Recovery Bible = Corrupted Word Of God!

[Paul Vusik]

I was thinking for a while if I should start this thread or not. We live in the time, when the words and the meaning of words has been completely obliterated by these groups of people, who will do anything to the Bible in order to fit their scams into it. Money, greed, self-exaltation, leading people after themselves, prophecy buffs, countless predictions of upcoming events and signs, that have lead to partial and in some cases total corruption of the Word of God.
How many times you have heard a message or sermon, where the person will use 4-5 different Bible versions to be able to twist it into a pretzel the word of God, so that they can fit their ideologies into the text? Or even worse, in the case of recovery bible, they just went ahead and changed the text and words to fit their scam, not to be just like all others who use 4-5 versions to make things fit. It was “mis-translation”, or “it wasn’t fully recovered” at the time those versions were written, they claim.

So the point of this thread, is to expose the verses from the Bible, where the words and meaning were partially or completely changed to fit their system. I use KJV Bible in comparison, since I believe it’s the oldest and most accurate translation, so all my posts will be comparing the two. Just remember, recovery bible is copyrighted version, meaning they had to change / eliminate / add, at least 10% of the content in order to get it. However, at least for me, I could care less about any copyright laws or restrictions when it comes to exposing them, their bible, their teachings or any writings of these man. Truth has no copyrights, and doesn’t get bend and subverted by the laws of man! There is no man in this world that has copyrights on the truth or is an “Authority Having Jurisdiction” in any matters related to the Bible or teachings thereof.

I’ll start by posting the most known verse in the Bible, in which these man managed to screw it up, in order to fit their agendas.

John 3:16
KJV

16*For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

RV text:

“16For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that everyone who believes into Him would not perish, but would have eternal life.”

It’s obvious that these people had an agenda to make everything some kind of “high, emotional, mindless exercise”, because believing IN Jesus, is just not enough, you need to take a step further and “deeper”, you need to “get into, believe into”. And guess who will tell you what/how is to be done?

Here is another one:
John 3:36
King James Version

36*He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

RV text:

“36 He who believes into the Son has eternal life; but he who disobeys the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides upon him.”

This verse has been butchered by almost all modern day translations, because it eliminates the man-made authoritarian approach. They want you to “obey”, “subject” yourself to their definition of “jesus”, their understanding, experience. It becomes a gospel of working your way into “jesus”, which they can control and direct as they see fit. These man will do anything to keep people under tabs of their own scams, even going as far as changing the meaning and teachings of the Bible.

[Paul Vusik]

John 1:17
King James Version

17For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

RV text:

“17For the law was given through Moses; grace and reality came through Jesus Christ.”

Well, here is their Biblical definition of “Truth matters but life matters more”. What’s reality today, is not what it was 50 years ago, and what will be the reality tomorrow? Please send your questions to the “blended”, located in Anahiem CA, they are currently working hard on recovering the reality of tomorrow. And for a mere $5.00, you can have it in the form of HWMR! You can even save $14.99 on shipping, by asking them to send it to your local social club! But hey, if that sounds a lot, it’s also available in iBooks for only $3.99. Good luck!

[gr8ful]

Paul, these may be unconventional English translations, but they do have a basis in the Greek manuscripts.

Eis, "in or into" : https://biblehub.com/greek/1519.htm

Alethia: "Truth or reality" : https://biblehub.com/greek/225.htm ("truth, but not merely truth as spoken; truth of idea, reality, sincerity...")

You can certainly fault TLR for many things, but sometimes a translation is just a translation, not a corruption.

I urge caution in accusing people of things that can be objectively shown to be untrue, or at least open to interpretation. Keep punching on the main problems, the clear issues. Keeps the focus on the big picture.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

I use KJV Bible in comparison, since I believe it’s the oldest and most accurate translation, so all my posts will be comparing the two.
.

The KJV is not based on our best manuscripts, neither is it modern English. If you want to critique the Recovery Version, it might be better to have a working knowledge of the Greek New Testament and compare the RecV to a modern translation like the NASB, the NIV, or the NLT.

Frankly the KJV was “authorized” by the King of England, and not by any real spiritual authority. While Shakespearean English has a literary lure to a certain segment of society, it should not in any way be accepted as the de facto standard of truth.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by gr8ful

Paul, these may be unconventional English translations, but they do have a basis in the Greek manuscripts.

Eis, "in or into" : https://biblehub.com/greek/1519.htm

Alethia: "Truth or reality" : https://biblehub.com/greek/225.htm ("truth, but not merely truth as spoken; truth of idea, reality, sincerity...")

You can certainly fault TLR for many things, but sometimes a translation is just a translation, not a corruption.

I urge caution in accusing people of things that can be objectively shown to be untrue, or at least open to interpretation. Keep punching on the main problems, the clear issues. Keeps the focus on the big picture.

Gr8full,

I appreciate your input, and I do to some extent see your point of view. I stated this thread not as a accusation of sorts, but more of just a comparison between the two versions. I should have probably put a few question marks after my title of the thread, but it is what it is.

I for one have a very hard time believing that you can read two different bible and get very different meanings from text. Can the Word of God be so different? Can it sometimes mean opposite or close to that? I just cannot see how that’s possible. Both cannot be right, or we just don’t have anything to rely on. So I apologize that this might offend someone. They can compare for themselves and see if they can make it out the difference.

I’m also am aware that they have been translated from different manuscripts, as far as I understand. You can correct me if I’m wrong on this. But I’m pretty sure of it. I know the manuscripts that were used to translate KJV, and you can also get a lot of the people, names, processes, that went into that translation, but there is really no information or very little besides “Lee and LSM staff”.
I know there are a lot of people out there that denounce KJV Bible, because it has association with King James, but I’m not one of those. I spend a lot of time studying about the manuscripts, comparing which Bibles are translated from where, and prayed for the Lord to show me and lead me to the right one. I feel that it’s something that people need to do. All Bibles are not equal as I was told before, and after spending 12 years using recovery version, I can safely stand on that statement.

Again, I will reiterate that’s ether it’s corrupt or purposely translated to mislead people, to me makes no difference. All that I’m trying to do is to show how big of the difference there is between the two. I was recently reading Bible with my wife, and while I was reading out of KJV, and she was out of RV, I couldn’t believe how many times we stopped and compared the two on how much different it is.

