One in Messiah Congregation ÷ÌÈäÈì àÆçÈã áÌÀîÌÈùÑÄéçÇ
Part of the Congregation of Israel òÂãÇú éÄùÒÀøÈàÅì
Shabbat Shalom ùÑÇáÌÈú ùÑÈìåÉí
Today we use the Gregorian calendar from Pope Gregory, from the 1500’s
Today is July 7, 2012
Sad to say:
July - Julius Caesar’s month
Julius Caesar reformed the Roman calendar (hence the Julian calendar) in 46 BC. In the process, he renamed this month after himself.
Yehovah has His own calendar
We are now in the 4th month which has no name in scripture, 16th day.
Judaism calls this month Tammuz, wrong, not in scripture for the name of the fourth month
Ezek.8[ 14] Then he brought me to the door of the gate of theYehovah’s house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz - ( pagan deity )
îÀáÇëÌåÉú àÆúÎäÇúÌÇîÌåÌæ - a Sumerian deity of food or vegetation, a Phoenician deity
My ministry is a teaching ministry to bring up topics in the Bible that have never been discussed or mentioned in your life.
They have been deleted from your knowledge. You haven’t a clue they are missing. I will undelete them.
For your convenience, all my studies may be viewed at these websites below:
Read, Hear, Watch – Please Do them!
You can read them on my site at http://oneinmessiah.net/subjects.htm
You can hear them on my site at http://oneinmessiah.net/av.htm
You can watch them on my site at http://oneinmessiah.net/videoFiles.htm
I would love to come and give a talk at your congregation, school or home on the Hebrew roots of your faith from the Scriptures, not Judaism.
Click here: http://oneinmessiah.net/ScheduleMe.htm
Today's Topic: Which Bible?
This study today is from the past. With our present day bible search programs, we can see clearer.
Some great advice from Saul / Paul
1Tim.1  Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do.
1Tim.4  But refuse profane and old wives' fables, and exercise thyself rather unto godliness.
2Tim.4  And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Tit.1  Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.
2Pet.1  For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Yeshua the Messiah, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
2Tim.2  But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.
Tit.3  ...genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain
 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Yeshua the Messiah, who shall judge the quick and the dead
at his appearing and his kingdom;
 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.
 For the time will come when they will not
endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves
teachers, having itching ears;
 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
A good book to read is G.A. Riplinger’s book “New Age Bible Versions”
We agree with “almost” everything
In New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new Bible versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion.
New Age Bible Versions exposes the corrupted Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind new versions such as the NIV, NASV, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, & NEW CENTURY. New Age Bible Versions goes on to reveal their occult origins and contents.
This book opens a door exposing new version editors — men in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy —find these men in mental institutions, séance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials— and most shocking of all — denying that salvation is through faith in Yeshua the Messiah.
Five new version editors have lost their ability to speak.
The NIV calls Lucifer, "Yeshua / Jesus" in Isaiah 14:12
äÅéìÅì (hay root ä )
éìÅì weeping, crying, howling, extreme sadness ( yod root é )
ùÑÈçÇø black, darkness of the morning
In the Hebrew text, the word for star,ëÌåÉëÈá is not there! Just look above.
Everybody should know the word "Lucifer" is another name for Satan. The word "Lucifer" is found one time in the King James Bible.
KJV - Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer , son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
KJV - Revelation 22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
The following passages in the NIV show the words "morning star" as Jesus and satan. Remember, in the Hebrew text, the word for star, ëÌåÉëÈá is not there!
In the NIV, the word "Lucifer" is gone and this evil creature is identified as the "morning star".
NIV -Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!
NIV: Revelation 22:16 - " I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you  this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star
Today I would like to speak about a Bible version: the Complete Jewish Bible, translated by David H. Stern.
This study is “not complete’, here are a few points, you decide:
First, I would like to say, I have nothing against David Stern nor have I ever met him.
I am simply stating what he has stated himself in his Bible version introduction.
I find it very interesting in his credentials, he has a PhD in economics and from UCLA he was a professor, a mountain climber and a co-author on surfing and an owner of a health food stores.
I see he received a Master of Divinity degree at Fuller theological seminary,(a protestant christian school) and did graduate work at the University of Judaism. (They don't believe Yeshua is the Messiah)
He has many other protestant Christian and messianic affiliations.
