Much of the New Age
plot behind the “modern versions” of the Bible is accomplished through either omitting or changing God’s use of phrases and words—including the connotations of words—to make verses support Satan’s cause.
One of hundreds of
great examples is the change of the word “devils” to “demons” in the New King James Version, along
with the other corrupt bibles published since the King James Bible.
In Webster’s dictionary, “demon” is defined as “a tutelary divinity,” while the word “devil” comes with the explanation, “In Jewish and Christian theology, the
personal supreme spirit of evil and unrighteousness.”
Madame H.P.
Blavatsky, founder of the Theosophical Society and recognized as “the mother of the New Age Movement,” once wrote:
“[T]he Church is wrong in calling them Devils. . .[T]he word
demon however, as in the case of Socrates, and in the spirit of meaning given
to it by the whole of antiquity, stand[s] for the Guardian Spirit or Angel not
a Devil of Satanic descent as Theology would have it. . . Demons is a very
loose word to use, as it applies to. . . minor Gods;. . .there are no devils.”
Indeed, in The
Theosophical Dictionary, demon is said to have “a meaning identical with that of ‘god’, ‘angel’ or ‘genius’. Under the word “demon” in The Encyclopedia of Occultism
& Parapsychology, Socrates is quoted as saying, “[A] voice has been heard by me
throughout my life. . . I call it a God or a daemon.”
*****
To the Greeks, the
word “daemon” meant “demigod” and Socrates taught that a daemon was
a “spiritual something that put him on the road to wisdom.”
In her 1993 expose
book, New Age Bible Versions, author Gail Riplinger writes, “All of the world’s religions, except biblical
Christianity and Judaism, believe that those entities which the bible calls
evil spirits are demigods, worthy of veneration or placation.
“In the West, New Agers are told that Nathaniel Hawthorne, ‘ascribe[s] some measure of importance
and success to his prompt obedience to the wise Daemon’s direction.’ Eastward, Buddhists tell of ‘good demons,’ mosri sho shu and mischievous
demons, nushi sho shu. . .
“By switching to the globally acceptable ‘demons’, new ‘International’ versions follow their admitted
philosophy of choosing words which ‘allow each reader to decide for himself’ what a verse means. God, however, has
already decided. . .
“(New Testament) Greek dabblers may jump to the floor with
reference to the Greek’s use of both diabolos and daemonium to refer
to Satan and the devils, respectively. Any objection to translating two
different Greek words as one English word fails disastrously since new version
editors themselves translate two different Hebrew words, shed and sair,
as one word ‘demon’.
“Scholars who live in glass houses should refrain from
throwing ‘original language’ stones, particularly when their house
of cards appears to have been designed by a New Age architect.”
*****
Some years back a man from our church
who was raised Catholic had to arrange a funeral for a parent to be held at the
family’s long-time Chicago parish. After pleading with the priest to let him
include a Scripture reading during the service, the son was told, “Okay, you
can read a passage, but it must be from a Bible version other than the King
James.”
Relaying this anecdote during a
Sunday morning sermon, Jordan reasoned, “Well, there’s a
man who believes what his church teaches! As I’ve said over and over, the King
James Bible is the Protestant Reformation text of Scripture and every ‘modern
version’ on the market today is really a Roman Catholic bible.”
What many Bible-believing Christians are either ignorant of or refuse to accept is the fact that the New Age and Roman Catholic agendas are intricately intertwined, and the corruptions that abound in the “modern bible versions” are Catholic-New Age in origin, coming from a small handful of polluted Alexandrian/Catholic manuscripts that were then further perverted by revisionists with New-Age motives.
“Since both the Catholic and ‘New’
Protestant bibles are now based on the identical critical Greek text (United
Bible Society/Nestle’s,) which are based on the same 1% minority Greek
Manuscripts (Vaticanus, B), the Catholic doctrinal bend in the NIV and NASB and
other ‘New’ bibles is substantial,” writes Gail Riplinger in her 650-page
exhaustive expose book from 1993, New Age Bible Versions, a must-read
for understanding today’s New Age-submerged culture.
“Hand-in-hand, Catholics and unwary
Protestants, with their Gnostic Vatican manuscript under their arm, are being
steered into the waiting arms of the one world church of the Antichrist.
“Dean Stanley, a member of one of
these corrupt translation committees, applauds this subtle work of the new
versions in preparing for ‘amalgamation’: ‘The revision work is of the utmost
importance . . . in its indirect effect upon a closer union of the different
denominations.’ ”
*****
As Riplinger thoroughly documents in
her book, Alexandria, Egypt (the source of the corrupt manuscripts) represents
the taproot for the New Age philosophy of which B. F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort
(the two men who led the 1871-1881 English Revision Committee to “correct” the
Traditional Greek text), along with their compatriot H.P. Blavatsky of the
Theosophical Society, were its 19th Century proponents.
“The western roots of the New World
Religion of the false prophet can be found in the philosophies of Egypt, Greece
and Rome,” writes Riplinger. “The esoteric meanderings of philosophers such
as Saccas, Philo and Origen spring from Egypt into the books of today’s New
Agers. The Greek philosophies of Plato provide the perfect broth for
blending East and West in the New Age caldron. Moving further north yet, the
Rome of Constantine and Eusebius, with their merger of Christianity and
paganism, cradled the infantile crossbreed which today is Satan’s seasoned
scarlet woman. (Rev. 18)
“Looking down into this poisoned
well of the past reveals: 1.) the reservoir of ‘ideas’ spawning much of the
‘New’ Age and 2.) the course of contamination found in the ‘New’ versions.”
