Response to Spiritual Deception in the Highest

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 5

---------------

What has been removed? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we're continuing our look at KJV-Onlyism. Let's see what we have today. Again, source material is here.

Bible Question #9: After we repent, and are born again (come to saving grace), what else does Jesus command us to do?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There are many changes that come in our new birth/in our new nature, but the answer I'm looking for is this: We are to make a public profession of faith. Then we are to be baptized, by immersion, in water.

Let's look in Acts chapter 8, verses 35-37. In Acts 8:35 Philip, the Apostle, preached Jesus Christ to the eunuch. In verse 36 the eunuch realized his need to be baptized. The eunuch then asks if he can be baptized.

Now, take a look at Acts 8:37 in a 'modern' version of the Bible. Many (but not all) 'modern' versions go from Acts chapter 8 verse 35, to verse 36, then to 38. 38?! Where is verse 37 you ask? And, what did verse 37 say?

This key verse, properly included in the King James Bible, tells us whom should be baptized. It says:

"... IF THOU BELIEVEST WITH ALL THINE HEART, THOU MAYEST." And he [the eunuch] answered and said: "... I BELIEVE THAT JESUS CHRIST IS THE SON OF GOD."

Numbering verses 35, 36, and then 38 is NOT the new math!

These 'modern' versions, which leave out verse 37, are omitting the deity of Jesus Christ. Also, they are missing the key point: We must make a PUBLIC profession of faith. We must believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. If we do not know, believe, and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, our baptism only 'gets us wet'. Leaving out verse 37 omits a major portion of Christian doctrine.

Omissions of doctrine and corruptions of doctrine are bad news. In both cases, the reader is NOT getting the correct information he/she needs to know.

The cute thing about KJV-Onlyists is how they push the panic button over every supposed change. Now if you're going to say a verse was removed, then you have to assume the text that you're using to translate from is the one that is accurate. You have to establish that without a question-begging standard. KJV-onlyists look at how the translations differ and say "Well, we have the correct translation, so obviously the problem is on the other end."

If you started with the other translations as the perfect standard, you would reach the opposite conclusion. Would it not be just as much a problem to add to Scripture? One could say that the KJV is older though, but that's not the point. The point is the starting place is determining the conclusion.

Again, the solution is simple. These verses aren't in the manuscripts modern translations are using. It is not a conspiracy to leave out key doctrine. What is left out supposedly is shown in other places in modern translations.

Bible Question #10: Can you recite the Lord's prayer?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Lord's prayer, taught to us by Jesus, and recorded in Luke 11:2-4 of the KJV, is as follows:

"... Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil."

Now turn to Luke 11:2-4 in a 'modern' version and re-read the Lord's prayer. The wording will be similar to:

"... Father, hallowed be Thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins, for we ourselves also forgive everyone who is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation".

Note this modern version states "Father" but then leaves out "... WHICH ART IN HEAVEN ...". You don't know who you are praying to, your Father in heaven, or to Satan!

It also leaves out "our" as in OUR father. We were created by God who is "OUR" father. Satan is a father, but he is not "OUR" father. Satan is the "father" of lies.

And this 'modern' version leaves out "THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH". By leaving out the fact that we are praying to our Father WHOSE WILL IS DONE IN HEAVEN, this 'modern' version is re-directing your prayer away from God and toward someone or something else (in another place).

Lastly, there is a major omission in the last half of verse 4. Verse 4 states: "And lead us not into temptation". But this verse then leaves out: "... BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL ..."

Personally, I want to be delivered from evil! How about you?

I think the reader will agree: This 'modern version' is NOT the "Lord's Prayer" you want to be praying! Think about it.

As I read through this, I am just thinking this has to be one of the most bizarre arguments from the KJV-Only position ever.

So Jesus's disciples ask Him to teach them how to pray. In this scenario, He begins.

Jesus: Father.....

Peter: Whoa! Lord! You just said Father and nothing else! Are you praying to God or to Satan?

Jesus: I said Father.....

Satan is called the father of lies, but saying that this has to be specified would be like asking Jesus if He was praying to Joseph. As for the statement about which art in Heaven, well where else would a Jew think God would be? Now you might need this spelled out if you're an ignorant KJV-Onlyist who has no clue how to read an ancient document, but not if you're someone who is a Jew at the time and has half a brain.

That's really just how dumb this argument is.

So why is this not in there? The same situation. This is not found in the oldest manuscripts.

That's enough ridiculousness for this time. We'll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 6

---------------

Ready for more crazy adventures in KJV-Only land? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The book I am replying to can be read online here. We know the drill by now. Let's begin.

Bible Question #11: After our new birth, how are we supposed to relate to God?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Once we are born again we have a new standard for our lives; it is Jesus Christ. The Bible tells us how we are to relate to him. Please turn to Ephesians 5:1 . In a 'new' version it says:

"... be imitators of God ..."

Compare this to the Authorized King James:

"Be ye therefore FOLLOWERS of God ..."

Even though we are born again; can we possibly imitate God? Can we be the judge of the Universe? Can we be at all places at the same time? No way. We have a new nature, sure; but we are still only men.

Think about it: only Satan tries to imitate God! Ever since the garden of Eden, Satan has tried to direct worship toward HIMSELF. We, as men, could NEVER imitate God. We are only men. We can only FOLLOW God!

Publishers of 'new', 'more up to date' versions are encouraging us to be like Satan! (i.e. to think of ourselves as God).

Sigh.

It's amazing what you can learn just by a simple word search. I go to BlueLetterBible.com and what do I see when I go to the verse? Well, the Greek word is mimetes. Already, this is a problem since it sure looks like mimic. So what do I see listed under usage.

an imitatorNothing else is listed.Also, the KJV still has Matthew 5:48, be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect. Maybe its just me, but that sounds like imitation.