[Bible-believer]

I believe KJV is God's preserved word. Even though I am still in LC, I don't use the RV.

Just share a quote from Bible study class, "... we are not primarily interested in word analysis which throws up a smoke cloud over the revelation of truth. We are interested in comparing Scripture with Scripture to find what God wants us to know. A history of the Hebrew and Greek meanings of the word “... “ does nothing for the reader but convince him that he knows the history of the way people used ancient words."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

I believe KJV is God's preserved word. Even though I am still in LC, I don't use the RV.

If the KJV is “God’s preserved word,” then too bad for Spanish, Chinese, Ghanese, or any one else who never learned Shakespearean English from a half millennium ago. I am hard pressed to consider why God would place such a demand on mankind. Remember that the KJV was the “authorized” version by decree of the king of England and his flunkies after him. I’m not dissing the version, just providing perspective.

Please - ”Suffer the little children …”

But if you desire to claim any version is “God's preserved word,” then please select the Greek, since God wrote in Greek. Also, you can then read the Septuagint, which is oft quoted in the NT, rather than the Hebrew OT.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Ohio

The KJV is not based on our best manuscripts, neither is it modern English. If you want to critique the Recovery Version, it might be better to have a working knowledge of the Greek New Testament and compare the RecV to a modern translation like the NASB, the NIV, or the NLT.

Frankly the KJV was “authorized” by the King of England, and not by any real spiritual authority. While Shakespearean English has a literary lure to a certain segment of society, it should not in any way be accepted as the de facto standard of truth.

Ohio,

I will just clarify this before this thing goes of the rails, I don’t believe that there is 100% accurate translation, and that includes KJV or AKJV. Do I think it’s the most accurate? Yes I do. To be even more precise, I say that what matters is where and from what was it translated from. KJV is one of only a handful of Bibles, that was translated from “Majority Text”, which has over 5000 manuscripts that have been preserved over 100s of years, and 95% of them agree in what’s written in them. I don’t want to take time to do someone’s homework, so each person is responsible for figuring that out on their own with God.

The point you make about “Shakespearian English”, is incorrect. The English used in KJV is called “Early Modern English”, and really has nothing to do with Shakespeare. Is it slightly different from what is the “modern diluted English” we use here in USA? sure. Even people in other parts of the world that speak “English” will say so. I’m not a linguist by any stretch, but anytime I pick up any classical writings pre 1900, it’s pretty much existed for a long time, and will continue to do so.
Also, to your point about other people around the world; first, people that live in this country don’t realize that majority of the world today speaks English, besides their native language. I have family that live in Germany, Russia, Kazakhstan, distant family in Bulgaria, Georgia, they speak English. Some places like China, and the tyrannical regimes in Africa and Middle East who don’t want their people to be exposed to other cultures and languages for the sake of total control, probably not so much. But I would say that any Bible that’s translated from the “Majority Text”, and does not include any of the Alexandrian manuscripts would be the most accurate translation in any language. It’s just my opinion and belief, so not telling anyone to do the same.

It’s also interesting that quite often today, the Bible’s that are translated by current modern day “scholars”, are translated from English versions, and other English versions are just derived from some editions of already translated Bible.

Here is an example, this is from Wikipedia (not a trustworthy source, but that’s all I can find now when it comes to RV). The Old Testament was translated from:
OT: Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS; revised 1990 edition
The New Testament:
NT: Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland 26th edition) Released in 1975.
Recovery version Derived from:
American Standard Version (ASV).

So, the Bible that claims to be “The Best, the most accurate translation”, used 1990 text which was already on its 4th edition for OT, and 1975 text that was edited 26 times for NT??? Really? Give me a break.


Again, I’m just going of the information that’s can be found, since it’s so secretive on who actually did translated the RV. I personally don’t believe that it was even a translation, more like heavenly edited/redacted/relabeled English version like maybe ASV as stated above. I think that in the copyright paperwork, one can get true details on what was used to come up with this version, however I don’t really no if that’s accessible anywhere to see.

[Ohio]

Ok, it’s your thread.

[Zezima]

Can you post an example? I know your posted early but the thread got derailed

[Paul Vusik]

Deuteronomy 5:20
KJV
“20*Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.”

RV text:
“20 Neither shall you testify as a vain witness against your neighbor;”

Here are the definitions of vain:
-having or showing undue or excessive pride in one's appearance or achievements.
-marked by futility or ineffectualness.
-having no real value.

And here is definition of false:
-not genuine
-intentionally untrue
-adjusted or made so as to deceive
-intended or tending to mislead

Well, no other Bible that’s out there dismissed this concept of “bearing a false witness” as did RV. (Even some of the worst versions). Is removing false witness as it should be translated based on all other translations makes any difference? What is vain witness anyway? Is it that when you confront the false teachings and you told, “you not in your spirit”, all that is vanity? I’m interested to see how vain is the same as false in any language. I guess when you have no value in telling the truth, you also have no problem in promotion of false.

[Paul Vusik]

1 Cor 16:22
KJV text:
22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha.

RV text:
22. If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed! The Lord comes!

*Jesus Christ is missing in RV.


Here is another one:

Galatians 4:7
KJV text:
7. Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir of God through Christ.

RV text:
7. So then you are no longer a slave but a son; and if a son, an heir also through God

*through Christ is missing in RV


Galatians 6:15
KJV text:
15. For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.

RV text:
15. For neither is circumcision anything nor uncircumcision, but a new creation is what matters.

*Same here again, name of Jesus Christ is removed.

Next,

You ever wonder why so many today question that Jesus is not God? Or that He did create all things? Well that’s because they removed that from the text in all new versions including RV. They sure slid the “economy” in there, but Jesus Christ by whom things where created, was removed.

Eph 3:9
KJV text:
9. And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

RV text:
9. And to enlighten all that they may see what the economy of the mystery is, which throughout the ages has been hidden in God, who created all things,

Next,

Revelations 1:11
KJV text:
10*I was in the Spirit on the Lord's day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet,
11*Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

RV text:
10*I was in spirit on the Lord's Day and heard behind me a loud voice like a trumpet,
11*Saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamos and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.