In the introduction of this Bible I see on page XIII, paragraph 3, at the very end, it states:
David Stern says, I certainly had no special expertise in biblical Hebrew that would justify my trying to translate TaNaKh. (the Masoretic text)
Now on page XIV he says however, there were many places where I questioned the JPS version’s renderings. In such cases I translated the Hebrew of the Masoretic text myself.
This is an obvious contradiction in itself.
At the end of this paragraph he said he translated the books of the New Covenant from the original Greek.
First, the New Covenant is not letters.
To me this is amazing because the original Greek doesn't exist today 2011.
What original Greek text?
I personally do not believe David Stern can speak Koine Greek because it does not exist today. Can he speak any kind of Greek, I don’t know? J
In other places in his introduction, he says he decided to paraphrase the entire JPS TaNAKh, an obvious contradiction from the previous page.
He says he uses many Bible versions to assist him in expressing certain verses in modern English. He says all Bible translators do this which I don't believe. I can say for sure, I do not believe he met all the Bible translators.
Then he goes on to say, frankly I can admit that the team might have done a better job but I have done the best I can. I hope readers will not be disappointed. He doesn't sound he too sure of himself.
This does not sound like the kind of Bible version you can trust or is reliable enough for your soul.
It is frightening to write a new Bible version because this is the word of God and we are not supposed to add nor diminish from the words of God. We already have way too many Bible versions to confuse the readers on their journeys to the kingdom of heaven.
It's sad to say, many Bible versions have chapters missing, verses missing, and opposite meanings of a particular verse. I believe Satan is having his way in changing the word of God.
This is why it is so vital and important for you to make sure you know the underlying manuscripts from where your Bible came from.
Just think, if I gave you two or three hundred roadmaps to get to a place you never heard of, I bet you would probably get lost, correct?
Please read the introduction to his Bible version and I am sure you will see many other discrepancies.
All the above information are very good reasons not to purchase this Bible or any other Bible that comes from the Alexandrinus Codex, Sinaiticus Codex or Vaticanus Codex.
If you read English, the best English version of the Bible is the King James Version. This version is not perfect but is not from the Alexandrinus Codex, Sinaiticus Codex or Vaticanus Codex.
Now, let's look at some particular Bible verses and discuss them
I noticed that all through his bible he uses the word ADONAI instead of YHVH or Yehovah. This is very wrong because it replaces the name of God with a title instead of His name Yehovah. Most bibles are wrong on this point, they use "LORD" which is wrong.
In the book of Isaiah, chapter 7 verse 14, he says a young woman will become pregnant.
The word in Hebrew is alma, and means virgin. This takes away from the amazing prophecy that a virgin shall have a child and call His name Immanuel, meaning God with us.
As you know, it's not that amazing for a young women to become pregnant and have son, but a virgin to have a son, this is a sign and a miracle of God.
In the book of Isaiah Chapter 14, verse 12, he wrote, how did you come to fall from the heavens, Morning Star, son of the dawn?
This translation is from the erroneous Bible versions. The word star is not in the Hebrew text, this is totally made up. In the book of Revelation, Yeshua says he's the Morning Star not Satan. Isaiah Chapter 14 is talking about Satan.
On page 1555, in the book of Revelation, chapter 22, verse 14, he says blessed are those who "wash their robes", so that they may have right to eat from the tree of life and go through the gates into the city.
This is directly from the NIV Bible, which is very corrupt.
Here is what the Bible actually says,
Rev.22  Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.
In David Stern's Jewish New Testament commentary, on page IX, he says he decided to try translating the Greek text itself and discovered that he liked the results.
Then he goes on to say, thus the Jewish New Testament was born, as an afterthought.
Basically he says he's just giving his opinion on what the verses mean.
Also he uses many comments from various writings that are not scriptural. To mention a few, he cites Jewish literature, the Midrash Rabbah, Pseudepigrapha, the Talmud, and terms from the Kabbalah and many other Jewish writings that are not scriptural written by rabbis that rejected the Hebrew Messiah Yeshua.
He says he uses the Greek text used for his commentaries taken from the United Bible societies critical text, 1975 edition which is the same as Nestle-Aland. - very bad...
So you see his commentaries on the New Testament are from various unscriptural writings and from basically his own opinion which is not accurate in many verse renderings.
On page 610, he explains versus 16 in Colossians 2 like this,
don't let anyone pass judgment on you in connection with optional matters. Gentile believers are free to observe or not to observe rules about dining and Jewish holidays, as is clear in Roman 14 will in first Corinthians in which he has no idea what he's talking about.
