Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Christian and Theologically Protestant? Or, sincerely inquiring about the Protestant faith? Welcome to Christforums the Christian Protestant community. You'll first need to register in order to join our community. Create or respond to threads on your favorite topics and subjects. Registration takes less than a minute, it's simple, fast, and free! Enjoy the fellowship! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now

Fenced Community

Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy.
Register now

Christian Fellowship

John Calvin puts forward a very simple reason why love is the greatest gift: “Because faith and hope are our own: love is diffused among others.” In other words, faith and hope benefit the possessor, but love always benefits another. In John 13:34–35 Jesus says, “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Love always requires an “other” as an object; love cannot remain within itself, and that is part of what makes love the greatest gift.
Sign in to follow this  
Calvarystudy

New King James ERRORS

Recommended Posts

 

So if the original autographs were discovered, you would still prefer the KJV, because it was "more accurate".

 

 

I see you avoided the question.

 

You are assuming that the original autographs would support the modern perversions.

 

The KJV agrees with 95% of the more than 5,00 manuscripts and lectionaries. Only 5% of all manuscripts agree with modern versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I see you avoided the question.

 

You are assuming that the original autographs would support the modern perversions.

 

If a mistake was made in copying a manuscript in 300AD, that same mistake would, by definition, not exist in the earlier manuscript which was being copied from. So the earlier manuscript would be more accurate. Mistakes accumulate over time; they do not diminish.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But all i am doing is typing.

 

I have found Americans to be very thin-skinned. No offense is intended.

 

I have already been banned by the politically-correct police on another forum.

 

Such a shame.

 

have i become your enemy for telling you the truth?

 

 

 

 

L O L -- so your keyboard is on the forum speaking for you. That's interesting. My keyboard requires a person to use it -- in this case -- it's my computer , so I'm the one typing my thoughts. The words / sentences I use are representing my thoughts / feelings. Just as your's is.

 

And you don't mean to be offensive when you say that Americans are very thin-skinned -- which means that you suspect that I'm American -- which is correct -- and Why would I feel offended by being called 'very thin-skinned' and That is Sarcasm on my part.

 

You've been banned from another Forum?! Can't imagine Why?! That's more sarcasm. And I might be out of order making such comments -- and If so, I apologize.

 

You've commented that you're not a KJV only person -- but your comments strongly suggest otherwise. You are pushing KJV Strongly -- and pretty much condemning any other version, especially the NKJV.

 

That which bothers me Most is that you call anything other than the KJV a 'perversion' of the truth. Even though it's Also truth that the present KJV was revised in 1769.

 

The Truth -- is what was originally put into those original Greek / Hebrew manuscripts that no longer exist. Some was in Aramaic. Those were the originally inspired Word of God. The manuscripts no longer exist -- If they did, would 'we' be worshiping the manuscripts rather than the words written on them?!

 

I was looking at a book which tells of the Bibles printed Before the KJV -- The Guttenberg Bible was the 1st one ever printed -- the Latin Vulgate version. The first Bible translated into English was the Wycliffe Bible. Then the Coverdale Bible (1535) And The Matthew's Bible (1537) the Great Bible (1539 the Geneva Bible (1560) The Bishops Bible (1568)

 

I was just reading the Intro to the NKJV. It is the newest in a long line of the revisions I just mentioned.

 

God's Word started out in the Greek/ Hebrew languages which is what the people used back then. Since then, the Bible has been translated into the various languages for various people groups in various countries. Another fact is that when translating from one language to another -- no two languages have the same alphabet -- some words have no equivilant in another language -- so sometimes a word-for-words translation is Not possible. And every language has it's figures of speech. And in English -- 'to, too, two' the same sound but very different meanings -- Context is essential. The phrase " it's raining cats and dogs outside'' we Know it's not meant literally. Or 'it's raining hard outside' -- so what is 'hard' rain.

 

 

Back to another of your comments -- apparently you feel that your presence on this Forum is to 'tell us the truth'. I'm not a Moderator or the Admin. --no standing on here at all. Have only been round 'here' for about three weeks. So I might be out of line saying this , but, you're Not the Holy Spirit. Obviously You prefer the KJV -- lots of people do -- lots of people Don't. A former pastor of mine Had been totally KJV -- he went to Bible college and I'm thinking seminary -- one of his professors had him compare the two versions and he switched to the NAS.

 

You're really turning Me off. I do not Hate the KJV -- that word is very strong negative. The NKJV is just as much God's Word as the Geneva Bible was or any of those other Bibles.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That which bothers me Most is that you call anything other than the KJV a 'perversion' of the truth.

 

Most of them are. Have you studied them?

 

"I was looking at a book which tells of the Bibles printed Before the KJV"

 

I never said the KJV was the first one printed.

 

"God's Word started out in the Greek/ Hebrew languages which is what the people used back then. Since then, the Bible has been translated into the various languages for various people groups in various countries. Another fact is that when translating from one language to another -- no two languages have the same alphabet -- some words have no equivilant in another language -- so sometimes a word-for-words translation is Not possible. And every language has it's figures of speech. And in English -- 'to, too, two' the same sound but very different meanings -- Context is essential. The phrase " it's raining cats and dogs outside'' we Know it's not meant literally. Or 'it's raining hard outside' -- so what is 'hard' rain."

 

You are completely missing the point.

 

You seem to think that all the Bibles have ONE common root. They all came from "the original" and that is simply NOT true.

 

If you read my posts, you know it is NOT just about grammer.

 

 

"so sometimes a word-for-words translation is Not possible."

 

Which is WHY you cannot translate "ye, thee, thou" into the ONE word "you".

 

eg: John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

 

WHAT is Jesus saying here? This one is not a major important one, but illustrates HOW the Greek language is so precise.

 

 

"You're really turning Me off. I do not Hate the KJV -- that word is very strong negative. The NKJV is just as much God's Word as the Geneva Bible was or any of those other Bibles."

 

I know "hate" is a strong word and i use it deliberatly.

 

This topic appears to be VERY important to both sides of the fence.