I guess it’s ok to just remove Jesus’s title as “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” from the Bible.

[Trapped]

*shrug*

These seem mostly to be Greek text issues. The variety among some of the Greek texts is shown plainly here, using Galatians 6:15 as an example: https://biblehub.com/texts/galatians/6-15.htm

It doesn't seem to be much of a corruption so much as it is a choice of which texts to lean towards.

If you say all these differences you brought up are indicators that the Recovery Version is corrupted, you would also need to say that almost every other translation besides the KJV is similarly corrupted. In many of these examples, it's the KJV that's the unusual one from the majority of the rest.....not the RcV that's the unusual one.

And if you want to say that all other translations besides the KJV are "corrupted", then......this ends up being just as problematic as the LC top dogs who think that all other translations besides the RCV are "leaven".

Definitely not defending the RcV, but.....I don't feel like this particular "fight" has a lot of force behind it. There are other translations that genuinely lose critical aspects of the gospel message. I don't think the Recovery Version is really one of them. (speaking of the text itself here, not the footnotes)

As one of the "so many today" who questions whether Jesus is God, Ephesians 3:9 is not one of the problematic issues at all. There are other unadulterated verses that show God created through Jesus, so Jesus being part of the creation process is not lost by this "corruption" of Eph. 3:9.

Also......your preferred translation, which is "...in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" does absolutely nothing to bolster the case that Jesus is God Himself. The sentence structure heavily supports the opposite - that Jesus is a separate being from God entirely.

This will probably be my only contribution to this thread.

Trapped

[Bible-believer]

For your reference.

a timeline of how the King James Bible came from

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Trapped

*shrug*

These seem mostly to be Greek text issues. The variety among some of the Greek texts is shown plainly here, using Galatians 6:15 as an example: https://biblehub.com/texts/galatians/6-15.htm

It doesn't seem to be much of a corruption so much as it is a choice of which texts to lean towards.

If you say all these differences you brought up are indicators that the Recovery Version is corrupted, you would also need to say that almost every other translation besides the KJV is similarly corrupted. In many of these examples, it's the KJV that's the unusual one from the majority of the rest.....not the RcV that's the unusual one.

And if you want to say that all other translations besides the KJV are "corrupted", then......this ends up being just as problematic as the LC top dogs who think that all other translations besides the RCV are "leaven".

Definitely not defending the RcV, but.....I don't feel like this particular "fight" has a lot of force behind it. There are other translations that genuinely lose critical aspects of the gospel message. I don't think the Recovery Version is really one of them. (speaking of the text itself here, not the footnotes)

As one of the "so many today" who questions whether Jesus is God, Ephesians 3:9 is not one of the problematic issues at all. There are other unadulterated verses that show God created through Jesus, so Jesus being part of the creation process is not lost by this "corruption" of Eph. 3:9.

Also......your preferred translation, which is "...in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ" does absolutely nothing to bolster the case that Jesus is God Himself. The sentence structure heavily supports the opposite - that Jesus is a separate being from God entirely.

This will probably be my only contribution to this thread.

Trapped

Thanks for your contribution Trapped. I made this thread fully aware that 98 out of 100 people will/don’t care or don’t think that it’s a big deal, why there is no continuity in the Bibles today. So its for information only type thread. I met people and know people, that know nothing about this issue, besides RV, and their spin on it. I’ll just continue to post things as I go along and find very noticeable differences, and will let people make their own decisions and conclusions.

Thanks

BTW, I won’t be getting into the discussion on the position that you have on “Jesus is God Himself, as a separate being”, so, I’ll just leave it at that. I’m sure there has probably been a thread here about that before.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

I believe KJV is God's preserved word. Even though I am still in LC, I don't use the RV.

Just share a quote from Bible study class, "... we are not primarily interested in word analysis which throws up a smoke cloud over the revelation of truth. We are interested in comparing Scripture with Scripture to find what God wants us to know. A history of the Hebrew and Greek meanings of the word “... “ does nothing for the reader but convince him that he knows the history of the way people used ancient words."

Bible-believer,

Good for you, I have a very hard time processing the concept on how that’s possible, but I guess you found a way. I used a NKJV before, and I was reading out of it couple times in my home Bible group with people from LC, and I was getting “o Lord jesus” calls every time it was my turn to read.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Thanks for your contribution Trapped. I made this thread fully aware that 98 out of 100 people will/don’t care or don’t think that it’s a big deal, why there is no continuity in the Bibles today. So its for information only type thread. I met people and know people, that know nothing about this issue, besides RV, and their spin on it. I’ll just continue to post things as I go along and find very noticeable differences, and will let people make their own decisions and conclusions.

Thanks

BTW, I won’t be getting into the discussion on the position that you have on “Jesus is God Himself, as a separate being”, so, I’ll just leave it at that. I’m sure there has probably been a thread here about that before.

Absolutely. I am sure something positive will come from the thread.

Yes, there is a thread titled "Is God a Trinity?" where Jesus being or not being God is discussed. I confine, or at least try to, my arguments/discussion on that topic to that thread only since my viewpoint is not a common viewpoint and I don't want to be a nuisance to people about it. On this thread of yours, I mostly wanted to clarify that there are indeed other verses that show God created through Jesus....1 Corinthians 8:6 for one.....so thankfully the message is not entirely lost with the translation discrepancy you brought up regarding Ephesians 3:9.

Trapped

[Nell]

Whenever the Recovery Version is discussed, I think about who did the original translation. There was a team, headed by John Ingalls. When it was first printed, John was given credit for his work. Now, I’m told, in later printed copies, John’s name no longer appears.

John’s contribution is the only reason I give this version any veracity at all. I don’t know how much John contributed to the footnotes, but there is a lengthy discussion on this forum on the footnotes.

The publisher can remove John’s name, but cannot remove his contribution to the project. It is intellectually dishonest for LSM to withdraw credit where credit is due. So, this translation begins with a false flag. Not a good thing.

I believe John (deceased) was an honorable man…a faithful servant. He was true to his word. I heard him share in a message he shared in Dallas in the early days that even if Witness Lee were to abandon “this way”, he would not.