The whole idea of imitation often times is that you're not going to hit the mark, but you have something to aim for and why not aim for the best? A young man wanting to be a basketball player could want to imitate Michael Jordan or LeBron James. Will he ever reach that level? Probably not, but he can still aim for the best.

Let's turn to 1st John 4:3 . A 'modern' version says:

"and every spirit which does not confess Jesus is not of God. This is the spirit of antichrist, of which you heard that it was coming, and now it is in the world already."

Again, in 'modern' versions, key pieces of scripture are left out. Compare this same verse with the FULL reading in the King James. In the KJV it says:

"And every spirit that confesseth not that JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world."

Remember, evil spirits did confess Jesus. In Luke 4:34 (and in Mark 1:24) a man having a "spirit of an unclean devil" said to Jesus:

"... Let [us] alone; what have we to do with thee, [thou] JESUS of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art; the Holy One of God."

Contrary to what 'modern' versions would tell you, the antichrist DOES KNOW who Jesus is. But, what the antichrist CAN NOT say, is that: "JESUS CHRIST IS COME IN THE FLESH".

Modern versions not only need to get their gospel straight; they also need to correctly quote the true test for the antichrist.

Also, take a look at this: Compare 1st John 4:3 again between a 'modern' version and the King James Bible. Look one more time at what the 'new' version says:

"... which does not confess Jesus is ..."

But, in the King James it says:

"... that confesseth not that Jesus CHRIST is ..."

Besides the doctrinal error, these 'modern' versions continually assault the Lordship and Deity of Jesus Christ. If the King James says: "Jesus Christ", many times the modern versions will only say: "Jesus". If the King James says: "Lord Jesus Christ, "many times the 'modern' versions will only say: "Lord" or will only say: "Jesus".

Again, this is an absurd argument. Is it as if a demon in the Gospels would not say Jesus has a body? We are talking about different situations. The spirits in the epistles would be referring to those teaching Gnostic and/or Docetic doctrines that denied that Jesus had a real physical body.

Why do modern translations translate 1 John 4:3 the way they do? Because of the manuscripts they are translating from.

By the way, let's look at 2 John 7 in a modern translation.

I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.

Yep. Major cover-up going on there.

Bible Question #13: In the wilderness, when Satan tempted Jesus to turn a stone into bread for food; what was Jesus' response?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Turn to Luke 4:4 . In a 'modern' version it reads: "... man shall not live by bread alone".

Well, that's true and that's part of it. But, what about the rest of the verse? Notice: words have been LEFT OUT in these 'modern versions'.

The Authorized (King James) Bible has the correct and full reading. In Luke 4:4 it says:

"... man shall not live by bread alone, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD".

The fact that we are nourished by bread is true, but that is only part of the story. Our lives are sustained by the Word of God. We need bread to sustain our bodies; but, these 'modern' versions leave out our need for the life sustaining Word of God.

Again, we have the same situation going on here. For a cover-up, it seems strange that the parallel passage in Matthew 4 does indeed have the passage that we are told modern passages eliminate. It makes sense for Luke to leave it out since he's writing more to a Gentile audience and Matthew to leave it in his since his audience is thoroughly Jewish. It all depends on what the manuscripts say.

Enough ridiculousness for today. More coming next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Part 8

----------------

What do we confess? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we’re back to looking at the trainwreck of KJV-onlyism. This time, we’re going to finish up the first part of this travesty. As always, you can find the source material here.

Bible Question #18: What did Jesus say we are to do relative to each other?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For the answer see: James 5:16. Many ‘modern’ versions say something similar to:

“… confess your sins to one another …”

( Notice this could lead to gossip and further sinning ). But the King James says:

“… confess your FAULTS one to another …”

Notice the 2 different words. The Bible says that ONLY God can forgive sins. We are supposed to confess our SINS to Him. We should confess our FAULTS to one another, but SINS are confessed to God. Faults and sins are entirely different.

Can you see how ‘modern’ versions have led Catholics astray? And, if it has led Catholics astray; couldn’t the same thing happen to us if we, our spouse, our children, or our pastor, uses a ‘modern’ version?

The word here is paraptoma. In all honesty, I was expecting hamartia, but either way, it doesn’t matter. As I looked at the way this word is translated in other places in the KJV, I saw it is still read the same way as sins, such as in the Lord’s prayer about forgiving our trespasses.

Now the problem here is that no one is saying that you confess your sins to others to earn forgiveness, although in some sense you do. If I have wronged a fellow man and I need him to forgive me, I confess to him and he forgives me. He can do that. That doesn’t forgive me before God, but it forgives me before my fellow man.

The verse later on says to pray for one another that you may be healed. Now if I read that like Johnson reads this part, I could say “See? You are to pray for one another to be healed? Only God can heal!”

Not only this, but people in accountability programs will tell you that confessing your sins to one another can be a good practice. These are found in 12-step programs where if someone screws up, they have to go and talk to their sponsor about what they did. That requires humility and is a good deterrent if the person is being honest to not messing up.

I also like how the boogeyman of Catholicism was thrown out there in the end. I am not a Catholic, but they don’t get everything wrong and I personally think a confessional is a good idea. It’s not because a priest forgives you, but because confessing to someone can help mean you don’t carry the burden alone. I have had a number of struggles that I have had greatly lightened because I talked to someone. They didn’t even give me great advice many times. They just listened. That was enough.

Bible Question #19: Do modern ‘versions’ of the Bible have anyother problems?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Unfortunately, the answer is yes. In the Bible, the New Testament sometimes re-quotes the Old Testament. An example of this is in Mark 1:2

Compare the two Bibles again. In a ‘new version’ it says:

“As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, …”

Compare this to the King James, it says:

“As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ”

Comment: The scripture quoted in Mark 1:2 DID NOT come from Isaiah as stated in these ‘modern’ versions of the Bible. The scripture quoted is from Malachi 3:1 ! Check it out.