He breaks down these verses like any other Christian commentator and states clearly there are two sets of rules, one for the Jews and another for the Gentiles. He says Gentiles can eat basically anything, like pork, and they don't need to take heed to these commandments because that was given to the Jewish people, not the Gentiles, which is totally unscriptural.
This doctrine is not new to me, I see many other messianic groups that teach Gentiles do not need to concern themselves with the the commandments of God because they were given to the Jewish people thus making two bodies when the Bible declares plainly there is one body, one Lord, one faith, one baptism for all.
New Versions Translated By Wicked Men
The new versions had men like Westcott and Hort, who wrote the eclectic Greek text, which was published by McMillan in 1881.
They also headed up the translation committee of the first "modern" English version, the English Revised Version.
Westcott and Hort were involved in the occult.
They were warlocks.
They founded the Ghostly Guild.
They believed that the first few chapters of Genesis and the entire book of Revelation were a fairy tale.
These are the fathers of modern Bible translations.
The textbook that has taught all modern version translators how to approach the Bible has been Introduction to the New Testament by guess who?
Satan worshiping, communicating with the dead, you guessed it: Westcott and Hort.
Liberal professors, who didn't believe the book they were translating. If the modern translator did not cut his teeth with Westcott and Hort's, Introduction To The New Testament, they did so by reading another book that was written by others who hold to the same philosophy and who are basically rehashing the same book.
The first of the modern translations to be counted as credible in evangelical and fundamental circles was the J.B. Phillips translation. J.B. Phillips used to sit on his couch at night, in his living room, and talk to the dead ghost of C.S. Lewis. The dead C.S. Lewis sat on J.B. Philips' couch and told him what to put in the Phillips' translation.
Well, that has to be a good translation, with a (so called) godly man like C.S. Lewis coming back from the dead to help him in the translation effort. These are the kind of men who translate the modern Bibles.
Kenneth Taylor, the translator of the Living Bible had such a foul mouth that the publishers had to rewrite the Living Bible before they could print it because of all of the profanity in it.
New Versions Translated By Cultists and Heretics
Most of them believe very weak if not totally erroneous doctrine and very few of them are ever committed to the doctrines of the inspiration and the preservation of Scripture. Even if they claim to believe in the inspiration of Scripture, they do not believe that God literally dictated the words of the Bible.
Instead, they believe that in superintendence God probably oversaw the process but He did not give the prophets each individual word to relay to the people.
Just look at the listing of the translators for the new versions and you will find Catholics on the board of editors.
You will also find Catholic and many Protestant groups that were (and are today) involved in satanic groups, were also involved in the translations of the modern versions.
As you read the preface to the new versions you will find occult leaders, Catholic leaders, ecumenical leaders, apostate Methodist leaders, every kind of leader under the sun. These are the people who translate modern so-called Bibles.
Popular New Version Translated By Homosexuals
One of the primary English "stylists" of the NIV was Virginia Mollenkott.
Virginia Molenkott has been a known lesbian since 1962.
Virginia Mollenkott was sent, in her own words, "swatches" of texts, often whole books at a time, so that she could approve and finalize word choices.
When Zondervan and the United Bible Society, the publishers and copyright holders of the New International Version were questioned about why Virginia Mollenkott, a known lesbian, was on the the translation team they said that they did not know she was a lesbian until after they had already printed the NIV.
Well, that is not exactly true because in 1962 she officially came out of the closet.
She was teaching at a state university on the east coast in 1962 and started a group for lesbian students on the campus. She served as a faculty sponsor for the group and was actively involved in it. She had publicly declared herself to be a lesbian.
But just in case the folks at Zondervan and the United Bible Society didn't know about that, it is a matter of record that in 1978 the late Dr. Bob Jones Jr., then president of Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina, sent a letter to Zondervan and the United Bible Society in which he informed them that Virginia Mollenkott had taught language at Bob Jones University in the 1950's and was dismissed for attempting to seduce their female students into lesbian affairs.
So they received a letter from the president of a large Christian university telling them that she was a lesbian and they ignored that letter.
Then, they tell us these years later that they did not know she was a lesbian until after they had already printed the NIV.
Information exists from Mr. Michael Penfold in the UK which gives detailed documentation regarding Dr. Martin H. Woudstra who was the chairman of the NIV's Old Testament Committee.
It has now come to light that Dr. Woudstra was also a homosexual. For the sake of fairness, this information has surfaced after Dr. Woudstra's death, so it is possible that the UBS and Zondervan did not know that he was a homosexual.