 

What you guys dont seem to do is WANT to check out the facts.

 

No, i am NOT the Holy Spirit. Neither are you.

 

If by "turning me off" you mean turning you off from these forums, then i am sorry. I wish there was a "block" function so you can block me so you will not have to read anything i post.

 

"A former pastor of mine Had been totally KJV -- he went to Bible college and I'm thinking seminary -- one of his professors had him compare the two versions and he switched to the NAS. "

 

Ah, so he was indoctrinated into the Bible college way of reasoning and interpretation.

 

I would like to know WHY he changed. WHAT was the difference.

 

I didnt know a lot about the NAS, so i just now did some research. Thats how i am. I dont blindly follow what someone says, i check it out.

 

Now i know you will not read this, probably, but i post it so show the DIFFERENCES between the KJV and the NAS.

 

WHY are there these changes? Because, as i have been saying all along, the KJV is translated from the Antioch Textline via the Apostles where they were first called Christians. Most modern versions come from a corrupted ALEXANDRIAN textline out of Egypt. Most are based on the corrupted Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus rather than the RECEIVED TEXT.

 

Look, everyone, all i want you to do is RESEARCH YOURSELF. Dont just pick up a translation and say to yourself "This seems easy to read". ask yourself "WHAT am i easily reading?"

 

Most of the comments by people on this topic leads me to think that no-one has actually gone through and READ my posts.

 

I am truely sorry if i offended anyone here. I really am. If i did not think the changes were important ( like just grammer ), i would not love you as much as i do to risk upsetting you by trying to get you to research yourself.

 

Anyhow, i think this will be my final posting in this post. I have presented the evidence of why i believe what i believe.

 

God bless you all and i sincerely mean that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are ASSUMING i am a "KJV only ist".

This is hilarious.

Are you a KJV-only-ist?

I double dog dare you to deny it! :)

 

 

But there are 2 problems with that.

1) It has been proven that the KJV is easier to comprehend than the NIV

2) Even if it WAS easier to read, WHAT are you reading? I would rather struggle reading the truth than easily read a lie.

1. Where is this proof? (Are you even aware that your KJV is not even the original KJV translation of 1611 that you would find unreadable, but a 1769 translation into 'modern English' that you can read?)

2. What proof is there that NKJV is a lie? (More unfounded KJV-only accusations.)

 

 

"up-dating" vocabulary? To mean completely different things?

Are people too lazy to google a couple of KJV words? They words are very specific.

 

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

These two are related. The NKJV has 'over 100,000 word changes' because the KJV has over 100,000 translation errors. None are serious enough to impact the Gospel or Church Doctrine, IF you are willing to do the homework and find out what the original Greek word was. 'Sheol', 'Gehenna' and 'Hades' do not mean the same thing. It was careless of the KJV translators to translate multiple Greek words as the word 'Hell'. The NKJV corrected that error.

 

Pick ONE specific change from KJV to NKJV that you think is "a lie", and I will examine it in detail. I simply do not have time to chase endless bunny trails.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WHY are there these changes? Because, as i have been saying all along, the KJV is translated from the Antioch Textline via the Apostles where they were first called Christians. Most modern versions come from a corrupted ALEXANDRIAN textline out of Egypt. Most are based on the corrupted Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus rather than the RECEIVED TEXT.

Broaden your search.

This information is historically false.

 

It is impossible to know where a text originated. There are two broad STYLES of texts.

 

How can all of the Alexandrian texts be corrupted, when the doctrine of the Trinity was defended using 'Alexandrian Texts' by the Bishop of Alexandria against the Arian (anti-Trinitarian) heresy centered in Turkey (Antioch). Your information is flawed. Your conclusions are false.

 

Research the actual origin of the Received Text. When was it first published? (HINT: after 1611). The Received Text was created from the KJV Translation, not the other way around. There is no ancient text that matches the 'RECEIVED TEXT'. None. The KJV was created from only three sources, 5 books by Erasmus that do not agree with each other, 2 books by a second author and 1 book by a third author. All 8 books were published compilations from Greek Manuscripts and approved by the Catholic Church or dedicated to the Pope. (I only mention this because a big deal is often made about RCC influence in Modern Translations on KJV-only websites.)

 

For the record, the KJV is a good translation. It reads well out loud, for one thing. However, it is not a flawless translation. That is why I want the footnotes, so I know which words are found in all manuscripts and which words are omitted in some so I can evaluate for myself. When a specific word is critical, I go to the Greek and if necessary, ask experts in Greek (or Hebrew for the OT). Only the original words in the original language are God breathed. Translations contain human imperfections, some unavoidable due to language and culture differences.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the most absurd changes ever made is changing the word "servant" to "slave"! The NKJV in Romans 6:22, reads: "But now having been set FREE from sin, and having become SLAVES OF GOD. . ." The NKJV, in 1 Corinthians 7:22, calls the Christian, "Christ's slave". Talk about a contradiction! John 8:36 says, "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED." But isn't a Christian supposed to serve? Yes, in love. Not as a slave! Galatians 5:13 explains it, perfectly: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY;(not slavery!) only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but BY LOVE SERVE one another."

 

Let us look at Romans 6:22 in the KJV with a focus on the actiual word used "douloo" (G1402). That word is used 11 times in 8 verses in thr KJV Bible:

 

Act 7:6 And God spake on this wise, That his seed should sojourn in a strange land; and that they should bring G1402 them into bondage, G1402 and entreat them evil four hundred years.

Rom 6:18 Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants G1402 of righteousness.

Rom 6:22 But now being made free from sin, and become servants G1402 to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.

1Co 7:15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is G1402 not under bondage G1402 in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

1Co 9:19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made G1402 myself servant G1402 unto all, that I might gain the more.

Gal 4:3 Even so we, when we were children, were in bondage G1402 under the elements of the world:

Tit 2:3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given G1402 to much wine, teachers of good things;

2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. G1402

 

Strong's Definition: δουλόω doulóō, doo-lo'-o; from (G1401); to enslave (literally or figuratively):—bring into (be under) bondage, × given, become (make) servant.

