Modern versions eschew mention of devils or demons

Another interesting example of how the modern versions can mislead. In a discussion about whether demons are real my opponent insisted I was making it all up because the Bible doesn't even talk about demons as I do.

Nowhere in the bible does it say that demons were worshiped as gods. All it says is that it is idolatrous, is a sin, and you shouldn't therefore do it. You would think that if what you say is true, all the writers of the bible referencing pagan idolatry would expose the true source [demons], but they don't.

So I produced the following list of scriptures in support of my contention:

De 32:17
They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new gods that came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

2Ch 11:15
And he ordained him priests for the high places, and for the devils, and for the calves which he had made.

Ps 106:37
Yea, they sacrificed their sons and their daughters unto devils,

Eze 16:36
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thy filthiness was poured out, and thy nakedness discovered through thy whoredoms with thy lovers, and with all the idols of thy abominations, and by the blood of thy children, which thou didst give unto them;

1Co 10:20
But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

Re 9:20
And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils ...

1Ch 16:26
For all the gods of the people are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

Ps 96:5
For all the gods of the nations are idols: but the LORD made the heavens.

He doesn't say which Bible he has but he answered:

Every verse you cited in my bible is listed as god (lowercase) or idols, as in false gods, which are synonymous with idolatry. What translation are you using that uses the word "devils?"

Now, one COULD answer him, and I did, that the context could still tell you that the "gods" and "idols" are in fact spiritual entities, but I can see how if you have the modern prejudice against such beings you could avoid the idea.

So, once again Ye Olde King James gives clarity where the modern versions obscure. I wonder why the new versions might not want people believing in devils or demons?

The Sadness & some thoughts about how it happened

An awful lot of good people really do believe that the manuscripts underlying the King James are "inferior." This is said by many very good preachers but I recently heard it quite flatly declared on the radio and it's still sort of ringing in my ears -- and sitting like lead at the bottom of my stomach.

It saddens me along with everything else that saddens me these days. The Marxification/Communization of America in the name of health care that was forced on us over the weekend was already quite a blow.

The whole world is being turned inside out it seems to me, from truth to lie, to false propaganda, more than ever lately, and more angrily too. And unfortunately the church is not exempt. Of course the Lord's people can never lose the truth that matters most, but still, there are other truths that ought not be compromised either.

When I hear a good preacher quote from one of the new versions it usually grates on me harshly and that happens quite frequently if I listen to preaching on the radio or the internet.

I gloomily ruminate over how on earth America got seduced by the most unAmerican creed imaginable and I can do the same over how the churches, even many of the best of the churches, ever got seduced by the bogus claims for a couple of previously rejected Bible manuscripts that enraptured the rationalist/liberal Christians in the 19th century. The devil knows his magic, knows how to weave a spell.

I can always start explaining it all by focusing on the errors of those on the right side of the issue, and there's no doubt this is a big part of it. I'm not going to analyze the American political situation here although I think the principle applies there too, but it certainly applies to the Bible versions issue. That is, among those who rightly choose the KJV over all the modern versions are unfortunately quite a few who do it for the wrong reasons and with a very wrong attitude and often some pretty objectionable tactics.

I'm sure that has had an influence, but it can't really be made the ultimate reason for this lamentable situation. Somehow otherwise spiritually alert men were deceived by the claims for the new versions and became in turn trusted authorities others could appeal to, and these men lead in the seminaries, and while this may be an overstatement I suspect there's never been a point in this history where a shaft of light penetrated the rote repetition of the party line.

Such worthies as J. Gresham Machen (and I think also B B Warfield) have contributed to this state of affairs. Many of the best preachers are perpetuating it today.

I wanted to get more deeply into this subject but I have to admit I just don't have it in me right now, so I'll leave it as is until whenever.

Speaking of the fringey KJV-onlies, Gail Riplinger ...

...who DID do a good job on the Bible versions problem early on in spite of her tendency to get into the fringey stuff -- has really gone over the top lately in a dispute with Dr. D. A. Waite and his wife and son. The Waites are also KJV-only defenders, who do believe it doesn't need improvement but don't believe that it was inspired by God as it is only a man-made translation.

They and Mrs. Riplinger had had a cordial friendship until they felt obliged to check up on the persistent rumor, denied flatly by her, that she had been married three times and divorced twice. At first they believed her denial but then got proof from state records that the rumors were true and confronted her.

Even after being shown the evidence she continued to deny it, claiming the first two weren't true marriages. (If that were so, why did she need a divorce? -- an annulment is what you get when a marriage isn't really a marriage.) Besides that, she launched a lawsuit against the Waites and wrote a 61-page diatribe against them and their position on the King James Bible, which isn't radical enough for her.

