affirm that all these contradictory and textually very different "bibles" are all the infallible words of God, they end up portraying a god who is apparently suffering from Alzheimer's disease; he can't remember what he said, how he said it, or if he even said it at all. Try arguing that they are all “the inspired and 100% true words of God” before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room. To prove the utter absurdity of making such a claim that all versions like the NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV etc. are the perfect and infallible words of God, just take a look at the first part of this study I have put together showing in clear black and white how all these versions differ radically from each other in numbers and names alone. http://brandplucked.webs.com/nivnasbrejecthebrew.htm Then get back to us and tell us once again with a straight face that all these different versions are the infallible words of God. #3. "The words of God are preserved in the extant or remaining 5000 plus Greek manuscripts that we have today." This is a very common explanation that ends up meaning absolutely nothing. Men who generally hold this type of position are what I call Bible Agnostics like James White, Doug Kutilek, Rick Joyner, Rick Norris, James Price, Daniel Wallace and company. Their position is on the same level as saying "God's words are preserved in Webster's Unabridged Dictionary. They are all out of order and mixed up among thousands of other words that are not God's true words, but, Hey, they're in there someplace." The simple fact is that among these thousands of remaining (not counting of course all the thousands of manuscripts that have disappeared and turned to dust over the centuries) manuscript scraps, pieces, partial books and sections of the New Testament (none of which is an entire New Testament) there are literally thousands upon thousands of very real and serious variant readings, and nobody is sure which ones are God's words and which ones are not. The modern bible versions are based on the constantly changing theory called the "science" of textual criticism. They have no fixed and settled text and what they do have can and does change at the slightest whim, and no two modern scholars are agreed on what the New Testament should look like. For some concrete examples of what this so called "science" of Textual Criticism looks like and how it really works, check out this article here: http://brandplucked.webs.com/scienceoftextcrit.htm Also, be sure to take a look at this one called "The Oldest and Best Manuscripts?" It will show you some clear examples of the total confusion found in these so called "oldest and best manuscripts" upon which most modern versions like the ever changing NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman Standard, etc. versions are based on. http://brandplucked.webs.com/oldestandbestmss.htm #4 There really is a complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible and history and the internal evidence points to the Authorized King James Bible as being the Final Written Authority - the true words of the living God. You only have these four options. There is no other alternative left for you to go with. Four popular views about The Bible 1. The Roman Catholic View - The Holy Mother Church and tradition define what is in the Scripture 2. The Liberal View - The Bible is full of myths and legends 3. The Neo-Orthodox View - The real issue is what the Bible teaches, not its historical accuracy 4. The Fundamentalist View - All of the fundamentals of the faith are in the Bible in spite of its mistakes and errors All these views have one point in common: you don't actually have the Word of God in your hands. The Bible merely contains the Word of God. The Bible Believer's View - We do have the inspired words of God in our hands God's Book of the LORD = the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Accept no substitutes. You might be interested in reading "The Absolute Standard of Written Truth", which lists several historic reasons and internal evidence for the King James Bible as being the Absolute Standard by which all other bible versions are to be measured. You can see it here - http://brandplucked.webs.com/absolutestandard.htm There is a huge difference between the wisdom of men and the wisdom of God. As God says in Isaiah 55:8-9 “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. Far as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” And again God says in 1 Corinthians 1:19-20 “For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” I readily admit that “the book of the LORD” (the Holy Bible) was in a rather lengthy process of being perfected and brought to full maturity, but I and thousands of other Bible believers hold that the final product was and is the King James Bible. In general terms God preserved His words in the Bible versions that existed before the perfection of the King James Bible followed the same Hebrew texts and the traditional Greek texts. For example, you will find 1 John 5:7 in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568 