For reference ... (G1401) δοῦλοςdoûlos, doo'-los; from (G1210); a slave (literal or figurative, involuntary or voluntary; frequently, therefore in a qualified sense of subjection or subserviency):—bond(-man), servant.

 

Thayer's Greek Lexicon: [Rom vi. 18,22] To be made subject to the rule of someone.

 

It would seem to fall more strongly than a 'hired servant' and yet not an 'unwilling slave' (as you pointed out). The word in Greek suggests a bondservant who serves willingly, but who serves for life.

With respect to Romans 6:22 and a slave of God, I believe that it had something like this in mind:

 

Exodus 21:1-6 [KJV]

1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them. 2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. 3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.

4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself. 5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: 6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.

 

Here is where the English Translations fall short of the original message ... both KJV and NKJV. That is why they created 'Amplified Bibles' to try and capture more of those shades of meaning (at the cost of smooth readability).

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What did i say that was wrong?

 

I refuse to speak for everyone. But I understand your zeal and your deep love and passion for the Word of God. In my opinion, do you think it matters to God so much that the "unlearned" reads the KJV translation of the Hebrew Scripture? Do you think it matters to God that the new convert--"babe in Christ" should plunge into his/her study of the precious words of God in a language, so archaic, translated in KJV? I imagine that this little child of God would be like reading Greek or Latinized Greek written in Shakespearean tone or tongue. And would give up in frustration and leave God altogether. Because his/her reasoning is, "I can't understand God. He's so vague in what He's saying." I believe that God sees this new child into His Kingdom so important and so loved that He wants this precious child to understand Him clearly as a little baby would respond to his sweet, loving, soft-spoken mother.

 

 

Please do not be disheartened. Keep sharing. We, as mature in the faith understand your passion for the word of God.

 

Thank you. And much love to you, @Calvarystudy

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most of them are. Have you studied them?

 

"I was looking at a book which tells of the Bibles printed Before the KJV"

 

I never said the KJV was the first one printed.

 

"God's Word started out in the Greek/ Hebrew languages which is what the people used back then. Since then, the Bible has been translated into the various languages for various people groups in various countries. Another fact is that when translating from one language to another -- no two languages have the same alphabet -- some words have no equivilant in another language -- so sometimes a word-for-words translation is Not possible. And every language has it's figures of speech. And in English -- 'to, too, two' the same sound but very different meanings -- Context is essential. The phrase " it's raining cats and dogs outside'' we Know it's not meant literally. Or 'it's raining hard outside' -- so what is 'hard' rain."

 

You are completely missing the point.

 

You seem to think that all the Bibles have ONE common root. They all came from "the original" and that is simply NOT true.

 

If you read my posts, you know it is NOT just about grammer.

 

 

"so sometimes a word-for-words translation is Not possible."

 

Which is WHY you cannot translate "ye, thee, thou" into the ONE word "you".

 

eg: John 3:7 "Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again."

 

WHAT is Jesus saying here? This one is not a major important one, but illustrates HOW the Greek language is so precise.

 

 

"You're really turning Me off. I do not Hate the KJV -- that word is very strong negative. The NKJV is just as much God's Word as the Geneva Bible was or any of those other Bibles."

 

I know "hate" is a strong word and i use it deliberatly.

 

This topic appears to be VERY important to both sides of the fence.

 

What you guys dont seem to do is WANT to check out the facts.

 

No, i am NOT the Holy Spirit. Neither are you.

 

If by "turning me off" you mean turning you off from these forums, then i am sorry. I wish there was a "block" function so you can block me so you will not have to read anything i post.

 

"A former pastor of mine Had been totally KJV -- he went to Bible college and I'm thinking seminary -- one of his professors had him compare the two versions and he switched to the NAS. "

 

Ah, so he was indoctrinated into the Bible college way of reasoning and interpretation.

 

I would like to know WHY he changed. WHAT was the difference.

 

I didnt know a lot about the NAS, so i just now did some research. Thats how i am. I dont blindly follow what someone says, i check it out.

 

Now i know you will not read this, probably, but i post it so show the DIFFERENCES between the KJV and the NAS.

 

WHY are there these changes? Because, as i have been saying all along, the KJV is translated from the Antioch Textline via the Apostles where they were first called Christians. Most modern versions come from a corrupted ALEXANDRIAN textline out of Egypt. Most are based on the corrupted Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus rather than the RECEIVED TEXT.

 

Look, everyone, all i want you to do is RESEARCH YOURSELF. Dont just pick up a translation and say to yourself "This seems easy to read". ask yourself "WHAT am i easily reading?"

 

Most of the comments by people on this topic leads me to think that no-one has actually gone through and READ my posts.

 

I am truely sorry if i offended anyone here. I really am. If i did not think the changes were important ( like just grammer ), i would not love you as much as i do to risk upsetting you by trying to get you to research yourself.

 

Anyhow, i think this will be my final posting in this post. I have presented the evidence of why i believe what i believe.

 

God bless you all and i sincerely mean that.

 

 

 

 

Hi -- You are coming across like someone who is So strongly certain that the KJV is the Only Bible that is the Most accurate of Any Bible ever printed , that you simply Have to share all your knowledge and challenge Everyone to research what they are reading -- as if reading anything Else is going to 'pervert your soul'.

 

Some of the other posters have made some good points regarding the manuscripts.

 

You're not turning me off to this forum -- but to you as a person.

 

And, yes, you Are a King James only-ist. You might not see yourself as such -- but most everyone who reads your posts would agree.

 

And, no, I Don't take the time to research about every Version I've considered. The manuscripts used in it. Bible College / Seminary students are far more schooled in that subject. But most of us don't really care about what manuscripts were used. We place our faith in the ability of translators to present as accurate a Bible as possible.

 

God's Word -- being God's Word -- is probably Not going to understood by every one in every respect.