When John confronted Lee with the “sin in the camp”, and the events that followed, he was faithful to the truth (facts) of the matters. I think he believed that Lee had left “the way”, but he (John) remained faithful by leaving. That’s when John’s name was removed from the RV.

Nell

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Nell

Whenever the Recovery Version is discussed, I think about who did the original translation. There was a team, headed by John Ingalls. When it was first printed, John was given credit for his work. Now, I’m told, in later printed copies, John’s name no longer appears.

John’s contribution is the only reason I give this version any veracity at all. I don’t know how much John contributed to the footnotes, but there is a lengthy discussion on this forum on the footnotes.

The publisher can remove John’s name, but cannot remove his contribution to the project. It is intellectually dishonest for LSM to withdraw credit where credit is due. So, this translation begins with a false flag. Not a good thing.

I believe John (deceased) was an honorable man…a faithful servant. He was true to his word. I heard him share in a message he shared in Dallas in the early days that even if Witness Lee were to abandon “this way”, he would not.

When John confronted Lee with the “sin in the camp”, and the events that followed, he was faithful to the truth (facts) of the matters. I think he believed that Lee had left “the way”, but he (John) remained faithful by leaving. That’s when John’s name was removed from the RV.

Nell

Nell,

I appreciate you chiming in on this. I was in LC from 2009 - early 2020. I never heard his name mentioned once. Although after leaving, I’ve seen it here and there, but know nothing about him or his background to say one way or another. He is probably on some black list in DCP, so they scrubbed it from all records. Just a SOP for “gods deligated authority”.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Nell,

I appreciate you chiming in on this. I was in LC from 2009 - early 2020. I never heard his name mentioned once. Although after leaving, I’ve seen it here and there, but know nothing about him or his background to say one way or another. He is probably on some black list in DCP, so they scrubbed it from all records. Just a SOP for “gods deligated authority”.

Thanks Paul. John wrote his account of "what happened" in Speaking the Truth in Love. It's definitely worth the read and will give you an idea of John's character.

Nell

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Nell

Whenever the Recovery Version is discussed, I think about who did the original translation. There was a team, headed by John Ingalls. When it was first printed, John was given credit for his work. Now, I’m told, in later printed copies, John’s name no longer appears.

John’s contribution is the only reason I give this version any veracity at all. I don’t know how much John contributed to the footnotes, but there is a lengthy discussion on this forum on the footnotes.

The publisher can remove John’s name, but cannot remove his contribution to the project. It is intellectually dishonest for LSM to withdraw credit where credit is due. So, this translation begins with a false flag. Not a good thing.

I believe John (deceased) was an honorable man…a faithful servant. He was true to his word. I heard him share in a message he shared in Dallas in the early days that even if Witness Lee were to abandon “this way”, he would not.

When John confronted Lee with the “sin in the camp”, and the events that followed, he was faithful to the truth (facts) of the matters. I think he believed that Lee had left “the way”, but he (John) remained faithful by leaving. That’s when John’s name was removed from the RV.

Nell

Nell, you are correct.

Both John Ingalls, Al Knoch, and Bill Duane, the original team, were honorable men who invested years of study into the original RecVersion using the American Standard Version 1901 as a translating guide and the Nestle Aland Greek Text as the source. When Ingalls exposed Philip Lee for corrupting the LSM Office, see his book “Speaking The Truth In Love, WL turned over all the RecV translation work to Kerry Robichaux’s newly formed team. Their revised RecVersion is now published, and all references to Ingalls et.al. have been expunged. Part of that team merely extracted writings from other WL books to compile the footnotes.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Nell

Thanks Paul. John wrote his account of "what happened" in Speaking the Truth in Love. It's definitely worth the read and will give you an idea of John's character.

Nell

Thanks Nell,
I’ll check it out.

[Paul Vusik]

This is just a bit of comedy in relation to how RV translated some things.
In Isaiah 14:12, the KJV calls satan Lucifer as it should. However RV crew, change it to Daystar.
KJV text:
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

RV text.
12. How you have fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the dawn! How you have been hewn down to earth, You who made nations fall prostrate!


First thing that I remembered when I saw “Daystar”, was the Daystar Motorhome Inc. that I read about a while back. Way to choose a name for your “business”. No wonder that thing was “cut down” for the scam that it was to begin with.

[Paul Vusik]

1 John 5:7

KJV text:
7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.


RV text:
7. For there are three who testify,


Nothing to see here, it was never there to begin with. (According to some, or many).


Next,

Here is an example of inserting their interpretations into the text.

Mat 10:32

KJV text:
32. Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heavens

RV text:
32. Every one therefore who will confess in Me before men, I also will confess in him before My Father who is in the heavens;

Do these mean the same? I read 10 other versions, and none have it written as they did.

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

This is just a bit of comedy in relation to how RV translated some things.
In Isaiah 14:12, the KJV calls satan Lucifer as it should. However RV crew, change it to Daystar.
KJVtext:
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

RV text.
12. How you have fallen from heaven, O Daystar, son of the dawn! How you have been hewn down to earth, You who made nations fall prostrate!


First thing that I remembered when I saw “Daystar”, was the Daystar Motorhome Inc. that I read about a while back. Way to choose a name for your “business”. No wonder that thing was “cut down” for the scam that it was to begin with.

That is exactly what I thought!! They never even connected the dots. And I think God blinded their eyes on purpose so the Daystar motorhome fiasco would be exposed in the future.

Maybe it came back to haunt them. However if it did, they have too much PRIDE to ever admit their wrongdoing, just like thei father of pride. Tsk-Tsk

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

That is exactly what I thought!! They never even connected the dots. And I think God blinded their eyes on purpose so the Daystar motorhome fiasco would be exposed in the future.

Maybe it came back to haunt them. However if it did, they have too much PRIDE to ever admit their wrongdoing, just like thei father of pride. Tsk-Tsk

To put it in modern day terminology, it’s kind of like giving your first born son a name like “Stalin” or “Hitler”, with firm belief that he will be the most popular preacher of the Gospel in the world.

Regarding the issue of admitting something, you need to always remember, “ultimate authority of god, doesn’t make mistakes, if it fails in something, it is usually the fault of everyone who didn’t follow properly issued orders”.