With a homosexual Old Testament Translation Committee chairman (Dr. Woudstra) overseeing the translation effort, and, a homosexual English language "stylist" (Ms. Mollenkott) finalizing the word choices, it is no wonder that the words "sodomy" and "sodomite" have been removed from the NIV.
Some New Version Translators Used A Nazi Lexicon
Some of the New Versions were translated by using Kittle's Lexicon of New Testament Words.
Mr. Kittle was a Nazi and he was a member of Hitler's cabinet.
Mr. Kittle's job was to produce a translation of the Bible that would convince German Lutherans to send German Jews to the gas chamber.
Since the NIV translators and other new version translators relied on Kittle's lexicon to determine word choices in their versions, and since they relied almost exclusively upon Kittle's lexicon, one could follow the stream of logic to its ultimate conclusion and say that the NIV and other new versions are Nazi Bibles.
Plagues Have Fallen on New Version Translators
Those who add to or take away from the Word of God are cursed. The fact that this curse has befallen many new version editors is a great argument against the reliability of their translations.
Origin and Clement, authors of the Alexandrian text were cursed. Later in their life, they lost their ability to speak and died of strange diseases.
Westcott and Hort, the authors of the Westcott and Hort Greek text, the chairmen of the committee that translated the English Revised Version, later in their life lost their ability to speak. They could not teach in their seminary classrooms. They could not speak audibly.
J.B. Philips, translator of the Philips Translation, lost his ability to speak, went insane, and died institutionalized.
Mr. Taylor, author of the Living Bible lost his ability to speak the same day that the translation was released. His therapist said his vocal cords were fine. The doctors said his vocal cords were fine. They did not understand why he could not speak. They said it must be a psychological problem. He has been in therapy for twenty years. His therapist is trying to crack his psyche hoping he will open his mouth and talk again. He has written on paper, again and again, to his therapist that the reason why he cannot speak and will never be able to speak maybe because he dared to change the Word of God. There is no doubt about it in his mind.
There were also translators of the American Standard Version of 1901 who lost their ability to speak.
God is not mocked! Don’t dare to tamper with His Word.
Some New Version Translators change their minds
Most new version translators do not believe that God literally spoke the words of the Bible or that He promised to preserve His word.
They simply feel they need to convey the "message" of the Bible. However, there are some who do believe in the inspiration of Scripture and they always end up walking away from their new version and embracing the King James Version.
The first of these men was Dean John William Burgon. Burgon worked with Westcott and Hort on the English Revised Version. He stayed with the committee throughout the entire translation effort, and upon its completion, he wrote a series of articles and books explaining why Westcott and Hort and the other members of the English Revised Version used a faulty text and faulty methods, and why the King James Bible was more perfect.
Dean Bergon's writings persuaded the people of England to reject Westcott and Hort and to reject the English Revised Version. His writings have caused many scholars in America to reject the Westcott/Hort text at least in name.
And that is why they had to come up with the Nestle's text as a means of deceiving us fundamentalists into thinking that they were not translating from the Westcott/Hort text.
The first modern English Bible to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. I previously mentioned that Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis.
Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.
Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:
I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening… there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.
Kenneth Taylor wrote the Living Bible. Kenneth Taylor told his psychotherapist years later that the reason why his life had been plagued was because he had perverted the Word of God. He died believing the KJV was the true Bible.
The week of Oct. 14, 2007
John Hagee said that Yeshua was NOT the Messiah and that He never claimed to be.
The Jews never rejected the Messiah
How did John Hagee miss all these verses below?
***Not only did Yeshus say He was the Messiah, but many people referred to Him as Messiah / Christ. Look it up like I did.
575 matches for Christ / Messiah
2 matches for Messias
Archaic Words, they say
Yes, you read right. Archaic words are a reason why the King James Bible is superior.
Many in our day complain that there are archaic words in the King James Bible. This is one reason they give to support the re-translation of the Bible. They claim that we need to retranslate the archaic words to make them understandable in our generation.
What they often do not realize is that most of those archaic words found in the KJV were archaic in 1611 when they were chosen.
The translators understood that the they could not honestly call their translation the "Word of God" unless it was completely accurate.
Therefore, they used archaic, out of date words that people would have to look up in a dictionary because the more "modern" and "easier to understand" words would have resulted in an inaccurate translation.
They made this decision because they, unlike modern translators, believed that God wrote the words. The King James Bible translators could have mistranslated using words that would have been easily understood, but instead, they choose to use the very words of God.