 

And people Are convicted by God's Word and That is part of why people don't like to read it. And some denominations give their congregations the impression that the 'pastor / priest' whomever is the only one in the church who Really understands the Bible. They Don't encourage their people to read Scripture for themselves. They don't encourage their congregation to read and then ask questions. I've heard several pastors read a passage and proceed to say -- in other words, this or that --- as if we need the pastor's interpretation of the passage to Really understand it. What I Do appreciate is going through a passage and outlining it -- what is each phrase saying. use cross-references to support what is being said in that passage.

 

But taking time to 'pounce' on people with all the mistakes in other versions -- turns people off -- after a short time they Don't read any farther.

 

We're all adults here with the ability to make up our own minds -- you Are trying to play the part of the Holy Spirit.

 

So -- I'll continue to read my NKJV and supplement with the older NIV. And you're welcome to continue with the KJV.

 

Enjoy.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is impossible to know where a text originated. There are two broad STYLES of texts. "

 

No, it is NOT impossible.

 

And, no, there are not two STYLES, there are two SOURCES.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is hilarious.

 

I am glad you find this topic humorous. I find it very sad.

 

 

 

These two are related. The NKJV has 'over 100,000 word changes' because the KJV has over 100,000 translation errors. None are serious enough to impact the Gospel or Church Doctrine, IF you are willing to do the homework and find out what the original Greek word was. 'Sheol', 'Gehenna' and 'Hades' do not mean the same thing. It was careless of the KJV translators to translate multiple Greek words as the word 'Hell'. The NKJV corrected that error.

 

Oh, if you think the NKJV is the the best translation, then YES, the KJV does have 100,000 errors compared to the NKJV or compared to the Alexandrian text line.

 

I simply do not have time to chase endless bunny trails.

 

Then we will part ways here. God bless.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

nkjv2a.jpg

by Terry Watkins

[TABLE=border: 1, cellpadding: 8, cellspacing: 0]

[TR]

[TD] coun ter feit \'kaunt-er-fit\: to imitate or copy closely

especially with intent to deceive. [/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

[TABLE=border: 0]

[TR]

[TD] The greatest method of deception is to counterfeit.

And the master of counterfeit and deception is Satan.

The Bible in 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 warns of Satan's counterfeit: "And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness;. . ." Isaiah 14: 14 tells of Satan's ultimate counterfeit: ". . . I will BE LIKE the most High."

 

And among his greatest counterfeit's is the New King James Bible (NKJV). Christians that would never touch a New International Version (NIV), New American Standard (NASV), Revised Standard (RSV), the New Revised Standard (NRSV) or other per-versions are being "seduced" by the subtil NKJV.

 

And though the New King James does indeed bear a "likeness" to the 1611 King James Bible, as you'll soon see, there's something else coiled (see Genesis 3:1) "underneath the cover" of the NKJV.

[TABLE=border: 1, cellpadding: 5, cellspacing: 0]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: 000000]WHAT ABOUT THAT MYSTERIOUS MARK?[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]

Symbols are used throughout the occult. Harpers' Encyclopedia of Mystical & Paranormal Experience (p.594) says,
"Symbols are important to all esoteric teachings, for they contain secret wisdom accessible only to the initiated."

Many people have asked about the mysterious symbol on the NKJV.

 

nkjv2.gif
Thomas Nelson Publishers (publishers of the NKJV) claim, on the inside-cover, the symbol, ". . .is an ancient symbol for the Trinity." But Acts 17:29, clearly FORBIDS such symbology: ". . . we ought NOT to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, GRAVEN BY ART and man's device."

 

nkjv55.gif
And why does The Aquarian Conspiracy, a key New Age "handbook", bear a similar symbol? New Agers freely admit it represents three inter-woven "6"s or "666".

 

Constance Cumbey, author of The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow and a notable authority on the New Age Movement, said,
"On the cover of the Aquarian Conspiracy is a Mobius, it is really used by them as triple six (666). The emblem on the
cover of the New King James Bible
is said to be an ancient symbol of the Trinity. The old symbol had gnostic origins. It was more gnostic than Christian.
I was rather alarmed when I noticed the emblem...
"
(The New Age Movement, Southwest Radio Church, 1982 p.11)

 

 

transp.gif
The Triqueta is used as the centerpiece for the logo for The Institute of Transpersonal Psychology (ITP). The ITP is a new age school following the Jungian Psychology [occultist Carl Jung]. One of their stated goals is ". . . to reach the recognition of divinity within"(
) (see Genesis 3:5, "...ye shall be as gods...")

 

 

charmed3.jpg
One of the most occultic television shows ever aired is "Charmed". "Charmed" details the spells and occultic practices of three witches. The "NKJV symbol" is the show's primary symbol of witchcraft and is splattered throughout the series. Notice the "NKJV symbol" displayed on "The Book of Shadows". The Book of Shadows is commonly used in withcraft and satanism:
Book of Shadows
: Also called a grimoire, this journal kept either by individual witches or satanists or by a coven or group, records the activities of the group and the incantations used. (Jerry Johnston, The Edge of Evil: The Rise of Satanism on North America, p. 269)

[TABLE=border: 1, cellpadding: 5, cellspacing: 0]

[TR]

[TD]
craft1d.jpg
[/TD]

[TD]
THE NKJV & WITCHCRAFT?

The Craft: A Witch's Book of Shadows

The Witch's Book of Shadows or Grimoire is a book of spells, enchantments, and rituals. Includes Rituals, Spells, and Wicca Ethics

 

 

The Craft Companion: A Witch's Journal

 

 

By Dorothy Morrison, a high priest of Witchcraft.

 

NOTE: We circled (in YELLOW and RED), and also enlarged to the side The NKJV symbol.
[/TD]

[TD]
craft2d.jpg
[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

triq_13.jpg
LEFT:
The image on the left is from the rock group Deicide's album "Once Upon the Cross". It is a triquetra (the NKJV logo) with pentagrams and upside down crosses. The group Deicide members are very serious Satanists. Lead Singer Glen Benton has an upside down cross branded on his forehead. The inside cover of the album "Once Upon the Cross" has the Lord Jesus Christ, sliced up the middle, with his insides removed. The name Deicide means the death of God.