[Paul Vusik]

Ephesians 5:33

KJV text:
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

RV text:
33. Nevertheless you also, each one of you, in the same way love your own wife as yourself; and the wife should fear her husband.

Well, I guess since everything in LC is based on the concept of FEAR, they sure had to include it, when it comes to marriage. I would venture out on this one and say that if I go to one of our fancy shopping malls here, and just ask 10 random women if they see a slight difference between living in fear vs having reverence, I bet they would all say the same. Although there is a such thing as a “healthy fear”, as to “fearing God”, (which should only be attributed to Him alone), besides that, I know of no such thing that brings about anything of “Life” in a normal human relationship.
Just saying.

For those of you who think that they mean the same thing, it’s not.

Reverence-
1. a feeling or attitude of deep respect tinged with awe; veneration.
2. a feeling of profound awe and respect and often love.
3. the outward manifestation of this feeling:
4. a gesture indicative of deep respect; an obeisance, bow, or curtsy.
5. to regard or treat with reverence; venerate:

Fear-
1. an unpleasant often strong emotion caused by anticipation or awareness of danger
2. a distressing emotion aroused by impending danger, evil, pain, etc., whether the threat is real or imagined; the feeling or condition of being afraid.
3. to feel apprehensive or uneasy
4. to be afraid or frightened of:
5. to have a reverential awe

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But if you desire to claim any version is “God's preserved word,” then please select the Greek, since God wrote in Greek. Also, you can then read the Septuagint, which is oft quoted in the NT, rather than the Hebrew OT.

First, I said I "believe. "
Men who know the origin of Septuagint would not quote it. Well, of course, except to prove it is wrong.
Second, "select Greek, since God wrote in Greek", adopt your saying, then "too bad" for people who don't know Greek. (By the way, Greek is not a global language, but English is. )
As I know, KJV is from the Textus Receptus (Latin for “Received Text”), and the Textus Receptus has been translated into different languages, the German, and Chinese versions included.

What is the Textus Receptus

[Bible-believer]

RV Chinese version is even worse. Lots of "re-defined" terms. Most of the Chinese promote RV to a great extent, almost equating it to "the Original." I wonder how many of them know Greek or Hebrew.
I have a close friend from LC who told me more than once that she wanted to be a martyr to be an overcomer.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

RV Chinese version is even worse. Lots of "re-defined" terms. Most of the Chinese promote RV to a great extent, almost equating it to "the Original." I wonder how many of them know Greek or Hebrew.
I have a close friend from LC who told me more than once that she wanted to be a martyr to be an overcomer.

I’m very glad that I don’t speak or read Chinese, just for the sake of sanity alone. Just reading their English RV, has plenty of things to move you away from the real, living Word of God. So they can keep drinking that Koolaid, or “Leeaid”, but I’ll just stick with what is simple, understandable, and living.

There are plenty of examples in history, where people died in crusades, and denied themselves everything, including total abandonment of all family and society, for what? Just to show to the world how spiritually devoted they are, and so that others can use them as an example. After all, if I understand my Bible correctly, is it the same Apostle John that wrote about overcomers in Revelations, wrote about “overcoming” in 1 John 2? There are plenty of things addressed in that chapter that should be spoken and proclaimed today, rather than the total brainwashing and disabling scam teachings, perpetuated and sold by the LC.

[Timotheist]

KJV is not without severe criticism.

The best example is its translations of "Sheol" and "Hades" into various words.

NASB is pretty fair on this one point, so I suggest comparing those two versions, and then tell me how great the KJV is.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Men who know the origin of Septuagint would not quote it. Well, of course, except to prove it is wrong.
Second, "select Greek, since God wrote in Greek", adopt your saying, then "too bad" for people who don't know Greek. (By the way, Greek is not a global language, but English is. )

This is comical.

The NT was written during the 1st Century when Greek was THE “global language.”

Men, like Jesus and the Apostles, DID know the origin of the Septuagint, and they used it in the NT when they quoted OT scriptures.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This is comical.

The NT was written during the 1st Century when Greek was THE “global language.”

Men, like Jesus and the Apostles, DID know the origin of the Septuagint, and they used it in the NT when they quoted OT scriptures.

This point is well made.

However, the LXX also contained many books that were later considered non-canon. Alas, these works were also quoted by NT authors, the foremost example being found in Jude's opening verses.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

This point is well made.

However, the LXX also contained many books that were later considered non-canon. Alas, these works were also quoted by NT authors, the foremost example being found in Jude's opening verses.

The Book of Enoch was also quoted in the NT, though not part of the OT canon. But that is not the point.

The purpose of the LXX (70 Alexandrian Scholars in the early 3rd Century B.C.j was not to authenticate the Canon of Scripture, but to preserve the classic writings of the ancient world. The Alexandrian Library had literary goals in mind, not spiritual truths from God’s Word.

Yet God used and blessed this secular work. God never intended that His word should remain only accessible to the Jewish leaders. By quoting the Septuagint the Apostles authorized the use of Translations in direct violation of all Jewish tradition and Temple mandates.

Today we should understand the significance of this 1st century decision. God wants His word accessible to all, plain and simple. The history of Christian Missions is one of not only bringing the Bible to foreign lands, but also introducing an alphabet and written language to many cultures. Many missionaries had to introduce schools, books, reading, etc. before the people could even start their Christian journey.

Personally I endorse all translations with the rare exception of the Watchtower’s. I believe numerous and diverse translations in every language reflect the heart of God. There is no perfect or authorized translation in any language. Language is never static. Language is always changing, verbally faster than the written form.

Hence, when the British Monarchy demanded the exclusive use of the KJV under penalty of law, precluding the use of any other, they did the truths of the gospel a great disservice.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

This point is well made.

However, the LXX also contained many books that were later considered non-canon. Alas, these works were also quoted by NT authors, the foremost example being found in Jude's opening verses.

The Book of Enoch was also quoted in the NT, though not part of the OT canon. But that is not the point.