and the Geneva Bible 1560 to 1602. (Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims of 1582 included all of 1 John 5:7 "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one" etc. and not even in brackets. The later Douay version of 1950 still included the phrase but in brackets, but the more recent Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985 began to omit the Trinity phrase altogether just like the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV, NET and Holman versions do. But wait. Now once again in 2009 The Catholic Sacred Bible Public Domain Version has gone back to include it! However there was no perfect and inerrant Bible until God brought forth His finished product in the King James Bible. Did the King James Bible translators know they were putting together God's perfect and infallible words? No, they probably did not. Do we always or even usually know how God might be using us? Of course not. God often uses people, both believers and non-believers, to carry out His purposes without them knowing it. Did king Nebuchadnezzar know that he was God's servant being used of God to carry out His purposes? (See Jeremiah 25:9; 27:6; 43:10) Was the unbelieving high priest aware that God prophesied through him that Jesus would die for the nation of Israel and gather together the children of God that were scattered abroad? (See John 11:49-52) or did Judas know that his betrayal was going to be a fulfillment of prophesy and that God was carrying out His eternal purpose through him? No, of course not. "The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water; he turneth it whithersoever he will." Proverbs 21:1 What may appear to the human mind as a natural course of events, as the changing course of a river, is actually the directing hand of the sovereign God. “God calls those things that be not as though they were” I believe that those who say there must have been a perfect Bible before the King James Bible or our position "blows up" or falls to the ground as being inconsistent are guilty of using the wisdom of men rather than the wisdom of God, and their thinking is decidedly unbiblical. Was there a perfect Bible consisting of the present 66 book canon in the year 90 A.D? No. Not all of it had even been written yet. Why is it that the God of history didn’t allow the invention of the printing press until around 1455 A.D? Most Christians didn’t even have an opportunity to have their own copy of any printed Bible till around 1550. Even regarding the canon of Scripture, or the individual books that taken as a whole form the Bible, a full dogmatic articulation of the canon was not made until the Council of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism, the Thirty-Nine Articles of 1563 for the Church of England, the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 for British Calvinism, and the Synod of Jerusalem of 1672 for the Greek Orthodox. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon There was no formal church agreement on the present day Protestant Bible consisting of 66 books until 1563. The Catholics still do not agree with the Protestants and include several other books called the Apocrypha. In the wisdom of God something can be in process or even non-existent and yet God calls it done. This is totally contrary to the wisdom and ways of men. God refers to “the book of the LORD” before it is even finished and certainly before it was gathered into one single volume. Read through the 34th chapter of the prophet Isaiah. Here God records the coming judgments upon all nations when the host of heaven shall be dissolved and the heavens shall be rolled together as a scroll. We find similar reference to these future events in the book of the Revelation. Though none of these things had actually happened at the time Isaiah wrote them, yet God sometimes referred to these events as having already happened. - “he hath utterly destroyed them, he hath delivered them to the slaughter.”; “my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:2, 16) So too in this chapter we read about “the book of the LORD”. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” (Isaiah 34:16) What exactly was this “book of the LORD” at Isaiah’s time in history? Was it all the books of the Bible written up till the time of Isaiah? Was it just the book of Isaiah? In either case the Bible as we know it today was not a completed Book. Isaiah was still being written at this time and there yet lacked many other Old Testament books still to be written. And that’s not even mentioning the entire New Testament. Yet God calls it “the book of the LORD” and commands us to read it. God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality. Daniel 10:21 - 11:2 - "the Scripture of Truth" Another clear example of God's Book being progressively revealed to us is found in one of the heavenly visions revealed to the prophet Daniel. In chapter 10 a heavenly messenger is sent to Daniel who tells him: "But I will shew thee THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH". The angel then says - "And now will I shew thee THE TRUTH. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia: and the fourth shall be far richer than they all..." Here the angel refers to a Book of Scripture that is ALREADY WRITTEN IN HEAVEN, and that is progressively revealed to man. This "Scripture of truth" has already recorded coming events BEFORE they happen in time. Nothing takes God by surprise; He sees the end from the beginning, and there is a completed Book in heaven that God progressively reveals to His people in time and history. Psalm 119:89 " For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." God has preserved His words in the Scripture of truth that is recorded in heaven. They will never pass away. But we also see the Scriptural principle that, though His words may be hidden away or forgotten for a time, as the history of Israel itself shows, yet He progressively reveals them and when they are all gathered together and brought to light, then make up "the book of the LORD." Let’s look at some other Biblical examples of where God calls something that is not as though it were. In Genesis 17:5 God tells Abraham: “Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; FOR A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS HAVE I MADE THEE.” The Bible critic using human logic and wisdom can easily say: “Hey, wait a minute. Abraham didn’t have any children at this time. There was no Isaac nor Ishmael; no Esau nor Jacob, and certainly not the nation of Israel much less other nations (plural). God must be wrong. The Bible can’t be true and inerrant.” Yet the verse is repeated again in the New Testament were we read in Romans 4:17 “(As it is written, I HAVE MADE THEE a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and CALLETH THOSE THINGS WHICH BE NOT AS THOUGH THEY WERE.” What we see here is God naming something as real and yet it wasn’t fulfilled in history till some 2000 years later. God was in a long process of gradually bringing about the fulfillment of His promises, yet He referred to them as something He had already accomplished. Psalms 12:6-7 says: "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." I believe that these verses, like many other Scriptures, have a double fulfillment. It can only be seen in the second way after it has happened, not before. How many prophecies of Christ Himself were not understood until after they had happened? Many if not most of them. Even at the time of the writing of Psalm 12 not all but maybe half of God's words had been penned, yet they are and were pure at that time. This Psalm says the words of the LORD ARE pure, and that God will keep them from this generation for ever. Up to this point we only have about half of the Old Testament and it was in the Hebrew text. God has kept His pure words in the Hebrew text. GOD keeps His words, even though man may forget them or hide them away, or not even has access to them himself. But God knows where they are and He will keep and preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 119:89 " For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven." God has preserved His words in the Scripture of truth that is recorded in heaven. They will never pass away. But we also see the Scriptural principle that, though His words may be hidden away or forgotten for a time, as the history of Israel itself shows, yet He progressively reveals them and when they are all gathered together and brought to light, they then make up "the book of the LORD." The King James Bible always follows the Hebrew texts; it is the modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman, etc. that so often reject these very same Hebrew readings. Are all the rest of the O.T. books that were written after David penned Psalm 12 part of the words of the Lord? Yes, we believe they are. How about the whole New Testament? Can we apply the principle of preservation to the New Testament as well? Are they also part of the pure words of the Lord? Again, we affirm that they are. Keep in mind, it is GOD who preserves His words, even though man may not know where they are, or has neglected them or forgotten them or doesn't even have access to them. This in no way nullifies the promise of God to preserve His words. If God was going to keep them from this generation for ever, then He must have included what He knew would be written in the future as a present reality - the words of the LORD. Obviously God's words over the centuries had become corrupted through false readings, omissions and additions. If God did not purify them, then there never would have been a perfect Bible. God Himself promised to preserve His words and we believe He did. He alone knows for sure which words are His and which "variant readings" are not His. He has kept and preserved them, but how do WE know which words are His preserved words? In a general way we can say that God preserved His words in a form that we can know them in the Hebrew Masorretic texts (the ones so often rejected and added to today in such new Vatican Versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, Holman and even the NKJV) and in the Traditional Greek texts that are in 