I may put up some links eventually but the Waites' website is Bible for Today. They also have The Dean Burgon Society.

I do lose it in this argument sometimes. Thanks a lot, KJV-only extremists, for making this so difficult.

It does get frustrating arguing with people who don't pay attention to what I'm saying, but keep insisting on lumping me with the KJV-onlies. Granted, there are subtleties to this argument and people are used to the way it's generally misrepresented as a war between the KJV-onlies and Reason, but I do knock myself out trying to show that this is a straw man and STILL people don't get it. I'm referring now to another flap I just had elsewhere in cyberspace. Perhaps I need to preface every statement with a banner headline that says something like

I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FRINGE KJV-ONLIES SUCH AS RIPLINGER AND RUCKMAN. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THE KING JAMES OR THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARE INSPIRED OF GOD.

THIS IS NOT EVEN REALLY ABOUT THE KING JAMES, IT'S ABOUT WHAT WAS DONE TO THE BIBLE BACK IN 1881 THAT SPEWED INTO THE 20th AND 21st CENTURIES BIBLES BASED ON CORRUPTED GREEK TEXTS AND COMPROMISED BY THOUSANDS OF STUPID ENGLISH CHANGES AND MISREADINGS ALTHOUGH THE CHURCHES AND SEMINARIES UNFORTUNATELY THINK THEY'RE ALL LEGITIMATE.

Of course that won't do it either. Good grief.

I CAREFULLY distance myself from the KJV-onlies and IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. Man, people can't read!

Here's what I just got:

... many who believe in KJV onlyism are cultists, not all but many. The fact that it has it was spawned by a Seventh Day Adventist should give one pause.

But this is irrelevant. I'M NOT A KJV-ONLY AND I REJECT THEIR ARGUMENTS.

From Hip and Thigh blog:

A definition of King James Onlyism in three sentences or less.

WHY DO WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT KJV-ONLYISM WHEN I'M NOT ARGUING FOR KJV-ONLYISM AND HAVE SPECIFICALLY ARGUED AGAINST IT?

The aberrant belief that the King James Bible, first published in 1611, is the only reliable language translation which adequately conveys God's written revelation.

Any language translation prior to and after the publication of the KJV 1611 is either insufficiently translated or is translated from original language manuscripts alleged to have been intentionally corrupted by heretical individuals.

Moreover, any revision of the KJV 1611 text by either updating the English language and re-translating verses and passages for the sake of accuracy and clarity is viewed as corrupting God's Word and in some cases, introducing error into the Bible.

I just hate how this discussion so easily becomes about the crazy KJV-onlies instead of about what it SHOULD be about, the horrific mutilation of the Bible that Westcott and Hort did in 1881. THIS IS PROVEN BY DEAN BURGON'S LABORIOUS STUDY OF THE TEXTS AND THE 1881 REVISION -- it is PROVEN, not merely "alleged."

KJV-onlies may agree with that but they ALSO think the KJV is some sort of God-inspired text which is ridiculous. You'd think if nobody argues from a KJV-only point of view we'd be spared this kind of stupidity, but I guess there's no way to be spared it.

The devil sure knew what he was doing on this one, getting the church to think all these bogus Bibles are legit AND getting those who know they aren't legit smeared with the fringe arguments.

========
Here are some links to the usual stuff that came up in the dispute:

Hank Hanegraaff's argument:

This King James Version would likely have remained preeminent among English Bible translations if it were not for three principle factors: the evolution of language, ...

The King James needed an updating in the 19th century and that's what the committee of which Westcott and Hort were a part was supposed to do, but instead they substituted corrupted Greek texts and 36,000 unnecessary and often stupid changes in the English in violation of their agreement. Their contemporary and superior textual scholar, Dean Burgon, is the best source of understanding of what they did to the Bible.

...progress in knowledge and understanding of original biblical languages,...

There have been some improvements but nothing to the extent implied here, mostly in minor things like the names of some animals, and the KJV translators were arguably more expert in the original languages than anyone since them. Burgon referred to Westcott and Hort's Greek as "schoolboy" level at one point. The KJV DID need some improvements, but this is no argument in favor of the destruction produced by the Westcott and Hort committee.

...and the discovery of earlier and better manuscripts....