The purpose of the LXX (70 Alexandrian Scholars in the early 3rd Century B.C.j was not to authenticate the Canon of Scripture, but to preserve the classic writings of the ancient world. The Alexandrian Library had literary goals in mind, not spiritual truths from God’s Word.

Yet God used and blessed this secular work. God never intended that His word should remain only accessible to the Jewish leaders. By quoting the Septuagint the Apostles authorized the use of Translations in direct violation of all Jewish tradition and Temple mandates.

Today we should understand the significance of this 1st century decision. God wants His word accessible to all, plain and simple. The history of Christian Missions is one of not only bringing the Bible to foreign lands, but also introducing an alphabet and written language to many cultures. Many missionaries had to introduce schools, books, reading, etc. before the people could even start their Christian journey.

Personally I endorse all translations with the rare exception of the Watchtower’s. I believe numerous and diverse translations in every language reflect the heart of God. There is no perfect or authorized translation in any language. Language is never static. Language is always changing, verbally faster than the written form.

Hence, when the British Monarchy demanded the exclusive use of the KJV under penalty of law, precluding the use of any other, they did the truths of the gospel a great disservice.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

KJV is not without severe criticism.

The best example is its translations of "Sheol" and "Hades" into various words.

NASB is pretty fair on this one point, so I suggest comparing those two versions, and then tell me how great the KJV is.

Timotheist,


I have said in this thread, that there is no such thing as a perfect translation, however off all that’s out there, I don’t see anything better than KJV. You are not the first or the last person that said something about the translating Sheol/Hades as hell/grave and pit. Sheol is used 65 times in OT and translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. Which one of these you have issue with? Are you not happy about not enough hell as some? Or you not happy with grave? I noticed that the people who don’t believe in existence of hell had major problems with KJV, so clarify please. In the NT, hades is used 11 times and translated as hell 10, and grave 1.

As far as NASB goes;

Do you mean this NASB Bible that has been edited 10 times, and revised 4 times?
Do you mean that the Bible that you referred to, read one thing in 1971, and reads opposite of that in their 2020 version? Please read both for yourself and tell me which one of those 4 version of NASB should be used for comparison.

Those translators and editors must have an oracle of God, updating them constantly on the changes to the text. Sounds like something I heard for a while in the LC.

Just some facts about NASB.

Edited:
New American Standard Bible
Copyright © 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995, 2020 by The Lockman Foundation
A Corporation Not for Profit
La Habra, California
All Rights Reserved
www.lockman.org

Revised/published.
1971, 1977, 1995, 2020.

Derived from
American Standard Version

American Standard version is derived from, English Revised Version 1881–1885, which is translated from:
NT: Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857, (Reproduced in a single, continuous, form in Palmer 1881).
OT: Masoretic Text with some Septuagint influence).

And if anyone knows anything about Westcott and Hort, then one will understand why the NASB has been through 10 editions and 4 revisions.
Just for the record.

And here is even a bigger one for you. One of the main people who did work on NASB, has renounced it, as a total scam!

Frank Logsdon Denounces New American
Standard Version (Transcript)

*

"I must under God denounce 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 translator; I wrote the preface. When you see the preface to the New American Standard, those are my words...it's wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong...I'm in trouble;...I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [new versions of Wescott and Hort's corrupted Greek text] just as I hadn't gone into it...that's how easily one can be deceived...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
- Frank Logsdon



As a side note:
“In 1965, United Bible Societies (also known as USB, over 146 nations), and the Catholic Church agreed to prepare a “common text of the Bible”, and adopted a Westcott and Hort Vaticanus text.”

[Timotheist]

Now I did say the NASB is better “on this one point”.

Regarding how I feel about ‘hell’, I have a lengthy post in a thread entitled “Heaven and Hellenism” on this forum that I posted way back. I will leave it up to you to read it or not.

Here, to summarize using the language in this thread, the concept of a heaven/hell destiny is a “total scam” perpetrated by the Protestants in those days.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Now I did say the NASB is better “on this one point”.

Regarding how I feel about ‘hell’, I have a lengthy post in a thread entitled “Heaven and Hellenism” on this forum that I posted way back. I will leave it up to you to read it or not.

Here, to summarize using the language in this thread, the concept of a heaven/hell destiny is a “total scam” perpetrated by the Protestants in those days.

Ok, I guess I will just say that I do believe in heaven and hell, and also believe in the eternity with God, or the Lake of Fire. So maybe one day, I’ll check out that thread and see what’s there.
Thanks

[Bible-believer]

Dr. Gipp "Where Are the Originals"

Youtube link: For your reference

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Timotheist,

You are not the first or the last person that said something about the translating Sheol/Hades as hell/grave and pit. Sheol is used 65 times in OT and translated 31 times as hell, 31 times as grave and 3 times as pit. Which one of these you have issue with?

I have issue with the stats you summarized. WHY is Sheol translated as "hell" only half of the time in the KJV? I demand consistency in the translation. Don't try to modify the text to promote some viewpoint. (almost all English translations do this, by the way, either in this area or some other ways).

I say that if you choose to use the word 'hell', then be consistent. Of course that would mean that Jacob declared he was going to hell to be with his supposedly dead son Joseph.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I have issue with the stats you summarized. WHY is Sheol translated as "hell" only half of the time in the KJV? I demand consistency in the translation. Don't try to modify the text to promote some viewpoint. (almost all English translations do this, by the way, either in this area or some other ways).

I say that if you choose to use the word 'hell', then be consistent. Of course that would mean that Jacob declared he was going to hell to be with his supposedly dead son Joseph.

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Now if you meant that rather cold statement as a joke, then OK. But otherwise, it seems a rather foolish thing to say.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Now if you meant that rather cold statement as a joke, then OK. But otherwise, it seems a rather foolish thing to say.

Couldn’t agree more, as someone who speaks multiple languages. It’s sometimes a total impossibility trying to translate something into English, due to the fact that there is no such a concept that exist in the English language.

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Now if you meant that rather cold statement as a joke, then OK. But otherwise, it seems a rather foolish thing to say.

I am speaking of the word Sheol, not in general. Sheol is a noun, a place. Consistency is important, even mandatory, in such a case.

Now I know that both of you knew what I meant in my post.