Archaic Words and All, the KJV Is the Easiest To Read.
Many in our day say, "Well, we have to have a new version, because we have to have a Bible that we can understand today. The children struggle with the King James. We need something easy for them to understand."
This simply is not true. Harvard University analyzed various versions of the Bible, and they found the King James Bible was written at a 6th grade reading level. They found the NIV was written at the eleventh grade reading level. And all the other versions would require a college education for a complete comprehension.
That is right, the Living Bible requires a college education for complete comprehension. Any sixth grader can read the King James Bible.
Also, the new versions have many more multi-type syllable words than does the KJV.
They also have several more words that are three and four syllables than does the KJV.
Using the Fleisher / Kincaid Scale, Harvard University determined that the King James Bible is the easiest of all the Bibles in the English language to read.
Thee, Thou, Thy, Ye
Another reason is the fact that the King James Bible uses the archaic words, "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye." (Some show their own stupidity by claiming not to understand the meaning of these words).
The truth is that the ordinary Englishman did not use these words in the common, every day, language of 1611 when the KJV was translated.
So why the choice of "thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye?" "Thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye" all mean "you." So why not just say "you?" Because "you" can be either singular or it can be plural.
There are times when the reader can not properly understand the meaning of a passage unless he knows for sure if the personal pronoun "you" is addressed to an individual or to a group.
Usually, this can be determined by the context of the passage. Other times it can not.
By using "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye" instead of "you" the KJV insures that the reader is never in doubt as to who a statement is addressed to.
For reference, all of the personal pronouns that start with the letter "T" are singular and all personal pronouns that start with "Y" are plural. So that would mean that "thee," "thou," and "thy" are singular while the pronoun "ye" is plural.
GOD, LORD, God, Lord
The Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts refer to God by three different Hebrew names.
The first is Elohim, it appears approximately 2,500 times in the Hebrew. The second is Yehovah which appears about 7,000 times. The third name is Adonai which appears around 300 times.
I don’t agree with this, however this was their rational
They say, Whenever the Old Testament Hebrew text addresses God by the name Elohim the King James translators used the English name "God." So whenever you see the name "God" spelled with a capitol "G" and a lower case "od" you know the Hebrew contained the name Elohim.
Elohim is a descriptive name. God's proper name is Yehovah. Whenever the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah the King James translators would use the English names "LORD" or "GOD." So whenever you see the names "LORD" or "GOD" in all capitol letters you know that the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah. - Yehovah
A third name used for God was Adon / Adonai - "The King James always translates Adon or Adonai with the name "Lord or master."
There are also times when the Hebrew names Elohim and Adonai referred others or pagan deities.
In these cases the KJV translators translated "god" and "lord" in all lower case. This was to distinguish the times these names were used to refer to Jehovah and when they were used in reference to others or pagan idols.
The new versions simply do not pay this necessary attention to detail.
This is important because each name has a significant meaning and that is the reason why the Hebrew's used three different names for God.
To translate all three DIFFERENT names in the haphazard fashion of the new versions results in the alteration of the context of several passages.
With the King James Bible, the Hebrew name used for God and the resultant context are always clear.
They should have used Yah and Yehovah all the way through and there would be no problems.
The translators of the KJV left out the very important word Yah. Only one time it is in Psalms 68:4 as Jah
Read my site http://oneinmessiah.net/YahScriptures.htm
The word Easter is not in the text as they put in Acts 12:4
Whenever you translate from one language to another there will be times when the words do not flow as well in the second language as they did in the original language.
When this happens, translators will often insert a word and/or words into a phrase so that the phrase will read better.
Whenever the KJV translators added a word in this fashion they always placed the added word in italics.
They did this so the English reader would know that that particular word was not in the Greek or the Hebrew.
In the new versions, italics are not used. When the new version translators insert words into the text they make no effort whatsoever to separate THEIR ADDITION from the rest of the text.
Therefore, the reader of a new version does not know that the word was not in the original text.
The unsuspecting reader will then read the words of men and assume them to be the words of God.
This will never happen when you read the KJV because the words of the translators are separated from the words of God as contained in the original by the use of italics.
The italicized words in the KJV never try to alter the meaning of the text. They serve only as enchanters which cause the text to flow better in the English language.
Nonetheless, the translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest set these words apart by placing them in italics.
The translators of the new versions are not honest enough to do this. Instead, THEIR words are printed as equal with God's words.
Another reason the King James Bible is to be preferred is because it has a perfect meter.