This is what I've been arguing against all along. Those "earlier and better" manuscripts are "earlier" only in the sense that they were found intact -- in dark corners, even a wastebasket -- after some 1500 to 1600 years, which is more likely evidence that they were rejected by the churches than that they represent the earliest form of the Bible. Burgon argues that they were known in his day to have been corrupted by heretical cults in the 2nd century, and he spends much of his writing proving it -- proving especially that the readings in the KJV are found in the earliest writings of the church and therefore are the authentic ones. Unfortunately nobody hears about Burgon's arguments any more so the seminaries and churches go on believing in the false "earliest and best" description of those corrupted manuscripts.

And here's James White with the usual obfuscating red herring argument:

King James Version Only advocates argue that all modern translations of the New Testament are based on Greek manuscripts that contain intentional doctrinal corruptions. However, an examination of the most important manuscripts underlying these translations demonstrates that such charges are based more upon prejudice than fact. The papyri finds of the last century, together with the great uncial texts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D., do not deprecate the deity of Christ, the Trinity, or salvation by grace through faith. Modern translations, such as the NIV and NASB, are not "corrupt" but instead trustworthy and useful translations of the Word of God.

This is typical garbage. They examine the corrupted texts to see if there's still SOME testimony to the gospel left in them, and finding that there is enough according to their lights, they completely ignore the fact that a great deal of it WAS removed in the early centuries and THIS CAN BE PROVED AND WAS PROVED BY DEAN BURGON. I document these things at my blog when I get the time.

It's OK by them if we no longer have lots of references to the deity of Christ or to such supernatural events as in the last twelve verses of Mark, or various other odd missing parts of the corrupted manuscripts? Shouldn't we want the CORRECT manuscripts with ALL the wording intact? The woman taken in adultery is not in the corrupted manuscripts for instance. Some modern versions stick it in anyway although their "better" manuscripts don't have it. There's something really rotten about all this manipulating that's going on.

And this doesn't even touch on the changes in the English that change the MEANING of what is still left of the UNcorrupted Greek.
=======

A list of those and other links for possible future reference:

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-versions-part-one-

http://www.equip.org/articles/bible-versions-part-two-

http://www.equip.org/articles/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt-

http://www.amazon.com/review/R3F0U86BWBUP5

John 5:4 The Angel's Stirring of the Pool of Bethesda

I was just listening to a sermon by John Piper at Sermon Audio, and found him repeating the familiar falsehood about the supposed superiority of the Greek texts on which most of the newer Bible translations are based. (This starts at about 6:25 on the counter and goes to about 10 if you are listening to it.)

In this case it's in relation to the omission of John 5:4 from some of these newer translations, the NIV, ESV and the NASB being some he lists. I looked at Blue Letter Bible for the different versions on this verse and the version of the NASB they use appears to have it, at least in brackets.*

The main point is that John Piper accepts the received wisdom of the modern scholars and declares that it's RIGHT to omit John 5:4, saying

"verse four... is omitted intentionally and I think rightly, because it is missing in the oldest and best Greek manuscripts."

He then goes on to discuss a bit of text criticism, gives a speculation as to why verse 4 might have later been added (to make sense of verse 7), says it may be in fact the truth but if it's omitted from the best manuscripts we can't rightly include it, etc.

There's one excellent proof that omitting the verse is wrong:

TERTULLIAN, WRITING ABOUT 198 A.D. REFERS TO THE ANGEL'S STIRRING THE WATERS:

"An angel, by his intervention, used to stir the pool at Bethesda. Those who were complaining of poor health used to watch for him.... 3.169. --in David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, p. 67

J W Burgon discusses this passage as well, commenting that

"The troubling of the pool of Bethesda is not even allowed a bracketed place in Dr. Hort's Text [made up of those "oldest and best" Greek texts]. How the accomplished Critic would have set about persuading the Ante-Nicene Fathers that they were in error for holding it to be genuine Scripture, it is hard to imagine."

If someone writing in the 2nd century, who would have had access to many of the Bible manuscripts available at the time, refers to this passage, we can be sure it came from a manuscript taken to be authentic scripture, showing that the supposed "earliest and best" manuscripts were NOT the Alexandrian texts preferred by Westcott and Hort and used in all the modern Bibles, but the very Byzantine type texts, even the Textus Receptus, that the KJV was based on, that the modern scholars despise.

So once again we have evidence that FALSE BIBLES, first foisted on us by the FALSE TEACHERS Westcott and Hort, have poisoned the pulpits of the English-speaking world (and all the rest of the world that follows the same false texts) and the poison is defended by some of the best preachers.

==========================================

* Here I want to object to the NASB's choice of wording. Why do we need to be afflicted with such a phrasing as "...made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted" when the KJV's is so much more direct: "...made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Pompous language, blech! Here's the comparison of the whole verse:

KJV: For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

NASB:...for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.

But that's a side issue. Just another way the newer translations are inferior.