It is amazing to what lengths people will go to defend the concept of hell just because the KJV translators chose that path. Even to go so far as to insist that God was there to make sure they got it right.

Call me names all you want, but I am not as foolish as the majority.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by OBW

Now I admit that I have not been following this thread (in fact have only visited occasionally over the past months). But to declare that a certain word in another language can only be translated into one English word within the Bible as a whole seems virtually ludicrous. It could only be possible if the word has only one singular meaning in all cases with no variation in any manner or use. And as our experience with our own language demonstrates that there are often many shades of meaning to words requiring that context be understood before the specific meaning is known, I would tend to scoff at anyone who demanded consistency in the raw translation as if there is no basis for any of the alternative meanings to be considered.

Thanks for mentioning the basics of Translation 101.

In Knoch’s “Concordant Version of NT,” he attempted to accomplish this very thing, i.e. a one-for-one translation of every Greek word into English. Besides being almost impossible to read, it introduces more confusion. It needs another “translation” in order to understand.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

I am speaking of the word Sheol, not in general. Sheol is a noun, a place. Consistency is important, even mandatory, in such a case.

Now I know that both of you knew what I meant in my post.

It is amazing to what lengths people will go to defend the concept of hell just because the KJV translators chose that path. Even to go so far as to insist that God was there to make sure they got it right.

Call me names all you want, but I am not as foolish as the majority.

Timotheist, no one is calling you names.

[Timotheist]

Here we go again.

Taking something I said as something I did not say and running with that narrative, calling it "foolish".

I was looking over the "Heaven and Hellenism" thread again. Although a touchy topic, the give and take was quite civil, as compared with today.

[Bible-believer]

John 18:36 KJV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

RV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would be struggling so that I would not be delivered to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not from here.

NASV

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

If you are a pre-millennialist, you know the difference between with and without the word "now."

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

John 18:36 KJV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.

RV
Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My attendants would be struggling so that I would not be delivered to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not from here.

NASV

Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm.”

If you are a pre-millennialist, you know the difference between with and without the word "now."

BB, please elaborate.

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

Here we go again.

Taking something I said as something I did not say and running with that narrative, calling it "foolish".

I was looking over the "Heaven and Hellenism" thread again. Although a touchy topic, the give and take was quite civil, as compared with today.

Timotheist,

Would you please do me a favor and add a link to the thread that you referred to. I have read 10 other threads (as you can see from my posts) while trying to get to that one.

Thanks

[Timotheist]

i found it by using the search feature up at the top and typing in the whole title.

Not sure I know how to link to it, but I will try that when I am at home and can tinker

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

BB, please elaborate.

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

Out goes “NOW” from the RV, NASV (by the way, RV is just another copy of ASV kind) and etc, although every Greek manuscript extant says “Gk.: nun/νῦν nŷn.”
So, are you or not a pre-millennialist? If not, then we are not on the same ground.
Anyway, a man who is engaged in altering "words" is a man who is engaged in changing the meaning of a sentence.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

i found it by using the search feature up at the top and typing in the whole title.

Not sure I know how to link to it, but I will try that when I am at home and can tinker

http://localchurchdiscussions.com/vB...aven+hellenism

[Timotheist]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Out goes “NOW” from the RV, NASV (by the way, RV is just another copy of ASV kind) and etc, although every Greek manuscript extant says “Gk.: nun/νῦν nŷn.”
So, are you or not a pre-millennialist? If not, then we are not on the same ground.
Anyway, a man who is engaged in altering "words" is a man who is engaged in changing the meaning of a sentence.

If by that term do I think the first resurrection and a kingdom lasting 1000 years are in our future, then yes.

If it means something more than that, then perhaps no.

[Timotheist]

Thanks, Nell!

To everybody else, perhaps the heaven/hell discussion can be continued in that thread, although it will likely be contaminated with the 2022 standard of using ridicule as a debate tactic that some have adopted since 2008.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Timotheist

If by that term do I think the first resurrection and a kingdom lasting 1000 years are in our future, then yes.

Your "term" is vague. If that's what you define the "premillennialist," you are probably not.

Originally Posted by Timotheist

KJ is right or wrong by adding the word 'now'?

Well, your turn, Is NASV right or wrong by omitting the word "now?"

[Bible-believer]

Here is another one:

Matt. 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NASV, RV, ...
RV: And he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus.
NASV: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.


Why the NASV has removed the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, we may strongly suspect "somebody" of trying to help the Pope out with his bunco about “the perpetual virginity of Mary” (and Joseph!).

Yet no matter how and what help, the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are as far apart as the missionary “Patricius” of Britain and the "St. Patrick" of the Irish Republican Army.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Here is another one:

Matt. 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NASV, RV, ...
RV: And he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus.
NASV: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.


Why the NASV has removed the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, we may strongly suspect "somebody" of trying to help the Pope out with his bunco about “the perpetual virginity of Mary” (and Joseph!).

Yet no matter how and what help, the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are as far apart as the missionary “Patricius” of Britain and the "St. Patrick" of the Irish Republican Army.

Growing up in St Patrick’s parish, I loved this post. LOL

But I never thought any of the latter Bible translators were actually trying to help the Pope out with his bunco!

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Here is another one:

Matt. 1:25 KJV
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

NASV, RV, ...
RV: And he did not know her until she bore a son. And he called His name Jesus.
NASV: but kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he named Him Jesus.


Why the NASV has removed the word “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25, we may strongly suspect "somebody" of trying to help the Pope out with his bunco about “the perpetual virginity of Mary” (and Joseph!).

Yet no matter how and what help, the Mary of the Bible and the Mary of Roman Catholicism are as far apart as the missionary “Patricius” of Britain and the "St. Patrick" of the Irish Republican Army.

Bible-believer,

The truth is that all new Bible translations are currently doing this to achieve one Bible version that will be approved by all groups and denominations. It’s been going on for 60 years. They slowly insert Catholic doctrines into a text.
And here is another example of that


James 5:16
King James Version

16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

RV
16. Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The petition of a righteous man avails much in its working.


As far as I’m concerned, the only being that I would confess my sins to, is God himself. No man! That’s another slow introduction of these heresies into regular Bible by the WBS to get everyone used to these practices and eventually the take over to one religion.

