Would you burn your Bible?

[Ovedya]

Yes, I do think it can happen. That's why I asked the OP whetehr he would burn his Bible or not. Some believe that the "Sacred Scriptures" are contained in the King James Version and only in the King James Version. To some this amounts to an unhealthy exaltation of this particular translation. I personally have seen the KJV position argues with such virulence that it practially amounts to the kind of worship that Doulon described here. Now, I personally would not intentionally burn a Bible - any Bible - because I just love the Bible! But I do not love it to the extent that I would worship it. The Bible points us to Christ. Only He is worthy of worship.

I don't know of any that think that the scriptures are only in the Holy Bible AKA AV.They all agree that the modern versions have legitimate verses in their covers.But they are not the pure words of God.Only the AV is that.Jerimiah said that God's word was more important than his necessary food.Is this idol worship?I trow not.

David meditates on it all the day,how more zealous can one get to the word of God.Is it an idol?I trow not.

Face it Ovedya,If God exalts his word above his name,who am I to do any less?

I burned By fake Bibles that had poison in them.They were not all the truth.I did it once.I still use many Bibles,but I only believe and live by one.

Since when is it unhealthy to believe God's word and believe what God said in his word about his word?Exactly.Does not the word say "I hate every false way?"The modernversions are exactly that.

They show errors on almost every page.The sources that they come from, came from heretics,like Marcon,Origen,Eusebius,Jerome,Westcott and Hort.

That is a big ouchy.

Those that don't burn their Bibles is fine with me.Those that do not use the KJB is fine with me.It is a free world out there.But I will show the corruptions that are in those versions that are touted today as the new discoveries,and updates.

There is only one Bible.The others are fakers.

Matthew 1:25,1 Timothy 3:16,1 Corinthians 2:17,check and compare and see the truth.This is only a couple out of hundreds.

Next time you falsely accuse others of worship and froth,it is only that they consider the Holy Bible to be the Holy Bible.Most others have no Bible that is considered errorless,and they contradict each othere in so many places.

You, however,have errors in yours.I thought that God's word is to be without error.So why in the world do you defend the fakers?

I am,of course,taking for granted,that if you are not posting in favour of the Holy Bible that you favour more than one version.Or at least "PREFER" one version over others at various places.

Thy word is very pure,therefore thy servant loveth it.Psalm 119:140

Holy Bible

There is only one.

Honestly, I don;t have the time, energy, or inclination to engage in this fruitless debate. I'm fine with the translations I use, and I'm fine trusting in the spirit of the Scriptures, as I have already stated in this thread. The bottom line, I believe, is you have no way of being 100% sure that any translation, whether taken from this manuscript or that manuscript, is completely accurate. Therefore this is one of those things that, on a certain level, you have to take "on faith."

Okay, then, go for it. Freak freely.

I'll take it on faith that the translations I use impart to me the same spiritual nourishment that the Lord has used for centuries to build up the Body of Christ.

This issue is not important enough for me to consider being divided with the saints in the light over.

[doulon]

Why all the fuss?

This is a good question! All the fuss is because we are talking about God's words. As Ovedya explained in one of his earlier posts the Bible is of utmost importance to the Christian because of the many things it reveals and teaches us. The only problem with Ovedya's statements is that he doesn't even believe he has the actual words of God (see his post below) so his post means absolutely nothing. Though he enjoys quoting 'scripture'(?) he confesses that he doesn't 'actually' have 'the scriptures'. This is a most precarious quandary he has put himself in. IOWs, he quotes the Bible rather authortatively but announces that he doesn't actually have a Bible (Bible representing the actual words of God). In his earlier post he informs us that the words of God are "spirit and are life" and that "the Scriptures are the testimony of Jesus Christ". He then adds that "the Scriptures are many things, but essentially they amount to one essential and most profound revelation. That is, they are God's speaking to man through the prophets and apostles, and more importantly in the Son, by the Son, and through the Son as the Spirit (Heb. 1:1-2; Matt. 17:5). If you do not have this revelation of the Scriptures then you are lacking in the necessary vision that God has given the church through His Son. Through the resurrected Christ the Scriptures have been opened up to us (Luke 24:27, 32, 45; Matt 7:7)." All this he claims the 'scriptures' are but then tells us that we don't actually have "the scriptures".