Does Isaiah 14:12 show that Lucifer is Satan?

Textual Critic Daniel Wallace has a blog entry about a popular You Tube video that purports to show from the Hebrew that Obama is the Antichrist. I watched the video but it doesn't really interest me much and Wallace shows that it manipulates facts to make its point (I'd noticed some time ago that "barak" means "lightning" in Hebrew which I thought was interesting anyway). Obama is certainly AN Antichrist, as I've noted here already, but we're waiting for THE Antichrist to be revealed, some time in the not so distant future I expect. Christians will recognize him then, when he is revealed.

2Th 2:3 ¶ Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

But in discussing this video Wallace comments on one vexed verse in the Bible versions controversy:

Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

Wallace says:

Is Isaiah really the source for the Christian view of Satan? It may contribute to our understanding, but even that is disputed. The one passage that may speak about Satan is indeed Isa 14. But part of the reason for this being so interpreted is due to the influence of the KJV. At v. 12 the King James says, “O Lucifer, son of the morning!” The word lucifer, however, is simply a transliteration of the Latin Vulgate at this point. It is not another name for Satan.

Is this a mistake or merely an overemphasis on the influence of the KJV? Origen, who lived nearly two centuries before the translation of the Latin Vulgate, thought it was another name for Satan, and he didn't have the Vulgate or the King James English Bible, but a Greek Bible -- the Septuagint. Origen reads the passage rather differently than Westcott and Hort did (who are of course responsible for the new readings), understanding it to say the same as Jerome had it say in the Vulgate about the identity of Satan with Lucifer, and yet Jerome translated from the Hebrew text while Origen had the Septuagint:

"Concerning another opposing power, we are taught the following by the prophet Isaiah: The prophet says, 'How is Lucifer, who used to arise in the morning, fallen from heaven!' ... Most evidently by these words a being is shown to have fallen from heaven -- he who formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if he originally had a nature of darkness (as some think), how is it said that Lucifer existed this way before? Or how could he arise in the morning -- if he had in himself nothing of the light? Nay, even the Savior Himself teaches us, saying of the devil, 'Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like lightning.' For at one time he was light." --Origen, c. 225, 4.259. (From David Bercot's Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, p. 410)

Wallace goes on:

The Hebrew word, helel means ‘morning star’ or ‘shining one.’ Most modern translations (the NKJV is the only exception I found of the translations I checked) do not translate helel as Lucifer; rather they have ‘shining one,’ ‘day star,’ ‘morning star,’ etc. (cf., e.g., NET, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, TEV, REB, NIV, TNIV, NAB, NJB, HCSB). Of course, there are still excellent scholars who believe that Isa 14 is ultimately a reference to Satan, though in the historical context it was directed at the Babylonian king.

Even Origen thought it was a reference to Satan, and he couldn't have been influenced by the King James Bible.

Odd that so many of the modern Bible versions prefer to blur this identity that is recognized as far back as Origen. Is it an intentional blurring or just another of Westcott and Hort's stupid blunders? The result is the same in any case: the equation IS blurred in the Bibles that derive from their work.

There is still the disturbing fact that "morning star" is part of Lucifer's title or name, and emphasized in the modern Bible versions, although Jesus Christ claims this title to Himself:

Re 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I may come back with some thoughts about this later.

End Times Prophecy site on how the Bible versions have crippled and disunified the church

I just found this site and so far I like it. He calls himself Word Weaver and his site is End Times Prophecy dot net. I haven't read much there yet but he has a good discussion of the Book of Enoch, as well as the text of the book itself, a book that has information that may be of much use to us in the very end days; and he's also KJV-only and has some good things to say about that:

from Part 2:
In short, what Satan started several thousands of years ago,
he has continued to do to our very day, albeit in a slightly
different form. Back then, he had his false scribes create
many different imitation scrolls, in order to confuse the
potential believers. To the untrained eye, to those who had
not been trained directly by Christ, or perhaps by one of
His Apostles, or maybe by one of their immediate Disciples,
it would be difficult to notice the difference between the
Divinely Inspired scrolls, and the false ones. Physically
speaking, they would all look about the same. Not only that,
but a cunning deceiver would gradually introduce changes to
the original text, as changing too much of the text at once
would certainly be too obvious, and would draw a lot of
attention to what was really being committed in the name of
truth. But over a period of time, these small, unnoticed
changes, a few words omitted or changed here, an extra
phrase added there, would result in an entirely new doctrine;
a false doctrine, and a false gospel, which was a perversion
of the original.

