I find a couple of things funny. 1. When talking about the changes made to the KJV prior to 1800 the author says "and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments." But when talking about the Vaticanus manuscripts there is a slight difference "This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture;". Isn't that funny? Hahaahahahahahaha. Was the Apocrypha any less pagan when it was a part of the original 1611 Authorized KJV? Why didn't he say "The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to ... omit the (Pagan )Apocrypha (which are not scripture) from between the Testaments."? If the KJV was authorized to include the Apocrypha in 1611, then by what authority was it taken out before 1800? If it was officially deemed to be a part of Scripture, why did they take it out. Did the Catholics force them to put it in (bad Catholics, bad bad)? I guess the KJV guys were fallible afterall. BTW - the 'Authorized' means that it was authorized by King James of Enland not the King of Kings Jesus. 2. Not that I am necessarily a big fan of W&H but I would love to know on what basis and with what actual historical documentation there is for their involvement in the Occult. And also for their "hatred" of the TR. Sorry guys, the inflammatory language used in this does not help the debate any, especially when it is so obviously biased and just down right funny. Peace, Steve BTW - I am not against the TR per se, but I am very much against old archaic language that is supposed to be English. I have no problem using New King James or New American Standard - to me both from different manucscripts but both are the Word of God. I have been using the new English Standard Version a bit in personal study. Overall I like the readability and the word for word accuracy except with some pronoun usage. I prefer the more literal translations to dynamic equivalence (NIV) and paraphrase (Living Bible, Message). Peace, Steve Pastor David Warner wrote: > Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up > like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and > continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James > Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used > for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes > and have actually started believing that the modern versions are > superior to the King James Bible. It's very sad that most Christians > today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see > what is really happening. > > FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so > modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King > James Bible of 1611. > > FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 > were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha > from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of > the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't > start until the modern revisionists came on the scene. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been > translated from older and better manuscripts. > > FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this > lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they > came from, and WHO wrote them. Its also strange that no one seems to be > asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' > manuscripts throughout Church History?" > > The modem translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century > Greek scholars from England--B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort. Westcott > and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus > Receptus Greek text, from which the King James Bible was translated, so > they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text > was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC > manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) > and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's > monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" > manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts > support most of the attacks in the new versions. > > The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is > responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in > the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the > pagan Apocrypha, which are not scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles > (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the > Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for > the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). > The attacks on the word of God found in these manuscripts originated in > Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful I work of such pagan Greek > "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the > Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from > Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of > Origin's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian > corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN > text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called > the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found it's way into the Vatican > manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and > finally into the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" > bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the > King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you > are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to > overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the > great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > > > While the above is not my work, it does give something to think about > and is worth considering. If you don't want to consider it, just hit > the delete and have a nice day. > > I've got more. If you want it, just reply to this message and I'll be > glad to post. > > David Warner > > > -- > To unsubscribe, send ANY message to: pastorsforum-unsubscribe@... > > "In essential things, unity; in non-essential things, liberty; and in all things, charity." > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Pastor Steven G. Rockhill Lisbon Reformed Presbyterian Church PO Box 88 Lisbon, NY 13658 315-393-9041 revrock@... +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++