Doug, just look below at his statment; viz. "The bottom line, I believe, is you have no way of being 100% sure that any translation, whether taken from this manuscript or that manuscript, is completely accurate. " Am I the only one that sees the contradiction in Ovedya's statements? He claims 'the scriptures' are all those things above then says that we can't be 100% "sure that any translation......is completely accurate". My contention is that if this is the case then how can he be "100% sure" that those things he belives 'the scriptures' teach (see above) are "completely accurate". For all he knows he is believing in a myth....a fairy tale and nothing more! If we can't be "100% sure" that our Bible is "completely accurate" then we are "of all men most miserable." We have nothing to base our Christian life upon if we can't trust our Bible.

I maintain just the exact opposite of what Ovedya believes----I believe our Authorized King James Bible is 100% accurate. I believe God promised to preserve His words and I believe He has done exactly that---nothing has been lost. I believe the Bible teaches those things Ovedya mentioned; however, I actually believe we have the exact words of God to know for sure that what our Bible is teaching is divinely inspired and divinely preserved.

You asked, "why all the fuss"? Well, the fuss is whether we can trust our Bibles or not. The fuss is whether we truly have what God said or what some scribes imagined God said. The fuss is whether we can be "100% sure" about what our Bible teaches or whether we will have to 'guess' what is "completely accurate" and what is a myth. This is what the fuss is all about.

Doug, Ovedya makes the following statement in his post below, "This issue is not important enough for me to consider being divided with the saints in the light over." This is why I say he is in a precarious quandary. He doesn't think this issue is important and in an earlier post he said that this issue was "ridiculous, petty, and pointless". Isn't this confusing coming from a person that claims to believe that the Bible is the "most profound revelation. That is, they are God's speaking to man..." I must ask, if the 'scriptures' are God's speaking to man wouldn't it stand to reason that that would be an "important" issue to the Christian and certainly one to make a fuss about?

I personally find nothing divisive about this issue. Some throw this out I believe as a smoke screen. I'm surely not seeking to divide but rather to encourage the saints to believe their Bible and believe that God has been faithful to keep His promises. I scarcely see how this can be considered dividing the saints. I find those that claim we can't trust our Bible and that "accuracy" of our scriptures is of no importance the ones seeking to divide the saints. This kind of "reasoning" only serves to cast doubt upon the words of God and destroys the faith of the saints in their Bibles.

Well, this is what all the fuss is about! Thanks for asking!

Can't we see Jesus in any version of the Holy Bible?

This is another good question Doug.

I believe we can see Jesus in any version but it may not be the same Jesus. For instance, the Jesus of the NASV is seen to be a liar (cf. John 7:8)---according to this version Jesus claims He is not going to the feast but in fact goes! The Jesus of the ESV is in danger of the judgment (cf. Matt. 5:22)---according to this version anyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment---well, Jesus was clearly "angry" on several occasions (cf. Mark 3:5; John 2:13-16; Matt. 21:12-13). The Jesus of the NIV was not equal with God (cf. Phil. 2:6)---here is how it reads, "Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,". The Jesus of the NLT left us powerless and fastless (cf. Matt. 17:21; Mark 9:29)---Matt. 17:21 is omitted and Mark 9:29 only gives half the formula of how to gain spiritual victory. Practically none of the modern versions testify that Jesus was "God manifest in the flesh" in 1 Tim. 3:16. Most alter this to "He appeared in a body" or something like "He who was revealed in the flesh". We've all appeared and/or have been revealed in the flesh! What kind of Jesus is this?

I could go on but I imagine you get the point. Jesus can in fact been seen in any version but it won't be the same Jesus you might be imagining.

I'll close with a question, if all we need is to "see Jesus" would you approve of using the New World Translation? Jesus can be very clearly "seen" in this version.

Thanks for your questions! I hope I was able to answer them for you. Maybe this post won't get deleted!

doulon

Edited November 5, 2005 by doulon

[Ovedya]

You're baiting me, doulon. It won't work.

I trust the Bible. I trust the complete revelation of the Bible. I believe in the absolute and final authority of the Bible in all matters pertaining to the Christian life, the church, and the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ. That said, I do not believe that any specific version of the Bible could possibly be completely accurate to the original documents penned by the ones to whom God's revelation was given. There simply is no way of knowing. You have to leave it at, "I believe..."