*****
Bible revisionist Westcott actually
boasts in one of his writings, “Alexandria was a meeting place of east and
west. . . [I]deas were discussed, exchanged and combined. When the east and
west enter a true union then the canon [New Testament] is found perfect.”
Riplinger writes, “Westcott is not
alone among new version editors who seek the union of ‘east and west.’ Phillip
Schaff (‘New’ Greek Text, ASV and its offshoots the NASV and Living Bible)
helped organize the ‘World Religion Parliament’. Its keynote speaker, a Hindu
named Vivekananda told attendees, ‘The East must come to the West.’
As for Hort, the other 1881 revision
committee leader, he disclosed in personal letters his penchant for Philo,
writing in one particular missive, “I’m glad you are working on Philo’s
psychology . . . I lay on the sofa and read. . . Clement. . .wrote a piece
of Introduction to the text (his ‘New’ Greek text to replace the King James). .
.took my manuscript book. . .and references from Philo. . . dinner came. .
.then a good piece of Shakespeare. . . more Introduction. . . a little Philo at
night and some Bible.”
Philo, Riplinger informs, advanced the idea that scriptures “held an occult or hidden meaning,” bringing about a “philosophical ideology by coalescing the Old Testament (for which he ‘expressed contempt for the literal narrative’) and the Greek philosophies of the Stoics and Heraclitus.”
She writes, “While Philo was
influencing Hort’s work on his ‘New’ Greek New Testament Text, Madame Blavatsky
was penning quotes from Philo in her occult tome, The Secret Doctrine.
There she cites Philo to explain her odd beliefs, like ‘Satan is a God, of who
even the Lord is in fear.’ In her Theosophical Glossary, she states that
Philo, ‘. . . was a great mystic and . . . in esoteric knowledge he had no
rival.’
“Not only did Philo’s philosophy
influence the revisers of the ‘New’ Greek, but his own codex was used to
alter the NIV in Luke 1:78. Papyri #4 was discovered in the binding of a
codex of Philo’s. Needless to say, this was not a ‘repository’ of truth.
"In
Luke 1:78 his papyrus reads, he ‘will come to us.’ It uses a future tense verb,
rather than he ‘hath visited’ us, the reading seen in the Majority Greek Text
and consequently the KJV. This denial that Christ has come in the flesh is
the mark of antichrist as described in I John 4:2.”
*****
A great verse to use with those who
will argue that the New King James Version is just as much God’s Word as the
King James, only easier to read and comprehend, is Galatians 2:7.
In the King James, the verse reads,
“But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was
committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter.”
The New King James Version (ala
Westcott and Hort) “corrects” the verse to read: “But on the contrary, when
they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the
gospel for the circumcised was to Peter.”
As Jordan explains, “Paul makes
clear in Romans 11:11-15 that ‘through the fall of Israel salvation has come to
the Gentiles’; that now it makes NO difference who you are. He says, ‘In Jesus
Christ neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,’ if you look
at his argument in Galatians 5:6.
“Well, if circumcision has no power
to produce any positive benefit for you, and uncircumcision has no power to
produce any negative benefit for you, is that in ‘times past’ or ‘but now’?
Obviously it’s ‘but now’.
“So the mistranslation and
misrepresentation of what’s going on in Galatians 2 is something you need to be
aware of and not let some (preacher) fool you into thinking that they know what
they’re talking about when they re-translate those verses.
*****
“It’s always a fascinating thing to
me how dispensationalists, and especially Mid-Acts dispensationalists (Grace
Believers, so called), could be so enamored with these new bibles; the new
translations—the NIV, NASB, the Holman Bible, Good News to Modern Man, any of
them—because they take almost every key verse and knock the dispensational
truth right out of them!
“Now, this isn’t so strange to me if you’ve read the history of the Grace Movement. If you go back and get books written in the ’40s, ’50s and ‘60s—get books written by Cornelius Stam, or Charles Baker or William Root or any of the people writing and producing books back then—one of the characteristics of those books is that they would use ANY translation of the Bible that said what they wanted it to say.
“Have any of you ever heard of the
Williams translation? I’ve only seen one Williams translation in my life and
I’ve got it. It’s not a translation very many people have and yet there are
three verses (these men) like to take out of that version.
“I knew some of these brothers
personally and they didn’t use the Williams translation constantly; they
weren’t poring over it and studying it. It just happened to translate Philippians
1:10 the way they liked so they would reference it and use it.
“And I used to think, man, that’s going to kill ’em! Philippians 1:10 in the Williams translation is where you get the thing about testing things that differ, instead of ‘things that are excellent.’
“That passage has NOTHING to do with
dispensational things! Even if you translate it ‘things that differ’ it has
nothing to do with dispensational things and yet they pull a verse out like
that and say, ‘Oh, we got us another right division verse!’ No you didn’t! And
any honest person who reads the passage would know you didn’t!
“So, now you’re trying to use a
version to do something that isn’t honest. Somebody argued with me one time, ‘Well,
Brother Jordan, the only bible you can prove that stuff you’re teaching out of
is the King James Bible,’ and I said, ‘Yeah.’
"He said, ‘Doesn’t that mean it’s
wrong?’ and I said, ‘Well, maybe we ought to test out our bibles and see which
ones make mistakes and which ones don’t.
Why don’t we test Galatians 2:7 and see which one is right?’ Well, the
answer is one is right and the others aren’t.
“So the version issue is a very
important issue because you need to have in your language a book you can carry
around, and you don’t need to go home and say, ‘Now what did Brother Rick say
that verse ought to say?’ How frustrating would that be? You might need to
study what a (King James Bible) says but you don’t need to wonder what it ought
to say.”
No comments:
Post a Comment