85 to 90% general agreement and were the basis of Bibles everywhere until the Westcott-Hort, UBS/Nestle-Aland/Vatican critical texts started to come on the scene. But after the invention of the printing press with its moveable type by Gutenberg around 1540, the Bible could be printed on a wide scale and placed in the hands of the common man, God gathered ALL His preserved and perfect words, purified them from minor corruptions and had them put into His final masterpiece - the Authorized King James Holy Bible - the Book that has indeed transformed our world and that He has been pleased to use far more than any other Bible in history. We see the same Biblical principle of "calling those things which be not as though they were" in the words of our Lord Jesus Christ in John 17:4 where He says: “I have glorified thee on the earth: I HAVE FINISHED THE WORK which thou gavest me to do.” Again, the Bible critic will protest. “Now just hold on here a minute. Jesus hadn’t gone to the garden where He prayed with great drops of blood. He hadn’t yet been betrayed nor handed over to the Roman authorities. He certainly hadn’t yet died on the cross for our sins nor risen from the grave three days later. How can He then truthfully say that He had finished the work God gave Him to do? He must have been mistaken.” Yet in the wisdom of God the thing was so sure that He referred to it as a present reality - a finished work - even though in human terms His redemptive sacrifice was not accomplished till some time after these words were spoken by our Saviour. A third Biblical example that shows the principle of how God can refer to something as already existing (the book of the Lord) when from our point of view it doesn’t at all, is found in Ephesians 2:4-6. Here we read: “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace are ye saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus.” God speaks of this glorious redemption and new life from the dead as being a present reality which has already been accomplished - “quickened together with Christ, raised up and seated in the heavenly places” - Yet multiplied millions of us all over the world had not even been born yet, let alone had made some kind of a “decision for Christ”! Yet God refers to them as already done. We are seated together in the heavenly places. In the same way, the King James Bible believer does not need to somehow trace all the way back in history to try to find any perfect and inerrant Bible that existed before God brought the finished product of the King James Bible on the scene in 1611. The Sovereign God of history sees the end from the beginning and He can refer to the true “book of the LORD” even when, from our point of view, it wasn’t yet complete nor perfected. As the King James Bible translators themselves wrote in their Preface: “Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark." The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished." The King James Bible believer is the only one today who consistently, historically and logically stands for the doctrinal truths that God has kept His promises to preserve His inspired words and that there really exists such a thing as a complete, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible. Remember, God says: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? ...even God who calleth those things which be not as though they were.” (1 Cor. 1:19-20; Romans 4:17 “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8 "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38 Will Kinney
  14. Superstitious...a poor translation?

    Hi saints. The KJB is right about "superstitious" (as it always is) and here is why. May it be a blessing to you. Acts 17:22 "Too Superstitious or Very Religious"? Acts 17:22 KJB - "Then Paul stood in the midst of MARS' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things YE ARE TOO SUPERSTITIOUS...whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you." NKJV (ESV, NIV, NASB, modern Catholic versions) - "Then Paul stood in the midst of THE AREOPAGUS and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS." One Bible critic named Reese C. writes - "Acts 17:22 
KJV: Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars' hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. 
NKJV: Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 
Leaving aside the fact that "Mars’ hill" is a complete mistranslation, let’s move on to what the Greek says, "too superstitious" or "very religious"? The Greek word deisidaimonesteros simply means "more religious than others," and the NKJV is the more accurate translation.” (End of Reese’s pieces) In this study we will take a closer look at both the "MARS' hill" and the more important "SUPERSTITIOUS" alleged errors this Bible Rummager thinks he has found and see if he has a clue what he is taking about. Many Bible commentators and modern critics have set forth a concentrated attack on the accuracy of our beloved Authorized King James Bible. Most of these men will piously profess a belief in the inerrancy of Scripture, but when we press them about what they REALLY