 

triq_14.jpg
RIGHT:
The triquetra (the NKJV logo) is also the logo for the Rap / Metal band P.O.D.

 

The book "Blood on the Doorposts" by former Satanists, Bill and Sharon Schnoebelen, also documents the "trio of sixes (666)" in the "NKJV symbol" and goes so far as claim it is "symbolic of the anti-christ":

"A disguised interlocked trio of sixes, symbolic of the anti-christ. Also symbolizes the triple goddess of Wicca (three interlocked vesica pisces together). Commonly used in Catholic liturgical iconography,
and has recently found its way into the logo of the New King James Bible
." (Bill and Sharon Schnoebelen, Blood on the Doorposts, p. 150)

Dr. Cathy Burns writes in her book, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, concerning the "NKJV symbol":

"Marilyn Ferguson, a New Ager, used the symbol of the triquetra (another name for the triskele) on her book The Aquarian Conspiracy.
This is a variation for the number 666
. Other books and material have a similar design printed on them, such as books from David Spangler, the person who lauds Lucifer, and The Witch's Grimoire. As most people know, the number 666 is the number of the beast (see Revelation 13:18) and is evil, yet the occultists and New Agers love this number and consider it to be sacred.

As stated earlier, many organizations, such as the World Future Society and the Trilateral Commission, incorporate this symbol into their logo.
I think it is quite interesting to see that this same symbol appears on the cover of the New King James Bible as well
!"(Dr. Cathy Burns, Masonic and Occult Symbols Illustrated, pp. 242-243)

[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=bgcolor: 000000]Would God "mark" His word with a symbol in the occult?[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

The Preface to the New King James Version (NKJV) reads, "A special feature of the New King James Version is ITS CONFORMITY to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. . . the new edition, while much clearer ARE SO CLOSE to the traditional. . ."

 

Among the first changes that greets the reader of the NKJV is the removal of the much maligned "thee, thou and ye". The Preface to the NKJV states, ". . .thee, thou, and ye are replaced by the simple you,. . .These pronouns are no longer part of our language." But "thee, thou and ye" were "NO LONGER part of the language" during 1611 either. (just read the intro to the 1611 King James, there are no "thee", "thou" and "ye"). In fact, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, says of ye: "used from the earliest of times to the late 13th century. . ." (p.2648) And yet the 1611 King James was published 400 years later in the 17th century!

 

So why are they there?

The Greek and Hebrew language contain a different word for the second person singular and the second person plural pronouns. Today we use the one-word "you" for both the singular and plural. But because the translators of the 1611 King James Bible desired an accurate, word-for-word translation of the Hebrew and Greek text - they could NOT use the one-word "you" throughout! If it begins with "t" (thou, thy, thine) it's SINGULAR, but if it begins with "y" (ye) it's PLURAL. Ads for the NKJV call it "the Accurate One", and yet the 1611 King James, by using "thee", "thou", "ye", is far more accurate!

 

By the way, if the "thee's" and "thou's" are ". . .no longer part of our language" - why aren't the NKJV translators rushing to make our hymnbooks "much clearer"? "How Great Thou Art" to "How Great You Are", or "Come Thou Fount" to "Come You Fount" Doesn't sound right, does it? Isn't it amazing that they wouldn't dare "correct" our hymns - and yet, without the slightest hesitation, they'll "correct" the word of God!

 

The NKJV claims to make the "old" KJV "much clearer" by "updating obsolete words" (New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

 

How about that "obsolete word" - "hell". The NKJV removes the word "hell" 23 times! And how do they make it "much clearer"? By replacing "hell" with "Hades" and "Sheol"! Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines Hades: "the underground abode of the dead in Greek MYTHOLOGY". By making it "much clearer" - they turn your Bible into MYTHOLOGY! Not only that, Hades is not always a place of torment or terror! The Assyrian Hades is an abode of blessedness with silver skies called "Happy Fields". In the satanic New Age Movement, Hades is an intermediate state of purification!

 

Who in their right mind would think "Hades" or "Sheol" is "up-to-date" and "much clearer" than "hell"?

 

Matthew 16:18

KJV:
"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and
the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it."

NKJV:
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and
the gates of Hades
shall not prevail against it."

Luke 16:23

KJV:
"And
in hell
he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

NKJV:
"And being in torments
in Hades
, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

Hell is removed in 2 Sam. 22:6, Job 11:8, 26:6, Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 86:13, 116:3, Isaiah 5:14, 14:15, 28:15,18, 57:9, Jonah 2:2, Matt. 11:23, 16:18, Luke 10:15, 16:23, Acts 2:27, 31, Rev. 1:18, 6:8, 20:13,14.

 

Then the NKJV decides that maybe "Hades" should be "grave"! So the NKJV makes 1 Corinthians 15:55 "much clearer" by changing "grave" to "Hades"! ". . . O Hades, where is your victory?" Clear as mud. . .

 

Another one of those "obsolete words" is "repent". They take it out 44 times! And how does the NKJV make it "much clearer"? In Matthew 21:32 they use "relent". Matthew 27:3 it's "remorseful" Or Romans 11:29 they change "repentance" to "irrevocable".

 

The term "new testament" is NOT in the NKJV! (see Matt. 26:28, Mark 14:24, Luke 22:20, 1 Cor. 11:25, 2 Cor. 3:6, Heb. 9:15,) The NKJV replaces "new testament" with "new covenant" (ditto NIV, NRSV, RSV, NASV). An obvious assault at the written word!

 

The word "damned", "damnation" is NOT in the NKJV! They make it "much clearer" by replacing it with "condemn" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). "Condemned" is NO WHERE NEAR AS SERIOUS as "damned"! Damned is eternal! One can be "condemned" and not "damned". Romans 14:22 says, ". . . Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth." Webster defines "condemned": to declare to be wrong, but the much more serious and eternal "damn": "to condemn to hell".