Not only do ‘modern’ versions misquote God; they even misquote themselves!

The KJV reading of: “As it is written IN THE PROPHETS, … ” is correct, because the verse is from Malachi 3:1, and Malachi was a prophet!

So far we have seen all kinds of problems in these ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, ‘more up to date’, etc. etc. versions of the Bible. This leads to the last Bible question:

Folks. This one is easy. Composite quotations were something that were done in ancient literature and when that was done, two quotes would be meshed together and often they would be attributed to the most well-known figure. You can listen to my interview with Seth Ehorn on this one.

Bible Question #20: Why is it important to have the true Word of God (vs. a corruption)?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The answer, to our question, is found in 1 Peter 2:2. Please turn there now.

In a ‘modern version’ it says:

“… long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation; ”

The King James Bible tells us to:

“… desire the SINCERE milk OF THE WORD, that ye may GROW thereby:”

My comment is that this verse, in ‘new’, ‘modern,’ versions, contains 2 problems:

First, we are to desire the sincere milk OF THE WORD. The purpose is “to grow thereby”. Modern versions leave out “OF THE WORD“. It’s God’s word that feeds us. If, like the modern verse, we leave out “the word” how can we grow? Or, if we get a corrupted translation, how can we grow on ‘junk food’?

Second, contrary to ‘modern’ versions, we DO NOT grow up to salvation. That says salvation is by works! We are saved by grace, and not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9) Think about it.

In this chapter, we reviewed the doctrine contained in a “broad” array of ‘new’, ‘modern’, ‘more easily readable’, versions of the Bible. We compared ‘modern’ doctrine to the KJV. And, we have found significant error.

But, all ‘modern’ versions do not follow this ‘broad’ profile. So, in the next chapter, we will analyze 3 versions of the Bible which need an individual, case by case, analysis.

Again, this comes down to different textual variants. However, one thing I consider is that we have an emphasis in our culture on referring to Scripture as the Word of God and think whenever we see the term “Word” that it refers to the Bible. Hebrews 4:12 is an example. I think it is more likely that this refers to the words spoken to the Israelites in the wilderness. Now this certainly did become part of Scripture, but I don’t think Hebrews is telling us something about Scripture as a whole here.

An ancient reader hearing about sincere milk in this case would easily fill in the missing gaps and the author would realize that. In the same way, saying that it means growing to salvation does not mean works salvation. What it means is more akin to growing in the salvation and being developed into a saved person. If we use the milk analogy, a baby drinks his mother’s milk not so he can grow into a human, but so he can grow as a human.

I wish that this was the most nonsense, but I’ve already looked ahead some and, yep, it doesn’t get any better from here.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Don't make me get out an atlas!

---------------

Ready for a fast look at Bible verses? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we're reviewing this awful KJV-only book and now we get to a bunch of fast translation differences. We'll see if any of these have any bearings whatsoever on the text and even if the KJV could be a less than accurate translation. As always, the source material is here. I am also calling this 2-1 to go by chapters lest I get to something labeled part 73 of this series.

Gen 1:21

KJV: "And God created great WHALES ..."

NKJV: "So God created great sea creatures ..."

COMMENT: There is a difference between sea creatures and whales.

Okay, everyone! Write this down! There is a difference between sea creatures and whales! Believe it or not, those seafood items from the sea that you buy at your grocery store, they're not whales! I understand. Please take a moment so you can take in the shock.

If anything, the NKJV is better here since you could say with the KJV that God created only the whales. Here, you can say God created all the great sea creatures.

Matt 12:40

KJV: "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALES's belly ..."

NKJV: "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish ..."

Plenty of apostasies have been brought about by the fact of a great fish instead of a whale. I will make sure the next time an atheist confronts me on Jonah and the whale to say that it was a great fish instead and watch them melt knowing their opposition has died. Amazing how much these people make out of these issues.

Gen. 2:7

KJV: "... and man became a living SOUL."

NKJV: "... and man became a living being."

Comment: A MAJOR difference between man and beast is that

man is the ONLY creature with a soul. New versions miss this point.

This point is debatable. Some people will say anything that has a nephesh has a soul, which can include higher animals, including my little kitty I hear in the next room. Also, is it really wrong to say that man became a living being? Does anyone base their doctrine of the soul, whether for or against, on this one verse alone?

Gen. 2:13

KJV: "... land of ETHIOPIA."

NKJV: "... land of Cush."

Comment: I know where Ethiopia is, but where is Cush?

Oh my. This is just simply an excuse for laziness. First off, if you think you know where Ethiopia is, you probably don't.

"Bull! I can get out a map of Africa right now and show you where it is!"

Yes, but that isn't where Ethiopia was in Bible times. Do you know right off where that was? Probably not. Do you not know where Cush was? Okay. Brace yourelf. You might have to actually look it up and study the text!

The horror! The horror!

There are plenty of places we read about in the Bible and we don't know where they are. The Bible still lists them that way because it is being faithful to what the text says. I really have to say this could be the dumbest argument I have seen in this book so far.

And this is just the start of part 2.

We'll continue next time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Even more flash nonsense

--------------

Does God know good and evil? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

The more and more I go through this online book, the more I really don't understand how someone can hold to this position. Then again, there are internet atheists who hold that Jesus never existed. Anyway, again, the source material is here.

So let's begin.

Gen. 3:4-5

KJV: "And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye at thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods knowing good and evil."

NKJV: "Then the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God knowing good and evil."

COMMENT: This is major blasphemy! God (with a big G) is not

evil! Think about the difference.

So apparently, saying that you know good and evil is the same as saying you are evil. Not sure how that follows. One could say it depends on the usage of the word "know" which can mean something like that, but let's also remember that this is the devil and geez, would it be so awful if in the account the devil told something that wasn't true?