believe, we find that not one of them has a real and tangible book in print anywhere on this earth that they honestly believe is the complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. Each of them ends up being his own authority and feels free to edit, change, correct, omit, add to and translate any portion of what he thinks might be Scripture any way he chooses to do so. And of course, not one of them is in agreement with anybody else all the time. These same men will tell us that the King James Bible got it all wrong here in Acts 17:22 and the word translated as "too superstitious" should really be rendered as "very religious". They explain to us that Paul would not want to offend these people and start off his sermon with a slap in the face. He would be more gentle and compliment them on what they had right - or, so they tell us. At one of the internet Bible clubs I belong to, a modern version promoter wrote: "The KJV's rendering of deisidaimonesterous as superstitious in Acts 17:22 is just wrong. Superstitious is a negative quality, and St. Paul is clearly not saying anything bad about the Athenians here because he wants them to listen to him. He is not going to win listeners if he from the outset denounces them as superstitious dolts. The modern versions usually render this word as "very religious", and this is clearly better than the KJV rendering, don't you think?" (End of comments) The above criticism of the King James Bible is typical of the mindset of today's compromising religious critics. They assume the KJB's "superstitious" is wrong and are horrified that a preacher of the gospel would dare find fault with someone else's religion. They might also find fault with John the Baptist's methods or Peter's or even Jesus' words to a misguided sinner. Perhaps they were not "seeker friendly" enough. In Luke 3:7-10 we read of John the Baptist when he was just beginning his ministry. "Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O GENERATION OF VIPERS, who hath warned you to flee from the WRATH TO COME? Bring forth fruits worthy of REPENTANCE, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and CAST INTO THE FIRE. And the people asked him, saying, What shall we do then?" Then there is Peter preaching his first sermon in Acts 2. "Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs...Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, YE HAVE TAKEN, AND BY WICKED HANDS HAVE CRUCIFIED AND SLAIN." Acts 2:22,23. Again in Acts 3 Peter again "slaps them in the face" by telling his audience "the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. But YE DENIED THE HOLY ONE AND THE JUST, AND DESIRED A MURDERER TO BE GRANTED UNTO YOU; AND KILLED THE PRINCE OF LIFE, whom God hath raised from the dead." Then finally, I guess Jesus Christ Himself was unkind in His words to the woman of Samaria when He told her that her religion was false. He says to her: "Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews." Here Christ tells the Samaritan woman that she and her people were wrong in their collective worship and that the only true salvation came from the Old Testament scriptures entrusted to the Jewish people. How inconsiderate of our Lord not to compliment her on the parts of her people's religion they had right, don't you think? Secondly, let's take a look at the word translated as "too superstitious" in the King James Bible. The word is composed of two elements. Deisidaimonesterous (δεισιδαιμονεστέρους) is in part composed of the verb deido which means to fear, and the second part is daimon, which means devils or demons. The word daimon is used six times in the New Testament and is always translated as devils in the KJB. In Luke 8:29 a man possessed of an unclean spirit often brake his bands "and was driven of THE DEVIL into the wilderness." Revelation 16:14 uses this word when it tells us: "they are the spirits of DEVILS working miracles" and again in Revelation 18:2 "Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of DEVILS" So the word is literally to fear devils or demons. Many modern versions have united to translate Paul's sermon in Acts 17:22 as a compliment to their spirituality rather than as a rebuke of their false religion. Among these are the NKJV 1982, NASB 1960-1995, NIV 1984, 2011, RSV, Holman Standard 2003, Common English Bible 2011, NET, ISV and the ESV. The NKJV reads: "I perceive that in all things you are VERY RELIGIOUS". Here is how some other modern versions translate the passage: The Message - "you take your religion seriously"; Green's "literal" translation - "I see how god-fearing you are"; Holman - "you are extremely religious in every respect.", Young's - "you are over religious". The Catholic Connection The Catholic Versions continue to change how they have translated this passage, and most modern Vatican Versions (ESV, NIV, NASB, NET, ISV, Holman Standard) line up with the more modern Catholic Versions. The 1582 Douay-Rheims read just like the King James Bible with "you are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS", but in 1950 the Catholic Douay followed by the 1968 Jerusalem