 

The word "devils" (the singular, person called the "devil" is) is NOT in the NKJV! Replaced with the "transliterated" Greek word "demon" (ditto NIV, RSV, NRSV, NASV). The Theosophical Dictionary describes demon as: ". . . it has a meaning identical with that of 'god', 'angel' or 'genius'". Even Vines Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words (p.157)defines "demon" as: "an inferior deity, WHETHER GOOD OR BAD". Webster defines "demon" as: "divinity, spirit, an attendant power or spirit", but "devil" as: "the personal supreme spirit of EVIL. . ."

 

In 2 Timothy 2:15, the NKJV (like the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV) remove that "obsolete" word - "study"! The only time you're told to "study" your Bible. AND THEY ZAP IT! Why don't they want you to "study" your Bible? Maybe they don't want you to look too close - you might find out what they've ACTUALLY done to your Bible! The "real" KJV is the only English Bible in the world that instructs you to "study" your Bible!

 

That "obsolete" word "virtue" is replaced with "power" in Mark 5:30, Luke 6:19, 8:46! How does anybody confuse "virtue" with "power"? Simple - by being "bosom-buddies" with the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV! That's what they did!

 

One of the most absurd changes ever made is changing the word "servant" to "slave"! The NKJV in Romans 6:22, reads: "But now having been set FREE from sin, and having become SLAVES OF GOD. . ." The NKJV, in 1 Corinthians 7:22, calls the Christian, "Christ's slave". Talk about a contradiction! John 8:36 says, "If the Son therefore shall make you FREE, YE SHALL BE FREE INDEED." But isn't a Christian supposed to serve? Yes, in love. Not as a slave! Galatians 5:13 explains it, perfectly: "For, brethren, ye have been called unto LIBERTY;(not slavery!) only use not LIBERTY for an occasion to the flesh, but BY LOVE SERVE one another."

 

In order to "harmonize" with the satanic New Age Movement (and of course the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!), the NKJV changes "end of the WORLD" to "end of the AGE"! And in it's no longer the "WORLD to come" but "AGE to come". The New Age Movement teaches a series of ages (hence the name: New AGE). See Matthew 12:32, 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20, Mark 10:30, Luke 13:30, 20:34,35, 1 Cor 1:21.

 

The New Age Movement and the occult are longing for one called the Maitreya. The Bible calls him the Anti-Christ. New Ager's refer to him as the "the Coming One" - AND SO DOES THE NKJV! In Luke 7:19, 20 (see also Matt 11:3) John told his disciples to ask Jesus: "Are You THE COMING ONE. . ." In the "The Great Invocation", a "prayer" highly reverenced among New Agers and chanted to "invoke" the Maitreya, says, "Let Light and Love and Power and Death, Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One."

 

And to REALLY show their sympathy with the satanic New Age Movement - BELIEVE IT OR NOT - in Acts 17:29 the New Age NKJV changes "Godhead" to "Divine Nature"! ( ditto NIV, NASV)

 

And if you think the NKJV just "innocently" updated the "obsolete words", removed the "thee's and thou's" - here's what the translators proudly admit: "IT IS CLEAR that this revision REQUIRED more than the dropping of "-eth" endings, removing, "thee's" and "thou's," and updating obsolete words." (The New King James Version, 1982e. p. 1235)

AND THEY AIN'T JUST A KIDDIN'! [TABLE=border: 2, cellpadding: 20, cellspacing: 2]

[TR]

[TD]Here's a sampling of the required changes:[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Genesis 2:18: The NKJV ought to make Hillary Clinton proud: "And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helper COMPARABLE TO HIM"

 

Genesis 22:8: One of the greatest verses in the Bible proclaiming that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh: "God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering:" The NKJV adds that little word "for": "God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering" And destroys the wonderful promise! Where'd they get their little "for"? From the NASV!

 

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

 

Ezra 8:36: The KJV reads, "And they delivered the king's commissions unto the king's lieutenants. . ." The "much clearer" NKJV reads, "And they delivered the king's orders to the king's satraps. . ." Who in the world thinks "satraps" is "much clearer" than lieutenants? The NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV - they do! They put in the same "much clearer" word!

 

Psalms 109:6: removes "Satan". (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV).

 

Matthew 7:14: change "narrow is the way" to "difficult is the way". There's nothing "difficult" about the salvation of Jesus Christ! Jesus says in Matt. 11:30, "For my yoke is EASY, and my burden is light." THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Boy, you talk about a contradiction!

 

Matthew 12:40: change "whale" to "fish" (ditto NIV) I don't guess it matters (what's the truth got to do with it?), the Greek word used in Matthew 12:40 is ketos. The scientific study of whales just happens to be - CETOLOGY - from the Greek ketos for whale and logos for study! The scientific name for whales just happens to be - CETACEANS - from the Greek ketos for whale!

 

Matthew 18:26 & Matthew 20:20: The NKJV removes "worshipped him" (robbing worship from Jesus) (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

Mark 13:6 & Luke 21:8: removes "Christ" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

John 1:3: change "All things were made BY him;" to "All things were made THROUGH Him" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

 

John 4:24: change "God is a spirit" to the impersonal, New Age pantheistic,"God is spirit" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

John 14:2: (NKJV 1979 edition) change "mansions" to "dwelling places" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

John 14:16: change "comforter" to "helper"(refers to Holy Spirit) (NASV)

 

Acts 4:27, 30: change "holy child" to "holy servant" (refers to Jesus) (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

Acts 17:22: changes "superstitious" to "religious" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

Acts 24:14: change "heresy" to "sect" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

Romans 1:18: change "hold the truth" to "suppress the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

Romans 1:25: change "changed the truth" to "exchanged the truth" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

Romans 5:8: change "commendeth" to "demonstrates" (NIV, NASV)

 

Romans 16:18: change "good words and fair speeches" to "smooth words and flattering speech" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

 

1 Cor. 1:21: change "foolishness of preaching" to "foolishness of the message preached" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV) There's nothing foolish about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Unless you're not saved! 1 Cor. 1:18 says: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish FOOLISHNESS. . ." I wonder where that leaves the translators of the NKJV, NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV?