Besides, look at the KJV interpretation. Is this upholding polytheism?

Gen. 22:8

KJV: "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering ..."

NKJV: "And Abraham said, My son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering.

Comment: It is true, as the NKJV says, that God did provide FOR himself a sacrifice. However, that is only part of the story. The NKJV totally misses the deeper, and more amazing truth: GOD WAS the sacrifice! The KJV wording is perfect: "God will provide HIMSELF" (in the form of his son Jesus Christ) as the sacrifice.

Of rather the NKJV is being accurate in its translation. Also, saying God will provide himself a lamb doesn't mean that God will be the lamb. That's an added step of interpretation. I can talk to my folks in the evening and say I can provide a meal for myself. It doesn't mean I'm a cannibal who is going to eat myself.

1 Ki.10:28

KJV: "and LINEN yarn: the king's merchants received the LINEN yarn at a price."

NKJV: "and Keveh; the king's merchants bought them in Keveh at the current price."

Comment: I know what linen is, but what is Keveh?

"One of these requires that I look at the text and study it! One of them just tells me something that I already know something about! That last one must be true then!"

It's really embarrassing that this kind of thing is counted as an argument.

Looking up the verse, it seems quite difficult to translate as I don't see anything that reads linen. There is a place called Keveh however and so the text is saying that Solomon was buying from this place.

Dan. 3:25

KJV: "... and the form of the fourth is like THE SON OF GOD."

NKJV: (footnote) "or a son of the gods"

COMMENT: See comments in chapter 1 of this report. There is

a big difference between "THE SON OF GOD" and a son of 'plural' gods!

This was covered in an earlier post.

By the way, when the devil spoke, it was okay that he said gods, but not okay to say God. Here, it's the opposite.

Zech 11:17

KJV: "Woe to the IDOL shepherd that leaveth the flock!

NKJV: "Woe to the worthless shepherd, who leaves the flock"

The word is best translated as worthless, though sometimes it does mean idol. However, idol in this context makes no sense. Now if you meant "idle", that could make sense. The NKJV has this right. It's a worthless shepherd. There is no commentary here so how is this an argument? It's just saying the NKJV is wrong since it's different, when it makes more sense. What is an idol shepherd after all?

Matt. 2:4

KJV: "... he (King Herod) DEMANDED of them where Christ should be born."

NKJV: "... he inquired of them where Christ was to be born."

COMMENT: King Herod, furious over the arrival of Jesus, (and

wanting to do away with Him) did not inquire where Christ should be born, he DEMANDED to know!

So the argument that Herod demanded to know is that....he demanded to know. KJV-onlyists are quite good at circular reasoning.

The word more often is best translated as inquire. There are times that it could mean demand, but without further historical evidence, there's no way to tell what King Herod did. It would fit his character if he did demand, but he could also be wanting to know without giving away the game so he could fool the wise men.

So as I said, this section is a disaster just like the first. We'll continue next week, Lord willing.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Remember, if it differs from the King Jimmy, it's wrong. No argument needed.

------------

Did all things come by or through Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That’s just one question we’re going to discuss. There isn’t much more to section 2. Anyway, here‘s where you can find the original so you can know I’m quoting properly. Let’s begin.

Matt 18:11

KJV: “For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost.”

NKJV: “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”

Comment: The NJKV says Jesus Christ “has come” to save that

which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The NKJV implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone TODAY can be saved by Jesus. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. There are NUMEROUS places where the NKJV changes the verb tense. These types of NKJV corruptions are very subtle.

I have looked over this and all I can say is I am convinced that this is just more nitpicking. I have read this verse several times and even reading it now, I have never at all thought that. One rule of reading is you try to give the principle of charity and put what you are reading in the best light possible. Apparently, that doesn’t apply if you’re a KJV-onlyist.

Matt 20:20

KJV: “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, WORSHIPPING him …”

NKJV: “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down …”

COMMENT: Kneeling down is not even close to ‘worship’.

Kneeling down would be a regular part of worship in the culture as showing honor. However, this is once again “The NKJV is different so therefore wrong.” I have no reason to think that the mother of James and John understood the deity of Christ. Kneeling makes more sense.

John 1:3

KJV: “All things were made BY Him …”

NKJV: “All things were made through Him …”

COMMENT: ‘BY‘ and through are totally different. Think about it.

Yes. They are. Also, by his more accurate. Jesus is compared to wisdom in the NT and in the Proverbs and intertestamental literature, Wisdom was the means by which God made the world. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

John 4:24

KJV: “God is A Spirit …”

NKJV: “God is Spirit …”

COMMENT: For the NKJV to say: “God is spirit” is to infer that ALL spirits are God. Not true. We know there are evil spirits. And we know in God there is NO evil. Thus the KJV is correct: God is ‘A‘ spirit.

One could just as well say saying God is a spirit is putting God as one among many and in the class of spirits, but that wouldn’t be a charitable reading. However, I have no reason to think that saying God is Spirit even begin to imply (Not infer. Infer is what the person responding does.) that all spirits are God. You might as well say “God is good” implies that all that is good is God.

Acts 12:4

KJV: “… after Easter …”

NKJV: “… after Passover”

Seriously, that’s all that is said here. However, the NKJV is correct. There would have been no word for Easter at this point nor is there any reason to think that the Jews would have gathered together to celebrate “Easter.” Passover is the more accurate translation.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[One Bad Pig]

One of the issues with the KJV is that there are quite a few hapax legoumena in the Masoretic Text. Because there are no other extant sources of ancient biblical Hebrew, that means translators sometimes had to make their best guess at what a particular word might mean. Since the 17th century, there has been a lot of work done in languages cognate to ancient biblical Hebrew (such as Ugaritic); consequently, we can now often accurately figure out what those mysterious words meant.