bible, the 1970 St. Joseph NAB and the 1985 New Jerusalem bible now say: "I perceive you are SCRUPULOUSLY RELIGIOUS." But just to keep us on our toes, the latest Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) of 2009 has come out, and guess what. The go back to reading: "I perceive that in all things you are rather SUPERSTITIOUS." The Amplified Bible speaks out of both sides of its mouth and gives us the double-speak confused reading of - “I perceive in every way that YOU ARE MOST RELIGIOUS OR VERY REVERENT TO DEMONS." How’s that for nailing things down! The Renewed Covenant New Testament 2011 shows the unbelievable confusion on how to translated this verse. It actually says: “all of you are SERIOUSLY IDOLATROUS AND VERY RELIGIOUS, SUPERSTITIOUS AND FEARFUL OF DEITIES AND DIVINITIES." Some older translations show the relationship of demons here: Rotherham's Emphasized bible 1902 has "HOW REVERENT OF DEMONS YOU ARE." The Emphatic Diaglott of 1865 translates the phrase as "WORSHIPPERS OF DEMONS." The Living Oracles of 1835 has "you are ADDICTED TO THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS" and the Etheridge Translation of 1849 reads: "you exceed in THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS." Other versions have readings that basically match the sense of the King James Bible, or even make it more of an insult to their false religion. Darby's 1890 translation says: "I see YOU ARE GIVEN UP TO DEMON WORSHIP" Lamsa's translation 1933 of the Syriac Peshitta says: "you are extravagant in THE WORSHIP OF IDOLS"; both Murdock's translation 1851 and Etheridge's 1849 translation of the Sryiac Peshitta have "you exceed in WORSHIP OF DEMONS". Likewise the Sawyer New Testament of 1858 said: "I perceive that in all things you are extremely devoted to THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS." Wycliffe 1395 translated this as : "I see YOU ARE VAIN WORSHIPPERS." The Thomas Haweis New Testament 1795 has: “ye are too much DEVOTED TO THE WORSHIP OF DAEMONS.” The Thompson Bible 1808 and the Revised Translation of 1815 both have - "Ye are EXCEEDINGLY ADDICTED TO THE WORSHIP OF DEMONS." The Anderson New Testament 1864 reads: "I perceive that in all respects YOUR REVERENCE FOR DEMONS excels that of other men." The Aramaic Bible in Plain English of 2010 - "Athenians, I see that in all things you excel in THE WORSHIP OF DAEMONS." The King James Bible is not at all alone in correctly translating this word as "too superstitious". Even today in modern Greek, the word deisidaimonesteros (δεισιδαιμονεστέρους) means "SUPERSTITIOUS" and does NOT mean "religious". I have Divry's Modern English-Greek and Greek-English desk dictionary 1974 here in my study. If you look up the word superstitious on page 330 you get precisely this same Greek word as its definition; and the reverse is also true. If you look up the Greek word deisidaimonesteros (δεισιδαιμονεστέρους) on page 468 you find "SUPERSTITIOUS" given as the ONLY definition. Even Daniel Wallace's NET version footnotes: "The term deisidaimonesterou" is difficult. On the one hand it can have the positive sense of “devout,” but on the other hand it can have the negative sense of “superstitious” (BDAG 216 s.v.)." The Greek Lexicons tell us the same things. Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon 1887, page 153 says deisidaimonesteros means- 1. fearing the gods: in good sense, pious, religious. 2. In bad sense, SUPERSTITIOUS. Thayer's Greek-English lexicon does too. It can mean either "reverencing the gods, religious" or in the bad sense "SUPERSTITIOUS". But in the Greek language today it has only one meaning and that is "SUPERSTITIOUS". Here is an online Greek-English dictionary anybody can use. Go to the site. On the left paste in the Greek word deisidaimonas. See what comes up. SUPERSTITIOUS! Then try it the other way around. On the right hand type in superstitious to see how they say this in Greek. Guess what. It’s this same Greek word deisidaimonas! http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon And here is another online Modern Greek Dictionary. http://www.ectaco.com/English-Greek-Dictionary/ Type in "superstitious" and see what comes up. It's δεισιδαίμων. The same word used in Acts 17:22 and correctly translated in the King James Bible as "superstitious". Then type in the word "religious" to see how to say it in Greek. It's θρησκευτικός, like the word found in the book of James - "if any man be religious". The KJB is right. In the New Testament Greek there is a different word used for "religion" and "religious" as found in Acts 26:5 "after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee", and in James 1:26, 27 "If any man among you seem to be religious...pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this.." The word used in these places and translated as religious or religion is threskeia and is totally different from the Greek word deisidaimonesteros. "ye are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS" Not only does the King James Bible correctly say "ye are too SUPERSTITIOUS" in Acts 17:22 but so also do Tyndale 