 

1 Cor. 1:22: change "require" to "request" (NASV)

 

1 Cor. 6:9: removes "effeminate" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

 

1 Cor. 9:27: change "castaway" to "disqualified" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

2 Cor. 2:10: change "person of Christ" to "presence of Christ" (NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

2 Cor. 2:17: With all the "corruptions" in the NKJV, you'd expect 2 Cor. 2:17 to change. IT DOES! They change, "For we not as many which CORRUPT the word of God" to "For we are not, as so many, PEDDLING the word of God" (ditto NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

2 Cor. 5:17: change "new creature" to "new creation" (NIV, NRSV, RSV)

 

2 Cor. 10:5: change "imaginations" to "arguments". Considering New Age "imaging" and "visualization" is now entering the church, this verse in the "old" KJV just won't do. (NIV, RSV)

 

2 Cor. 11:6: change "rude in speech" to "untrained in speech" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

Gal. 2:20: omit "nevertheless I live" (NIV, NASV, NRSV, RSV)

 

Phil. 2:6: (NKJV 1979e.) change "thought it not robbery to be equal with God" to "did not consider equality with God something to be grasped". (robs Jesus Christ of deity) (NIV, NASV, RSV)

 

Phil. 3:8: change "dung" to "rubbish" (NIV, NASV, NRSV)

 

1 Thess. 5:22 change "all appearance of evil" to "every form of evil" (NASV, RSV, NSRV)

 

1 Timothy 6:5: The NKJV changes "gain is godliness" to "godliness is a MEANS OF gain". There are NO Greek texts with "means of" in them! Where, oh where, did they come from? Care to take a wild guess? YOU GOT IT! The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!

 

1 Timothy 6:10: The NKJV changes "For the love of money is the root of all evil:" to "For the love of money is a root of all KINDS OF evil". The words "KINDS OF" are found in NO Greek text in the world! Where did they get them? Straight from the NIV, NASV, NRSV!

 

1 Tim. 6:20: change "science" to "knowledge" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

Titus 3:10: change "heretic" to "divisive man" (NIV)

 

Hebrews 4:8 & Acts 7:45: "Jesus" is changed to "Joshua". (NIV, NASV, RSV)

 

2 Pet. 2:1: change "damnable heresies" to "destructive heresies" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

1 John 3:16: remove "love of God"; (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

1 John 5:13: The NKJV reads: "These things I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life, and that you may CONTINUE TO believe in the name of the Son of God." They add "CONTINUE TO" without any Greek text whatsoever! Not even the perverted NIV, NASV, NRSV and RSV go that far! A cruel, subtil (see Genesis 3:1) attack on the believer's eternal security!

 

Rev. 2:13: change "Satan's seat" to "Satan's throne" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

 

Rev. 6:14: "Heaven" is changed to "sky" in (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

AND THAT DOESN'T SCRATCH THE SURFACE OF ALL THE CHANGES!

The NKJV removes the word "Lord" 66 times!

 

The NKJV removes the word God 51 times!

 

The NKJV removes the word "heaven" 50 times!

 

In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV!

 

The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

 

And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV!

And Thomas Nelson Publishers have the audacity to claim in an ad for the NKJV (Moody Monthly, June 1982, back cover), "NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED except to make the original meaning clearer."

The New King James is a COUNTERFEIT! It's NOT NEW! The changes are already in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, or RSV! And it's certainly NOT true to the 1611 King James Bible!


Friend, I want to ask you the most important question anyone will ever ask you: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN SAVED? It's simple to be saved ...
  1. Know you're a sinner.

    "As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:"
    Romans 3:10

     

    "... for there is no difference. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"
    Romans 3:23


  2. That Jesus Christ died on the cross to pay for your sins.

    "Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, ..."
    1 Peter 2:24

     

    "... Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,"
    Revelation 1:5


  3. And the best way you know how, simply trust Him, and Him alone as your personal Savior.

    "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."
    John 3:16


[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[ATTACH=JSON]{"data-align":"none","data-size":"full","data-attachmentid":39952}[/ATTACH]

 

Oh gosh, the NKJV contains the same abstract design as a pagan book. Isn't that really something?

 

Maybe the KJV should be condemned for being printed on dried out wood pulp, just like the pagan book.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Two NKJV Bibles -- was just looking at those pages in mine -- And one is a Thomas Nelson Publishing -- NO symbol of that kind. The one has a cross with NB in the middle of it -- the other has No symbol at all. The one is brand new --an empty cross on the front and No symbols inside. The other one is a bunch older.

 

No clue as to where you got your info from.

 

I should have started this post with

@ post #38 to start with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Calvarystudy -- You have a Big problem. That's All I'm going to say. referring to your next Long post #39 --- do you Really think that Anyone is going to take your last comments regarding salvation Seriously -- If they even get that far in your post? You are simply sounding So Totally .........and That is sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Calvarystudy you must do a better job with your posts. You need to fix them, clean up the formatting, change the fonts when needed, and pay attention to font size. They are a mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"It is impossible to know where a text originated. There are two broad STYLES of texts. "

 

No, it is NOT impossible.

 

And, no, there are not two STYLES, there are two SOURCES.

Prove it.

Pick ANY ancient (pre-1400) manuscript that you like and offer some evidence of when, where or by whom it was written.

 

Wherever there were Christians, they were being persecuted for the first few centuries and frantically copying manuscripts before they could be destroyed. So manuscripts were copied in every town that had Christians across the Roman Empire and beyond. Most of the early Greek manuscripts come from the East because the Western Roman Empire shifted to Latin and began producing Latin manuscripts, while the Eastern Empire continued to use Greek. The manuscripts abruptly stop being made in many areas due to a little thing called the rise of Islam that wiped out Christians in many areas.

 

However, I welcome your evidence to prove me wrong. Show me how you think the exact location a book, or fragment of a book, copied by a murdered Christian can be determined.

 

Since there are over 5000 manuscripts, I have no idea what you mean by "there are two SOURCES". There are over 5000 sources.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am glad you find this topic humorous. I find it very sad.

You forgot to answer the question.