[tabibito]

Remember, if it differs from the King Jimmy, it's wrong. No argument needed.

------------

Did all things come by or through Jesus? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

That’s just one question we’re going to discuss. There isn’t much more to section 2. Anyway, here‘s where you can find the original so you can know I’m quoting properly. Let’s begin.

Matt 18:11

KJV: “For the Son of Man IS come to save that which was lost.”

NKJV: “For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.”

Comment: The NJKV says Jesus Christ “has come” to save that

which was lost; a PAST TENSE statement. The NKJV implies that ALL who were to be saved, HAVE BEEN saved. Not true. Anyone TODAY can be saved by Jesus. The correct reading is PRESENT TENSE. There are NUMEROUS places where the NKJV changes the verb tense. These types of NKJV corruptions are very subtle.

I have looked over this and all I can say is I am convinced that this is just more nitpicking. I have read this verse several times and even reading it now, I have never at all thought that. One rule of reading is you try to give the principle of charity and put what you are reading in the best light possible. Apparently, that doesn’t apply if you’re a KJV-onlyist.

Matt 20:20

"Is come" (all but obsolete) and "has come" both denote the perfect tense. "The clock is broken" and "the clock has broken" both declare the current state of the clock. However, "the clock has broken" has a counterpart in "the clock has been broken" still declaring the current state, but the first (properly should) shows that the clock itself failed, where the second shows that the clock was caused to fail.

KJV: “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, WORSHIPPING him …”

NKJV: “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down …”

COMMENT: Kneeling down is not even close to ‘worship’.

Kneeling down would be a regular part of worship in the culture as showing honor. However, this is once again “The NKJV is different so therefore wrong.” I have no reason to think that the mother of James and John understood the deity of Christ.

Kneeling makes more sense.

Quite so. Kneeling down is not even close to worship, but προσκυνεω (proskuneo) doesn't distinguish between worship and paying homage.

John 1:3

KJV: “All things were made BY Him …”

NKJV: “All things were made through Him …”

COMMENT: ‘BY‘ and through are totally different. Think about it.

Yes. They are. Also, "by" is more accurate.[/indent]

How more accurate? The Koine Greek shows δι (through), both here in John 1:3 and in John 1:10.

Jesus is compared to wisdom in the NT and in the Proverbs and intertestamental literature, Wisdom was the means by which God made the world. The Father is the source and the Son is the means.

。。。。Wisdom was a created being (and as such no more than anthropomorphic personification at that) in the Old Testament. The New Testament nowhere lends support for the cross identification of Christ and Wisdom. Paul does however draw contrasts where he says things like ... to the Gentile, Christ is folly; but to us, he is the wisdom of God."

John 4:24

KJV: “God is A Spirit …”

NKJV: “God is Spirit …”

COMMENT: For the NKJV to say: “God is spirit” is to infer that ALL spirits are God. Not true. We know there are evil spirits. And we know in God there is NO evil. Thus the KJV is correct: God is ‘A‘ spirit.

One could just as well say saying God is a spirit is putting God as one among many and in the class of spirits, but that wouldn’t be a charitable reading. However, I have no reason to think that saying God is Spirit even begin to imply (Not infer. Infer is what the person responding does.) that all spirits are God. You might as well say “God is good” implies that all that is good is God.

Acts 12:4

There are pros and cons for either, but as you point out, it would take a hostile reading to produce problems, regardless of which is preferred.

KJV: “… after Easter …”

NKJV: “… after Passover”

Seriously, that’s all that is said here. However, the NKJV is correct. There would have been no word for Easter at this point nor is there any reason to think that the Jews would have gathered together to celebrate “Easter.” Passover is the more accurate translation.

No boubt adoubt that one.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Were the Greeks superstitious or religious?

-------------

Were the disciples ignorant? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

We’re looking at more comparisons from a KJV-onlyist, this time between the KJV and the NKJV. You can find the link here. Let’s get started.

Acts 4:13

KJV: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and IGNORANT men …”

NKJV: “Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were uneducated and untrained men …”

COMMENT: Peter and John had been with Jesus for some time. They WERE NOT untrained. Jesus HAD trained them. They were, however, ignorant (In the eyes of the Pharisees).

Why not say they were uneducated and untrained in the eyes of the Pharisees? (Is Jeff Johnson adding to the blessed KJV?!) However, the word Luke uses here best indicates uneducated and untrained. It meant that they had no formal education, which is true, but they had been with Jesus, the best rabbi ever.

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;”

Comment: Come on! Being very religious and TOO SUPERSTITIOUS are entirely different!

But here’s the irony. The word means both. In a good sense, it refers to religious. In a bad sense, superstitious. Paul could have meant both. He could have been trying to leave his audience wondering where he was going, the good or the bad sense. Apparently, though, those questions aren’t worth exploring to Johnson. Nah. Just go with what the KJV says!

2 Cor. 2:17

KJV: “For we are not as many, which CORRUPT the Word of God …”

NKJV:”For we are not, as so many, peddling the Word of God …”

COMMENT: Peddling and corrupting are very different. “Modern” versions try and hide from the truth they are ‘corrupting’ the Word of God.

Once again, the word can indicate both. In some cases, peddling was even considered corrupting. Peddlers would alter their commodities somehow in order to get a profit. What is ridiculous here, is to insist that the modern versions are trying to out themselves. If this is the standard, does this mean that the KJV was peddling the Word of God?

KJV: “I AM crucified with Christ …”

NKJV: “I have been crucified with Christ …”

COMMENT: The NKJV is saying their crucifixion is over! Not true. The believers crucifixion is an ongoing, PRESENT TENSE, transaction.

Um. No. In one sense, of course, the crucifixion is over. However, when this verse is used in the accounts of the crucifixion in the Gospels, it is in the past tense. The principle of charity tries to read the opponent in the best light. Johnson has no interest in doing that.