The problem here is one of definition. You define "God's Word" as being the letter-for-letter preservation of the precise revelation delivered to the authors. My definition is the purpose and the spirit of the revelation itself. So regardless if a verse is written "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." (KJV), or it is written, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life." (RSV); or even if it's written, "sic enim dilexit Deus mundum ut Filium suum unigenitum daret ut omnis qui credit in eum non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam," the point, the message, and the revelation of the verse is what really matters.

We're never going to meet eye-to-eye on this issue, and it's a waste to even try. You have obviously spent many hard hours devoted to this subject, I can see that from the many articles you have written. Good for you! Seriously, I mean that. If you have a clear conscience concerning your position that's wonderful. However, I also have a clear conscience concerning what I believe about the Scriptures. I would hope that you would try and respect that; even if you don't agree with it.

I trust that one day the God who has justified us both freely by the blood of His Son, Jesus Christ, will also receive us into His glory equally. For the standard by which He judges all men is that very same blood, and not the petty matters that we construct as artificial barriers between us. In fact, when God judges our deeds in the church (And He will judge our deeds in the church), I believe He will look upon many of these matters, and some who thought that God would vindicate their positions will find that their seeking was in vain, and this will be to their utter shame and disapointment. But that is for God to judge, not me.

Grace to you,

~O

[Ovedya]

I don't know of any that think that the scriptures are only in the Holy Bible AKA AV.

Surely you must know of at least one.

They all agree that the modern versions have legitimate verses in their covers. But they are not the pure words of God. Only the AV is that.

I'm confused. Can you define what you mean by "legitimate verses"? How can something be legitimate if it's not true? And if it's true how can it not be pure?

Jerimiah said that God's word was more important than his necessary food. Is this idol worship? I trow not.

"Neither have I gone back frommm the commandment of His lips; I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food." (Jer. 23:12) Jeremiah was not talking about the Scriptures here. He was talking about the words, the commandments, which came directly from God's mouth.

What does "trow not" mean?

David meditates on it all the day,how more zealous can one get to the word of God. Is it an idol? I trow not.

Face it Ovedya, If God exalts his word above his name, who am I to do any less?

First, there's a difference between zeal for God's word and worshipping it. Worshipping God's word as an idol would exactly be putting it above His name. Where is it written that we should exalt the Bible, or any version of the Bible, above God's name? Jesus Christ has been given the name above all names, He has been given the highest position in the entire universe. Are you saying that the Bible is higher?

And what does "trow not" mean, anyway?

I burned By fake Bibles that had poison in them.They were not all the truth.I did it once.I still use many Bibles,but I only believe and live by one.

You use poisonous Bibles?

Since when is it unhealthy to believe God's word and believe what God said in his word about his word?Exactly.Does not the word say "I hate every false way?"The modernversions are exactly that.

You have modern versions that are "every false way"? Why?

They show errors on almost every page.The sources that they come from, came from heretics,like Marcon, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Westcott and Hort.

These were heretics? Why?

Next time you falsely accuse others of worship and froth...

Ah...I have not accused anyone of anything here...especially "froth," whatever that is. I only wrote concerning what I have experienced, and my opinion of it.

You, however,have errors in yours.

And how do you know that it's not yours that is without error? I trust that you take that on faith, right? It's what you believe to be true, and not what you know factually.

[Guest brandplucked]

Jerimiah said that God's word was more important than his necessary food. Is this idol worship? I trow not.

"Neither have I gone back frommm the commandment of His lips; I have esteemed the words of His mouth more than my necessary food." (Jer. 23:12) Jeremiah was not talking about the Scriptures here. He was talking about the words, the commandments, which came directly from God's mouth.

What does "trow not" mean?

t's what you believe to be true, and not what you know factually.

Hi saints, interesting conversation and ideas about God's words. Let me address two things here. First, it was Job who said this about esteeming God's words more than his necessary food, not Jeremiah.

Secondly, I trow not simply means "I don't think so" or "I think not". Here is some more info on this interesting word.

Luke 17:9 I trow not

In Luke 17:9-10 of the King James Bible we read the words of the Lord Jesus Christ saying: "Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I TROW NOT. So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: for we have done that which is our duty to do."

There are a multitude of anti-King James Bible sites that love to bring up the rendering of this verse - "I trow not". They mock at this expression; tell us it is impossible to understand; and then try to get you to switch to a version like the NIV, NASB, Holman Standard or the ESV.