Thus, the corruptors did their dirty work, just as they are
doing in our current time as well; and that is why we have
so many different versions of the Bible today. As I point
out in such articles as "Have You Read The New Scriptures
Yet?", as well as in part two of "A Biblical Cafeteria Or
The Whole Course?", this deceptive work was not left to the
Jews alone. Only a few hundred years after Christ, when true
Christianity moved out of the coliseums of Rome, and into
the grandstands, and became a popular religion, others, such
as those people who would eventually become the founding
fathers of the Roman Catholic Church, also got into the act,
in order to promote their own agendas; the purpose of which
was to consolidate both their power and their wealth; even
if it was at the expense of doctrinal purity; which it most
certainly was, and has been.

Yes, our modern Bibles may all look the same on the outside, just as a lot of those old scrolls are similar in appearance as well; but hidden within their thin onion skin pages, they contain many subtle changes which have been slowly made over time; a little change here, a little change there; a little deception here, and a little deception there. As noted a moment ago, on its own, one small change may not appear to be very significant, but collectively, when one considers all of the changes which have been made in a particular new
version, then the truth becomes rather alarming! Someone has intentionally perverted the true Gospel of Jesus Christ!

For this reason then, in our current day, it requires a lot of spiritual discernment, in order to really know what is of Divine Inspiration. Sadly, this Gift of the Spirit is sorely lacking within modern Christianity, as the myriad of Bibles and confusing doctrines attests. It should now be very clear to you what Satan's secret weapon has been. It may very well be that black or red leather or vinyl bound book which is inscribed with the words "Holy Bible"! Is it the real thing; or is it a modern "designer version", designed to trick and deceive you into believing things which are not Scripturally sound, and to destroy the sure foundation of your faith? In the next installment of this series, I will be offering an interesting parallel, which will emphasize how Satan has stripped us of our most valuable weapon, and replaced it with an inferior product.

In addition, I will also begin to offer my explanations as
to why I choose to use the beloved, and time-tested, KJV
Bible. This will include the discussion of such topics as
God's Sword of division or plastic swords, weak shepherds,
ecumenism and the Dalai Lama, the human family or the Lord's
family, children by adoption, one true Gospel and one common
Bible version, constitutions Bibles and hymnals, spiritual
anarchy, hundreds of counterfeits, doctrinal unity through
one version, Elizabethan English and foreign languages,
perverted American English, America's evil children, the
readability of the KJV Bible, my young daughter's example,
parental responsibility, "Baby Hueys", spiritual divorce,
evilness of television and spiritual mountaineers. I trust
that you will join me.

From Part 3:
We can no more use more than one valid English translation
of the Bible, than a congress or parliament can rely upon
more than one valid constitution to write the laws for its
country. Such a body would rarely agree upon anything due to
so many different interpretations of the law being used by
that body; and that country would soon fall into total
anarchy and confusion; and eventually be overrun by its
enemies. Or consider if you were at a sports event, and just
before it was about to begin, everyone stood up to sing your
national anthem. Suddenly, the arena is filled with the
ugliest sound you ever did hear, as twenty thousand people
started singing different versions of the same song, because
some people got the bright idea that they didn't like a few
words, so they decided to change them; or maybe they felt
the tune needed to be modernized a little to fit the time
period, so they changed just a few notes, and increased the
tempo. After all, changing just a few words, or a few notes,
won't make that much of a difference, will it? It's still
the same song isn't it?

EXACTLY! The church is crippled by this use of different versions but so many seem oblivious to this fact.

It reminds me of some of these upbeat, modern versions of traditional Christian hymns. How
disgusting! They have violated the sanctity of the songs, and made them absolutely worldly!

From another perspective, for those of you who are church-
goers, or who attend some form of fellowship, wouldn't it be
rather odd, and cause a great deal of confusion, if your
priest, pastor, minister or shepherd asked his congregation
to turn to a certain verse in the Bible, and to read it
aloud in unison; and all of a sudden, to everyone's great
surprise, the church or fellowship was filled with absolute
confusion as everyone tried to read the same verse from
twenty different versions of the Bible? Or what if your
chorus leader, or inspiration leader, said, "Okay, everyone,
please turn in your hymnals to hymn number fifty". So
everyone obediently turns to hymn number fifty in their
particular hymnal, and again the church or fellowship is
filled with absolute confusion, because everyone is using a
different version of the hymnal book.

WHY ISN'T THIS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM TO CHRISTIANS? IT HAS ALWAYS DEPRESSED ME WHEN SOMEONE READS FROM A DIFFERENT VERSION THAN THE ONE I HAVE, AND NOW IT DEPRESSES ME WHEN THEY READ FROM ANY OF THE MODERN CORRUPTIONS AT ALL.