Eph. 5:1

KJV: “Therefore be FOLLOWERS of God …”

NKJV: “Therefore be imitators of God …”

Comment: See chapter 1 of this report for a full analysis. Only Satan tries to imitate God as Satan wants to be worshipped AS God. Born again believers cannot imitate God. We can’t rule the universe. We can only follow God. Remember Jesus DID NOT tell his “fishers of men” to imitate Him. Jesus said: “follow me …”.

See here.

Hopefully next time, we will finish off this part.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Wrapping up the NKJV comparison.

------------

Ready to wrap up comparisons with the NKJV? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

Yeah. You all know the drill by now. We're still dealing with KJV-onlyism and the link to the source material can be found here.

KJV: "DUNG"

NKJV: "rubbish"

COMMENT: I have rubbish on the top of my office desk, but I don't want 'dung' there!!!

First off, clean off your office desk, dude.

Second, I do think the KJV is closer in this in the word is skubalon and it could best be translated as an expletive. However, I don't think it's fair to say the NKJV gives a bad idea here of what Paul is saying and the argument of "I want one on my office desk and not the other" is hardly a persuader.

1 Tim 6:10

KJV: "For the love of money is THE root of all evil ..."

NKJV: "For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil ..."

COMMENT: There is a big difference between the NKJV's "a" root and the correct KJV reading of "THE" root.

Yes. There is. For one thing, the KJV is wrong. Let's ask a few simple questions. Did the devil rebel against God for the money? Did Cain kill his brother for money? There are plenty of evils that are done for money. The NKJV has this one right. (Also, there is no article before root in the Greek so that's another reason to not say "the".)

1 Tim 6:20

KJV: "... oppositions of science falsely so called"

NKJV: "... contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge"

I have no idea what the issue is with this one and Johnson doesn't say.

2 Tim 2:15

KJV: "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God ..."

NKJV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God..."

COMMENT: We are supposed to STUDY the Word of God.

Note that the passage doesn't even say study the Word of God. It just says study. Johnson is adding that part in. However, the word there is best translated as be diligent and that works better everywhere else it is used in the NT. There is only one place where the KJV translates this as study. Here it does it differently.

Jude 15

KJV: "... and of all their hard SPEECHES which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."

NKJV: "... and of all the harsh things which ..."

COMMENT: There is a difference between speeches and things.

Go look this one up on BlueLetterBible.com and you will see that it has speeches in brackets. Why? The word isn't there in the original. The term harsh is which tells me it's likely an adjective that plays the role of a noun too. (The good, the bad, and the ugly.) Johnson could have, you know, looked this up, but I guess he didn't want to. After all, he had the inspired KJV.

And yes, speeches and things are different. You can say many unkind and harsh things to someone that are not speeches.

Next the KJV will be compared to the Living Bible.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[Apologiaphoenix]

Let's start with the Living Bible.

-----------

How does the Living Bible measure up? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

As we go through Jeff Johnson's *cough* work *cough* we need to get something clear about translation. All translations to some extent are interpretations. If this blog was translated into another language, the person would have to think of the right language to use to translate it and that will likely entail certain meanings.

Some translations go with a word for word where you try to find the word in the corresponding language that matches the word in the manuscript. This can be hard as sometimes words really don't have an equivalent in another language. (The Greeks have four words for love and we use one for all of them.) Some words are hapax legomena meaning they show up one time in the text and sometimes these words are extremely hard to find anywhere else if they can be found at all.

Some translations go with more of what is called a dynamic equivalence and the idea is to get the meaning out even if it isn't word-for-word. Paraphrases are extremely like this. Paraphrases are meant more for devotional reading of a text. They are not meant for serious academic study.

But I suspect none of this matters to Johnson. He might not even know about it. At any rate, here's the source material again.

Lev. 3:13b

KJV: "AND THE SONS OF AARON SHALL SPRINKLE THE BLOOD THEREOF UPON THE ALTAR ROUND ABOUT."

LB: "The priest shall throw its blood against the sides of the altar."

One can say the paraphrase doesn't get to the main emphasis of how this was done, but that is not the point of a paraphrase. I don't think throw is the best term, but again, the Living Bible is not meant for academic study.

Numbers 25:11

KJV: "PHINEHAS ... HATH TURNED MY WRATH AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL."

LB: "Phinehas has turned away my anger for he was as angry as I."

COMMENT: How can someone be as angry as God?

Brace yourself, Mr. Johnson. In the time that this was written, the translators, (rightly or wrongly) would have believed in impassibility which means they would not believe God could literally be angry. However, even if I did not hold to that position, I would still be able to recognize hyperbolic language, which is common to Jews.

Judges 7:20b

KJV: "AND THEY CRIED, THE SWORD OF THE LORD AND OF GIDEON."

LB: "All yelling for the Lord and for Gideon."

Comment: The two verses are not even close!

But if you look at what's going on in the context, then they are close.

Judges 19:2

KJV: "AND HIS CONCUBINE PLAYED THE WHORE AGAINST HIM."

LB: "But she became angry with him and ran away."

Comment: Are PLAYING THE WHORE and running away the same?

In this case, I do think that the KJV has it better. That's called being fair in translation and interpretation.

I Sam. 20:30

KJV: "THOU SON OF A PERVERSE REBELLIOUS WOMAN."

LB: "You son of a bitch."

Comment: Some 'modern' versions, like the LB, actually contain vulgarity. Notice this verse. Also, take a look in an NIV 'bible' in Ezekiel 23:20.

So let's put up what Ezekiel 23:20 says in the NIV.

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Profanity is honestly more of a social sin than anything else. Nowhere in Scripture is something said like "You shall not say these words." I don't say them, but I don't fault Christians who sometimes do. If you look at these verses and your biggest problem is they use words that you don't like in some translations, you have a bigger problem.