Do any of these people actually believe that ANY Bible or any single Hebrew or Greek text is the inspired, inerrant, complete words of God? Of course not. All they have to recommend to you is a confusing variety of multiple-choice, contradictory, Probably Close Enough, "reliable versions" (whatever that means) which each of them considers to be imperfect translations that they feel free to "correct" at any time according to their own understanding.

Let's examine the words "I trow not" and the surrounding texts in Luke 17. I think you will begin to see some of the serious problems these Bible critics fail to mention.

First of all, the English expression "I trow not" is simply an archaic way of saying "I think not".

The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.

[Guest brandplucked]

They all agree that the modern versions have legitimate verses in their covers. But they are not the pure words of God. Only the AV is that.

I'm confused. Can you define what you mean by "legitimate verses"? How can something be legitimate if it's not true? And if it's true how can it not be pure?

Hi Ovedya, I certainly agree with you that if something is legitimate then it is true and pure, but if a whole verse of Scripture or several words or even a single word found in any bible version is not part of God's inspired words, then it cannot be legitimate, true or pure.

Please look at this site. It is very easy to read and follow along. Not complicated at all. It merely draws a line through all the words that have been omitted in many modern versions as compared to the KJB and the NKJV and all older English Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops's, and the Geneva Bible.

There are two sections to this site, but as I said, it is very easy to read and understand.

http://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/themagicmarker.html

Now, according to your own statements, either the King James Bible and all preceeding English Bibles since Tyndale all have "added" literally hundreds upon hundreds of words that are NOT legitimate, true and pure, OR the modern versions have omitted these hundreds upon hundreds of words that God Himself inspired to be written for our learning and spiritual food.

To merely sit back and proclaim that they are all legitimate, reliable and trustworthy versions that teach the same message, is to ignore the obvious, and defies all reason.

Brother Doulon brought up several examples of where the nasb, niv, etc. do teach false doctrines and present a different Jesus, yet none of these concrete examples seemed to have had any effect on your thinking. If we know something is true about God, then a version that teaches something utterly false about Him has to be a false bible.

The nasb does portray Jesus as a liar in John 7:8-10. We know He isn't a liar, so the nasb must be a false bible. The niv teaches that the Son of God has "origins" in Micah 5:2, yet we should know that the Son of God is and has always been the everlasting Son of God.

The niv also teaches that there was a time when Jesus was not the Son of the Father in Acts 13:33. You should know that this is not true. It is not just "by faith" that we recognize the true Holy Bible, but by the spirit of truth, and this spirit of truth is mixed with clear and obvious errors in all modern versions.

You either see it or you don't. It either matters to you, or it doesn't.

God bless,

Will K

[apothanein kerdos]

If it's in English (or any other language other than Greek and Hebrew) then it has grammatical mistakes (even the manuscripts do) or even translation errors. The King James has translation errors/inadequacies and so do other translations. None of them are "perfect" in grammar or translation, but the truth remains the same.

[Ovedya]

If it's in English (or any other language other than Greek and Hebrew) then it has grammatical mistakes (even the manuscripts do) or even translation errors. The King James has translation errors/inadequacies and so do other translations. None of them are "perfect" in grammar or translation, but the truth remains the same.

This states my position exactly (And with fewer words).

[Guest brandplucked]

If it's in English (or any other language other than Greek and Hebrew) then it has grammatical mistakes (even the manuscripts do) or even translation errors. The King James has translation errors/inadequacies and so do other translations. None of them are "perfect" in grammar or translation, but the truth remains the same.

Hi Super Jew, thanks for your comments. I guess I am to assume by your remarks that you too do not believe there is any inerrant Bible on the earth today, right?

Are you saying that a translation CANNOT be the inerrant words of God? If so, where did you get this idea? Certainly not from the Bible.

Secondly, are there any Hebrew or Greek texts that you consider to be the inerrant words of God? If so, which ones?

Thirdly, How can "the truth remain the same" when numerous whole verses are omitted in some bibles while found in others?

How can "the truth remain the same" in such examples as Psalm 78:36 where the nasb says that the children of Israel DECEIVED God? This is a theological question. If we follow the nasb in forming our theology, we would have to say that God is righteous, God is holy, God is love, and God is gullible - He can be deceived.

Again, the nasb teaches that Jesus lied in John 7, but no such thing is taught in the KJB or even in the niv there.

The niv teaches that Christ had origins in Micah 5:2 but the nasb and the KJB do not.

How does the truth remain the same in these instances?