The King James Bible is written short/long, short/long, short/long. "Thy word / have I hid in my heart / that I / might not sin against thee." Short/long, short/long. Why, so that you can memorize it.
Just try and memorize the New International Version. You would be surprised at how many seminary professors who hate the King James, and who normally reject its use, will allow students to memorize out of the King James.
They do this because they understand it is much easier to memorize out of the King James than it is to memorize out of any other version. By the end of the first semester, all of the students normally memorize from the King James because they realize it is the easiest to memorize from. Why, because it has a meter. The NIV does not have a meter. The American Standard doesn't have a meter. The Living Bible doesn't have a meter.
The Bible commands us, "Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word" Psalm 119:9. The Bible says we should "meditate therein day and night" Joshua 1:8. The Bible says "Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee" Psalm 119:11. The key to success is Bible memorization.
The King James Bible is easy to memorize while the new versions are nearly impossible to memorize.
A thought, maybe the purpose of this is to discourage future generations from memorizing the Word of God.
The KJV Is Unchanged
Every popular new version has undergone major revision. The American Standard was updated to the New American Standard. The New American Standard has now been revised again. Each time, several words were changed.
Also, the NIV has undergone a few different revisions. Each revision has resulted in new wording.
Get copy of the NIV, NASV, LIV, or any of a number of other popular new versions and compare them to the originally published version of the same translation and you will see many words have changed.
Then, buy a KJV at any bookstore and compare it to a KJV from 1611 and you will see that EVERY word is the same.
Many have claimed that since the KJV was "revised" several times between 1611 and 1769 that is why it was again necessary to "revise" it in 1881, 1901, 1981, etc. However, in using this logic, the new version advocates misrepresent the facts.
None of the "revisions" of the KJV between 1611 and 1769 resulted in the addition, subtraction, and or replacement of one word.
At one point the KJV was "revised" to add marginal notes but this did not change the text at all.
Another "revision" was made to reflect the addition of the letter "S" to the English alphabet.
This revision resulted in the word "Psalms" being changed from "Pfalms" to "Psalms" and other similar changes.
Obviously, the wording did not change. A similar revision took place when the letter "J" was added to our alphabet.
The biggest revision took place when spelling was standardized in the English language. This resulted in over 20,000 changes. However, the examples given will illustrate that not one word was changed: "asswaged" was changed to "assuaged," "mortar" was changed to "morter," "plaister" to "plaster," "grashoppers" to "grasshoppers," "cuckow" to "cockoo," "flotes" to "floats," "soape" to "soap," etc.
So whereas a "revision" by modern translators means that you have to change hundreds of words, the word changes in all of the new versions adds up to far more than 20,000 changes, the "revisions" in the King James Bible have not resulted in a single word change.
The King James Bible in print today is the "revised" edition of 1769. Take away the marginal notes (which are not a part of the text anyway) and take into consideration the difference in spelling and you will have the King James Bible of 1611. EVERY WORD is the SAME. Had the new version translators got it right the first time, as did the KJV translators, their would not be a need for them to continuously revise their work and change the wording.
For the record, the New King James (NKJV) is not simply a 1980's revision of the 1769 KJV. It is a complete adulteration of the text. Many words were changed and the result is that the NKJV reads more like a NASV than it does a KJV. The NKJV should not be considered to be a KJV!
KJV TaNaKh Is the Jewish Standard
Beware of the LXX and the Ben Asher text. Look it up
The liberal theologian who taught Hitler this was Gerhard Kittel.
Kittel also wrote the “Theological Dictionary of the New Testament” which became the standard Greek underlying modern Bible versions.
Kittle's trial, conviction and imprisonment for his key part in the extermination of two thirds of Europe's Jewish population.
Beware when you use Lexicons, Study Tools and Dictionaries
Strong's Concordance Lexicons
Bible Dictionaries by Vine, Zodhiates
Word Studies by Vincent, Wuest, Trench
Hebrew-English Dictionaries by Brown, Driver, and Briggs
Greek-English Dictionaries by Moulton, Thayer, Danker, Liddell
Greek and Hebrew texts by Metzger, Aland, Scrivener, Berry, Ginsburg, Green, Robinson, Hodges
And all Greek and Hebrew Study Tools and Interlinears
The New Strong's Dictionary of Hebrew and Greek Words
The Theological Dictionary of the New Testament states
The Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains
And many others…………
Inclosing, there are many other topics in the bible version discussion to go over. We will have to come back another day.