[Bible-believer]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Bible-believer,

The truth is that all new Bible translations are currently doing this to achieve one Bible version that will be approved by all groups and denominations. It’s been going on for 60 years. They slowly insert Catholic doctrines into a text.
And here is another example of that


James 5:16
King James Version

16. Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

RV
16. Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed. The petition of a righteous man avails much in its working.


As far as I’m concerned, the only being that I would confess my sins to, is God himself. No man! That’s another slow introduction of these heresies into regular Bible by the WBS to get everyone used to these practices and eventually the take over to one religion.

Indeed! All so-called "new translations" have the puppetmaster， Roman Catholics， behind them.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

The truth is that all new Bible translations are currently doing this to achieve one Bible version that will be approved by all groups and denominations. It’s been going on for 60 years. They slowly insert Catholic doctrines into a text.
And here is another example of that

James 5:16
King James Version: Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

RecV: Therefore confess your sins to one another and pray for one another that you may be healed.

As far as I’m concerned, the only being that I would confess my sins to, is God himself. No man! That’s another slow introduction of these heresies into regular Bible by the WBS to get everyone used to these practices and eventually the take over to one religion.

In a similar vein, John 20.23 has always troubled me, being a former Catholic, and I actually think the KJV is better on this verse.

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This horrible heresy surrounding the forgiveness of sins found only in the confessional was used by Rome to manipulate kings and extract fortunes.

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This horrible heresy surrounding the forgiveness of sins found only in the confessional was used by Rome to manipulate kings and extract fortunes.

Wait, you mean like asking people for donations in order to get the “clear vision”, and the highest form of “truths”? Do you mean that if you stay with “the church”, you will be properly cared for, even to be the only group of “overcomes”? And while you focus on these crumbs of “reality”, they built themselves a $100 million dollar empire, while collecting six figure incomes for the top brass?

Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, that’s all I got to say on that one.

[Zezima]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Wait, you mean like asking people for donations in order to get the “clear vision”, and the highest form of “truths”? Do you mean that if you stay with “the church”, you will be properly cared for, even to be the only group of “overcomes”? And while you focus on these crumbs of “reality”, they built themselves a $100 million dollar empire, while collecting six figure incomes for the top brass?

Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, that’s all I got to say on that one.

Those are some really interesting parallel I have considered. I’m assuming that in the Catholic Church those practices are written, while in the Recovery they are implied.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

In a similar vein, John 20.23 has always troubled me, being a former Catholic, and I actually think the KJV is better on this verse.

Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

This horrible heresy surrounding the forgiveness of sins found only in the confessional was used by Rome to manipulate kings and extract fortunes.

Another verse that was used to promote this false practice is 1st John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This erroneous teaching is saying that confession = propitiation. But previously in verse 5 it shows the blood is what provides that propitiation: "If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin."

And this passage is talking about being in fellowship. Being in fellowship means being transparent and not hiding our sin against another (as Adam & Eve immediately tried to do). We are to be open about it, but the blood of Christ has already been shed and done it's work in taking care of the propitiation part, therefore we can just confess without fear. However, the RC was all about using fear to control, so they turned this into a system of confession to official Church "priests."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

Wait, you mean like asking people for donations in order to get the “clear vision”, and the highest form of “truths”? Do you mean that if you stay with “the church”, you will be properly cared for, even to be the only group of “overcomes”? And while you focus on these crumbs of “reality”, they built themselves a $100 million dollar empire, while collecting six figure incomes for the top brass?

Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, that’s all I got to say on that one.

Apostle Paul said, "we are not like the many, peddling the word of God for profit." -- 2 Cor 2.17

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Another verse that was used to promote this false practice is 1st John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." This erroneous teaching is saying that confession = propitiation. But previously in verse 5 it shows the blood is what provides that propitiation: "If we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin."

And this passage is talking about being in fellowship. Being in fellowship means being transparent and not hiding our sin against another (as Adam & Eve immediately tried to do). We are to be open about it, but the blood of Christ has already been shed and done it's work in taking care of the propitiation part, therefore we can just confess without fear. However, the RC was all about using fear to control, so they turned this into a system of confession to official Church "priests."

StG,
I personally don’t see any problems with nether 1 John 1:9, or 1:7 (I think you quoted verse 7 there).

In 1:9, it’s referred to us coming to the Lord, and asking Him to forgive us and cleanse us with His blood. That’s the only way that we can get cleansed, if we ask for forgiveness. It’s not an automatic process that just happens by you existing or “calling on the name”. Just my opinion, and belief.

In 1:7, the verse is very clear about the steps to even have fellowship. As the first part of that verse states, “But if we should walk in the light as He is in the light,…”, means that even before you can have fellowship with one another, one must be walking in the light. We go to Him for cleansing, and get together for fellowship. He cleanses us with His blood, not we cleanse each other. Having fellowship about our sins, does nothing but brings death and despair. Having fellowship about Him, and what He has done for me, and cleansed me with His precious blood, when I go into His light and walk in His light, then that sweet rejoicing for what He has accomplished and done for us, brings us into the true oneness and fellowship, and not uniformity. Again, my view on these verses.


I know people will twist these verses to imply that confession is to the “church”, or “priest”, or even to each other. I personally don’t and won’t be a participant of those kind of “fellowships”, if you can call them that.


Thanks

[Paul Vusik]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Apostle Paul said, "we are not like the many, peddling the word of God for profit." -- 2 Cor 2.17

“Lots of Stolen Money”


I’m really not sure if they are aware of the fact that copyrighting something that doesn’t belong to you is punishable by laws even in this world. I can’t imagine doing so with God’s free gifts, and thinking that it will be OK. I very much doubt that He will be accepting refunds in the future. And by the way, they’re not the only once doing this, just to be clear.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Paul Vusik

StG,
I personally don’t see any problems with nether 1 John 1:9, or 1:7 (I think you quoted verse 7 there).

You are, of course, right - it was 1:7. Thanks for the correction!

[manoel_463]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

You are, of course, right - it was 1:7. Thanks for the correction!

I wanted to extend this topic to these authors by asking a question; Has anyone heard of a translation that has recently appeared, and its story, the translation "According to the Family 35". Who already has something to say?