II Sam. 16:4b

KJV: "AND ZIBA SAID, I HUMBLY BESEECH THEE THAT I MAY FIND GRACE IN THY SIGHT, MY LORD, O KING."

LB: "Thank you, thank you, sir, Ziba replied."

Comment: There is NO similarity between these two verses.

Unless you, I don't know, actually read the story.

I Kings 18:27

KJV: "CRY ALOUD: FOR HE IS A GOD: EITHER HE IS TALKING, OR HE IS PURSUING."

LB: "Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet."

Comment: Sitting on a toilet ???

This is the only time the word translated "pursuing" is used in Scripture, but again, what's the big deal? Oh my gosh! He said a pagan god could be sitting on a toilet and thus not answering! I suppose Elijah should realize he can mock Baal all he wants as long as he doesn't say words that might be deemed offensive.

II Kings 21:6b

KJV: "HE WROUGHT MUCH WICKEDNESS IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD, TO PROVOKE HIM TO ANGER."

LB: "So the Lord was very angry, for Manasseh was an evil man in God's opinion."

COMMENT: In God's opinion?

This is another case where I do think the KJV is better.

II Chr. 26:4

KJV: "AND HE DID THAT WHICH WAS RIGHT IN THE SIGHT OF THE LORD ACCORDING TO ALL THAT HIS FATHER AMAZIAH DID."

LB: "He followed in the footsteps of his father Amaziah and was in general a good king as far as the Lord's opinion of him was concerned."

COMMENT: Again, God does NOT have opinions. Men have opinions.

And again, the same.

Okay. No need to overwhelm the reader. We will continue another time.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[tabibito]

Wrapping up the NKJV comparison.

KJV: "STUDY to shew thyself approved unto God ..."

NKJV: "Be diligent to present yourself approved to God..."

COMMENT: We are supposed to STUDY the Word of God.[/INDENT]

Just as a matter of highlighting one of the most risible of the listed claims:

This person claims to compare the English of the King James Bible with current English forms, but doesn't know that the KJEnglish "Study to (verb)" means "studiously (verb)," for which "diligently" is a reasonable substitute???
The comment about teachers making confident assertions about things they do not understand comes to mind.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Watch out for derogatory interpretations! They're obviously false!

----------------

Does the Living Bible hold up? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we're now returning again to this. I started this series and even though it's painful to see such bad argumentation as is common from KJV-Onlyists, I intend to see it through to the end. As always, the source material is here.

Job 3:26

KJV: "I WAS NOT IN SAFETY. NEITHER HAD I REST, NEITHER WAS I QUIET: YET TROUBLE CAME."

LB: "I was not fat and lazy yet trouble struck me down."

In this case, I again prefer the KJV. I don't see any basis for fat in the text. All the words seem to refer to having rest. Lazy is understandable since if Job is saying he didn't have rest, it would mean he was busy.

Psalm 34:20

KJV: "HE KEEPETH ALL HIS BONES: NOT ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN."

LB: "God even protects him from accidents."

COMMENT: There are NO ACCIDENTS with God!

This is an example of how translation is a form of interpretation. This would depend on what you mean by accident. For instance, in the Aristotlean sense, God has no accidents, but other things do have accidents. Is this necessitating that God is in direct control of everything that happens? A hyper-Calvinist would have no problem with that, but what does this mean if one doesn't hold that theology?

Johnson's comment raises more questions than it would supposedly answer.

Ezekiel 2:1

KJV: "AND HE SAID UNTO ME, SON OF MAN, STAND UPON THY FEET, AND I WILL SPEAK UNTO THEE."

LB: "And he said unto me, Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you."

COMMENT: In the book of Ezekiel `son of dust' is used in place of `son of man'. Does the term 'son of dust' sound as derogatory to you like as it does to me?

I can see the reason for the Living Bible using this seeing as man comes from the dust. This is true even in the KJV. However, the reason given for the translation being wrong is just dumb. We shouldn't go with an interpretation because Johnson finds it derogatory? Personally, I find it derogatory to be told I'm a sinner, but sadly, it's true.

Zech. 2:8

KJV: "HE THAT TOUCHETH YOU TOUCHETH THE APPLE OF HIS EYE."

LB: "For he who harms you sticks his finger in Jehovah's eye."

The Living Bible is getting at what the text is saying here. Touching refers to harming and saying anyone who harms you harms the one that YHWH loves. It's not the way I would phrase it, but it does work.

Zech. 13:6

KJV: "AND ONE SHALL SAY UNTO HIM, WHAT ARE THESE WOUNDS IN THINE HANDS? THEN HE SHALL ANSWER, THOSE WITH WHICH I WAS WOUNDED IN THE HOUSE OF MY FRIENDS."

LB: "And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend."

COMMENT: The footnote about this verse says: "That this is not a passage referring to Christ is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reasons for his scars." We wonder how the editor of the LB (Taylor) came to know this.

Yes, boys and girls. If someone else has an interpretation that differs, you are to question how they got to it. If Johnson has an interpretation of a text, shut up and get in line! A man of God has spoken! Taylor likely just studied the text and looked at the context and determined what was going on. He could be right, or he could be wrong, but just saying "I don't know how he concludes this!" is not an argument.

KJV: "AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, THIS KIND CAN COME FORTH BY NOTHING, BUT BY PRAYER AND FASTING."

LB: "Jesus replied, Cases like this require prayer."

COMMENT: Notice: fasting is left out! Wonder why Satan does not want us to fast?

I wrote about this kind of thinking in a blog post once. These people have a mindset that treats the devil as if he was the counter opposite to God with just as much power to alter reality, as if the devil alters texts regularly. These translations are just going by what the oldest and best manuscripts have and don't think fasting was originally included. Johnson needs an argument to why the text he prefers is better instead of just saying "SATAN!"