Do you believe the KJV is the only inspired/correct translation?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You forgot to answer the question.

Do you believe the KJV is the only inspired/correct translation?

 

 

I believe the KJV is the most accurate translation of the CORRECT manuscripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove it.

Pick ANY ancient (pre-1400) manuscript that you like and offer some evidence of when, where or by whom it was written.

 

Wherever there were Christians, they were being persecuted for the first few centuries and frantically copying manuscripts before they could be destroyed. So manuscripts were copied in every town that had Christians across the Roman Empire and beyond. Most of the early Greek manuscripts come from the East because the Western Roman Empire shifted to Latin and began producing Latin manuscripts, while the Eastern Empire continued to use Greek. The manuscripts abruptly stop being made in many areas due to a little thing called the rise of Islam that wiped out Christians in many areas.

 

However, I welcome your evidence to prove me wrong. Show me how you think the exact location a book, or fragment of a book, copied by a murdered Christian can be determined.

 

Since there are over 5000 manuscripts, I have no idea what you mean by "there are two SOURCES". There are over 5000 sources.

 

"Since there are over 5000 manuscripts"

 

WHICH manuscripts? From antioch? From alexandria?

 

I have posted a graphic showing the "family tree" of most translations. I will not repeat it.

 

Question. Can you please quote John 3:16 and Matthew 6:9-13 from your preferred translation, my friend?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You have a Big problem. That's All I'm going to say

 

And yet you then carry on.

 

Yes, in your eyes and many here i DO have a problem. Nothing new there.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
by Terry Watkins

 

[From Encyclopedia of American Loons]:

 

If you think Jack Chick is on the crazy side, you may not be familiar with the glorious antics of Dial-the-truth ministries, run by Terry Watkins. No, seriously; this is pretty much as insane as the Internet gets. The organization started up in 1990 as a telephone ministry with “inspirational” recorded messages (mostly incoherent hatred) for the caller. The organization, based in Pinson, Alabama, is notable for their King James Onlyism, and possibly most famous for their hardline stance on rock music – it’s evil, pure and simple (“tools of Satan”), and due to the Biblical instruction “Be ye not unequally yoked with unbelievers" (II Corinthians 6:14), that verdict applies to Christian rock as much as mainstream rock (look at that webdesign! You can’t but take them seriously). Less surprisingly, the site criticizes Britney Spears as a “whorish woman” who provokes “youthful lusts” and parents who allow their children to listen to the Spice Girls as “co-conspirators in this cultural rape of their daughters.” No, they don’t really keep up with the “developments” in pop music, but I suppose that’s heartily unnecessary for their message. Lyndon Larouche associate Donald Phau’s classic The Satanic Roots of Rock makes an appearance on their site as well.

 

Interestingly, they also believe that Hell is a physical place. No, it’s not just a place, but geographically located down there, in the core of the Earth. One of Satan’s forms on Earth is Santa (I suppose even a kid should be able to figure out that anagram). He uses that form because he preys on the weak, such as children … and others – Watkins draws our attention to “The great German Reformer, Martin Luther writ[ing] in his Table Talks: ‘The devil plagues and torments us in the place where we are most tender and weak. In Paradise, he fell not upon Adam, but upon Eve’.” Watkins actually claims to prove that Santa is Satan. And yes, the proof is in that anagram (anagrams are heathen word magic). But Watkins somehow manages to make the argument even sillier than it initially sounds: “An internet Google search on ‘Satan Claus’ [not Santa Claus – but SATAN Claus] found over 1,700 hits!” Can’t argue with that. In fairness, he provides references. To Constance Cumbey and Texe Marrs, Madame Blavatsky and Gail Riplinger. And to clinch it, “s ‘Claus’ another anagram for ‘Lucas’? It’s no secret ‘Lucas’ and ‘Lucis’ is a new-age ‘code word’ for ‘Lucifer’” (actually, it’s the real name of the Evangelist Luke, but that fact doesn’t fit so we disregard it.) And, not content with these observations, he also pulls the Jack Skellington inference “‘Claus’ sounds a lot like ‘claws’.” You can’t top this. Actually, Watkins does arguably top this. I strongly recommend you to check out the article yourself. And don’t get him started on Halloween.

 

(One interesting detail is that Watkins swallows whole everything ever written by Silver Ravenwolf or any other New Age witch – not a critical question asked – and then takes it as proof of the workings of Satan.)

 

He didn’t like the Da Vinci code, either (“the most blatant mainstream attack on the Lord Jesus Christ in modern times! Nothing comes close”), nor Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. Both verdicts are by all means understandable, but you sort of get the feeling that to Watkins hatred is a default reaction. I am unfamiliar with the movie “Saved!” but according to Watkins it is “[o]ne of the most hateful and blatant attacks on Bible Believing Christians […] This is beyond belief!”

 

Dial-the-Truth Ministries has also written engagingly on the purported link between the number “11”, 9/11, and – you guessed it – the Endtimes (at least the end of “America the great” – just look at the Muslim atheist in the White House). You really have to check it out, and no – it’s not a Poe. The article on Hurricane Katrina is not without its moments either. And here he tackles environmentalism, pointing out the “scientific ignorance” of environmentalism and urging us to pollute as much as possible, since there is plenty of evidence that this is what Jesus would have done. At least he admits that the goal is, indeed, to destroy the world, and that this is the main reason why environmentalism is unchristian.

 

He also has a nice, elegant little proof of the historical accuracy of the death and resurrection of Jesus. The only premise you have to commit to is the literal accuracy of the Bible.

 

Diagnosis: Absolutely hysterical, in every sense. Though an abysmally unappealing character, the world would have been much the poorer without Terry Watkins.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Oh gosh, the NKJV contains the same abstract design as a pagan book. Isn't that really something?

 

Maybe the KJV should be condemned for being printed on dried out wood pulp, just like the pagan book.

 

The fact that you do not care that your translation of the Bible has a satanic symbol on it shows and proves a lot.

 

In love, you must be born again, my friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
Articles - News - Privacy Policy