1525, Miles Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Great Bible 1540 - "I perceaue that in all thinges ye are TO SUPERSTICYOUS.", the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims version of 1582, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Beza N.T. 1599, The Bill Bible 1671, Whiston's Primitive New Testament 1745, The Clarke N.T. 1795, the Revised Version of 1881, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841, The Hussey N.T. 1845, The Morgan N.T. 1848, The Hewett N.T. 1850, The Davidson N.T. 1876, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Modern Reader's Bible 1907, The Clarke N.T. 1913, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millennium Bible 1998, God's First Truth 1999, Tomson New Testament 2002, The Resurrection Life N.T. 2005 - "you are WAY TOO SUPERSTITIOUS", The Revised Geneva Bible 2005, The Christogenea New Testament 2009 - "you are MOST SUPERSTITIOUS", Bond Slave Version 2009, the English Jubilee Bible of 2010, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, Conservative Bible 2011 - “you are far TOO SUPERSTITIOUS about everything." and The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011. The Julia Smith Translation 1855 says: "I see that in all things ye have a superstitious fear of divinity." Foreign Language Bibles Foreign language Bibles that also have "superstitious" and not "religious" are - the Latin Vulgate of 382 A.D. - "per omnia quasi superstitiosiores vos video", Luther's German Bible 1545 - "Ihr Männer von Athen, ich sehe euch, daß ihr in allen Stücken allzu abergläubisch seid.", the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Cirpriano de Valera Bible of 1602 - "Varones Atenienses, en todas las cosas veo que sois demasiado SUPERTSTICIOSOS", the Spanish Reina Valera of 1858 and 1909 (supersticiosos - but the 1960, 1995 R.V. changed to "muy religiosos"), the 2010 Spanish Reina Valera Gomez bible - "en todo veo que sois MUY SUPERSTICIOSOS", the Portuguese de Almeida of 1681 and the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués - "em tudo vos vejo um tanto SUPERSTICIOSOS", and the 2009 Romanian Fidela Bible - " că în toate lucrurile voi sunteţi prea SUPERTSTITIOSI." Also reading "too superstitious" the Ukranian N.T. - "Атиняне, по всьому виджу, що ви вельми побожні." = "you are VERY SUPERSTITIOUS", the Modernized German Bible - "Ihr Männer von Athen, ich sehe euch, daß ihr in allen Stücken allzu abergläubisch seid." = "you are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS IN ALL THINGS.", the Czech BKR Bible - "Muži Aténští, vidím vás býti všelijak příliš nábožné lidi." = "you are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS", John Calvin agrees with the King James Bible reading and translated this Greek word as "superstitious" and comments: "Paul layeth SUPERSTITION to the charge of the men of Athens, because they worship their gods all at a very venture." The Pulpit Commentary notes on Acts 17:22 - "There is a difference of opinion among commentators whether these words imply praise or blame. Chrysostom, followed by many others, takes it as said in the way of encomium, and understands the word δεισιδαιμονεστέρους as equivalent to εὐλαβεστέρους, very religious, more than commonly religious. And so Bishop Jacobson ('Speaker's Commentary'), who observes that the substantive δεισδαιμονία is used five times by Josephus, and always in the sense of "religion," or "piety." On the other hand, the Vulgate (superstitiosiores), the English Versions, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, etc., take the word in its most common classical sense of "superstitious;" and it weighs for something towards determining St. Luke's use of the word that Plutarch uses δεισιδαιμονία always in a bad sense, of superstition, as in his life of Alexander and elsewhere, and in his tract 'De Superstitione' (Δεισιδαιμονία)...He could not mean to praise them for that δεισιδαιμονία which it was the whole object of his sermon to condemn." Matthew Henry states as his first intrepretation - "I perceive that in all things you are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS.The crime he charges upon them is giving that glory to others which is due to God only, that THEY FEARED AND WORSHIPPED DEMONS, spirits that they supposed inhabited the images to which they directed their worship. "It is time for you to be told that there is but one God who are multiplying deities above any of your neighbours, and mingle your idolatries with all your affairs. You are in all things TOO SUPERSTITIOUS — deisidaimonesteroi, you easily admit every thing that comes under a show of religion, but it is that which corrupts it more and more; I bring you that which will reform it." The Geneva Study Bible - The idolaters themselves provide most strong and forcible arguments against their own SUPERSTITION." John Trapp (an English Puritan) Complete Commentary - "Ver. 22. You are TOO SUPERSTITIOUS - You are fearers of evil spirits; so one renders it; and Paul elsewhere tells the Corinthians that what they sacrificed to idols they sacrificed to devils, 1 Corinthians 10:20."