Luke 23:42

KJV: "AND HE SAID UNTO JESUS, LORD, REMEMBER ME WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THY KINGDOM."

LB: "Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

COMMENT: What justification is there to strip Jesus of his title "Lord"?

Probably based on the text used. Either way, the LIving Bible calls Jesus Lord in several other places and the thief does refer to Jesus as someone having a kingdom.

John 1:17

KJV: "FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST."

LB: "For Moses gave us only the law with its rigid demands and merciless justice while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well."

COMMENT: The Old Testament contained God's mercy and grace, too.

Because obviously one verse was supposed to give an entire interpretation of everything in the Old Testament....

Hopefully, next time we come, we can finish off the look at the Living Bible. After that it will be the Amplified.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

[rogue06]

Watch out for derogatory interpretations! They're obviously false!

----------------

Does the Living Bible hold up? Let's plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.

So we're now returning again to this. I started this series and even though it's painful to see such bad argumentation as is common from KJV-Onlyists, I intend to see it through to the end. As always, the source material is here.

Job 3:26

KJV: "I WAS NOT IN SAFETY. NEITHER HAD I REST, NEITHER WAS I QUIET: YET TROUBLE CAME."

LB: "I was not fat and lazy yet trouble struck me down."

In this case, I again prefer the KJV. I don't see any basis for fat in the text. All the words seem to refer to having rest. Lazy is understandable since if Job is saying he didn't have rest, it would mean he was busy.

Psalm 34:20

KJV: "HE KEEPETH ALL HIS BONES: NOT ONE OF THEM IS BROKEN."

LB: "God even protects him from accidents."

COMMENT: There are NO ACCIDENTS with God!

This is an example of how translation is a form of interpretation. This would depend on what you mean by accident. For instance, in the Aristotlean sense, God has no accidents, but other things do have accidents. Is this necessitating that God is in direct control of everything that happens? A hyper-Calvinist would have no problem with that, but what does this mean if one doesn't hold that theology?

Johnson's comment raises more questions than it would supposedly answer.

Ezekiel 2:1

KJV: "AND HE SAID UNTO ME, SON OF MAN, STAND UPON THY FEET, AND I WILL SPEAK UNTO THEE."

LB: "And he said unto me, Stand up, son of dust and I will talk to you."

COMMENT: In the book of Ezekiel `son of dust' is used in place of `son of man'. Does the term 'son of dust' sound as derogatory to you like as it does to me?

I can see the reason for the Living Bible using this seeing as man comes from the dust. This is true even in the KJV. However, the reason given for the translation being wrong is just dumb. We shouldn't go with an interpretation because Johnson finds it derogatory? Personally, I find it derogatory to be told I'm a sinner, but sadly, it's true.

Zech. 2:8

KJV: "HE THAT TOUCHETH YOU TOUCHETH THE APPLE OF HIS EYE."

LB: "For he who harms you sticks his finger in Jehovah's eye."

The Living Bible is getting at what the text is saying here. Touching refers to harming and saying anyone who harms you harms the one that YHWH loves. It's not the way I would phrase it, but it does work.

Zech. 13:6

KJV: "AND ONE SHALL SAY UNTO HIM, WHAT ARE THESE WOUNDS IN THINE HANDS? THEN HE SHALL ANSWER, THOSE WITH WHICH I WAS WOUNDED IN THE HOUSE OF MY FRIENDS."

LB: "And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend."

COMMENT: The footnote about this verse says: "That this is not a passage referring to Christ is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reasons for his scars." We wonder how the editor of the LB (Taylor) came to know this.

Yes, boys and girls. If someone else has an interpretation that differs, you are to question how they got to it. If Johnson has an interpretation of a text, shut up and get in line! A man of God has spoken! Taylor likely just studied the text and looked at the context and determined what was going on. He could be right, or he could be wrong, but just saying "I don't know how he concludes this!" is not an argument.

KJV: "AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, THIS KIND CAN COME FORTH BY NOTHING, BUT BY PRAYER AND FASTING."

LB: "Jesus replied, Cases like this require prayer."

COMMENT: Notice: fasting is left out! Wonder why Satan does not want us to fast?

I wrote about this kind of thinking in a blog post once. These people have a mindset that treats the devil as if he was the counter opposite to God with just as much power to alter reality, as if the devil alters texts regularly. These translations are just going by what the oldest and best manuscripts have and don't think fasting was originally included. Johnson needs an argument to why the text he prefers is better instead of just saying "SATAN!"

Luke 23:42

KJV: "AND HE SAID UNTO JESUS, LORD, REMEMBER ME WHEN THOU COMEST INTO THY KINGDOM."

LB: "Then he said, Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom."

COMMENT: What justification is there to strip Jesus of his title "Lord"?

Probably based on the text used. Either way, the LIving Bible calls Jesus Lord in several other places and the thief does refer to Jesus as someone having a kingdom.

John 1:17

KJV: "FOR THE LAW WAS GIVEN BY MOSES, BUT GRACE AND TRUTH CAME BY JESUS CHRIST."

LB: "For Moses gave us only the law with its rigid demands and merciless justice while Jesus Christ brought us loving forgiveness as well."

COMMENT: The Old Testament contained God's mercy and grace, too.

Because obviously one verse was supposed to give an entire interpretation of everything in the Old Testament....

Hopefully, next time we come, we can finish off the look at the Living Bible. After that it will be the Amplified.

In Christ,
Nick Peters
(And I affirm the virgin birth)

Is this Ken Taylor's version or its extensive revision done roughly 30 years later. Both tend to suck.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Is this Ken Taylor's version or its extensive revision done roughly 30 years later. Both tend to suck.

It's some guy named Jeff Johnson