Will K

[Guest brandplucked]

How can "the truth remain the same" in the following examples?

No Doctrines Are Changed?

I often hear those who criticize the King James Bible and defend the multiple modern versions say: "Well, no doctrines are changed in the different versions." But is this true?

There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agrees with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. This is easily proved and well noted by many atheist, Muslim and Bible basher sites on the internet.

Which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or have the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised? Is it true that "no doctrines are changed" in the various conflicting versions?

Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired word of God? Shouldn't we say the bible WAS the inspired word of God?

I and thousands of other Christians believe God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Holy Bible. In general terms the overall state of textual evidence and ancient versions is overwhelmingly on the side of the King James Bible readings as opposed to such versions as the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, and ISV.

However, one can argue back and forth over the textual evidence till you are either blue or red in the face, and prove nothing. For me and many other Bible believers, we clearly see the Providential hand of God placing His divine approval upon the King James Bible that has been universally recognized as THE BIBLE of the English speaking world for almost 400 years.

One of the clear and convincing proofs that the King James Bible is the complete, inerrant, and pure words of God is the purity and truth of its Christ exalting doctrines. Proverbs 14:5 tells us: "A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies." There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God.

Modern versionists say they are examining the evidence to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. The problem with this is, the new versions continue to disagree with each other in both texts and meaning in a multitude of places. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement from the late 1700's to the mid 1900's, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His complete words into a language other than English.

Some speak of the same General Message being found in all "reliable" versions. True, the simple gospel can be found in them all. Yet in all of them we also find contradictions concerning the basic truths of the character of God and we find corruptions of other sound doctrines.

The "Any Bible Will Do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, with several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. Seventeen entire verses, and about half of another 50 are omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV, ESV when compared to the King James Bible, Tyndale, Bishop's, Geneva, Webster's, the NKJV, and the Third Millenium Bible.

The examples in the following list, except Luke 2:22, and John 7:8, are not the result of different Greek and Hebrew texts being used, as is often the case, but rather of different ways the same underlying texts have been translated into English.

Does the true Lord Jesus Christ have an "ORIGIN from ancient times" as taught in Micah 5:2 by the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard,and Jehovah Witness New World Translation, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB have it? One rendering teaches His eternality, while the other says He has an origin or a beginning.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB and ESV read? The King James Bible, NIV, RV, ASV, Holman, and NKJV have Jesus saying: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go NOT UP YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come". Then in verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." However the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".

Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, ESV, Holman, and NIV teach? These versions read: "when the days for THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were completed...to offer a sacrifice", as opposed to the King James Bible, the NKJV, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster's 1833 translation, and the Third Millenium Bible which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished...to offer a sacrifice". Wycliffe's 1395 translation says "the days of the purification of Mary". The only Old Testament reference for this sin offering to make an atonement is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where the woman alone offered a sin offering for her purification.

Can God be deceived as the NASB and Holman teach in Ps. 78:36? The NASB and the Holman Standard say the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV, ESV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not obeying Him, but you certainly cannot deceive God.

For a much fuller discussion of this NASB blunder, and how one modern versionist tries to defend it, please see my article on this here. It is found in the second part of the article. The first part is interesting too :-)

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Eze14deceive.html

Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.

The NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard pervert true doctrine in Acts 13:33 where the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ. He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18).

In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 God says and ALL GREEK TEXTS read: "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". This is the reading found in the RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NKJV. The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV, and now the new ISV (International Standard Version) and the Holman Christian Standard Version actually say "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

The NIV, ISV, and Holman version here teach that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness version, the New World translation, and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as does the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.

Please see my article about the Only Begotten Son for more detail: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/begotnSon.html

Another doctrinal error is found in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV, Holman and others in 2 Samuel 14:14.

The context is Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.

In the course of their conversation the woman tells king David: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."

The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.

Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.

However when we get to the New KJV, ESV, the NIV, Holman, and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is untrue and a contradiction.

Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. (2 Samuel 12:15). In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also."

1 Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."

God obviously does take away life, and the NKJV, NIV, Holman, and NASB are all in error in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.

In 2 Peter 3:12 the King James Bible, Tyndale, Geneva and others correctly say we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine.

See my article dealing with this verse in much more detail at:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html

Who rules or is in control of this world, God or Satan?

In I John 5:19 the King James Bible along with the Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Young's, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, and 1909 (y todo el mundo est