NASB is it sound or not?

Originally posted by JYD:

Who told you the KJB has errors in it?

Click to expand...

They are there for all to see. One example: did those who were with Paul at the time of his conversion hear Christ's voice or not? The KJV gives contradictory testimony on this:

"And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." (Ac. 9:7, KJV)

"And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me." (Ac. 22:9 KJV)

Compare the NASB's rendering:

"The men who traveled with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one." (Ac. 9:7 NASB)

"And those who were with me saw the light, to be sure, but did not understand the voice of the One who was speaking to me." (Ac. 22:9 NASB)

[ February 26, 2003, 09:04 AM: Message edited by: Archangel7 ]

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
...my church's website (if you would like to see, it is at www.gbcbradenton.com).

Click to expand...

I wasn't able to get this page to come up. I am familiar with a Pastor from the Bradenton area. I believe his name is name is Gary Byrom. I'm not positive I spelled correctly. He is a friend of my Pastor's in Illinois and has preached at my home church on a few occasions.


** It's too bad the website didn't come up (I just tried to access it through Netscape and through MSIE, and both are fine. Perhaps you could visit again.....

Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the pastor you know. There isn't much contact between churches like mine (Sovereign Grace Independent Baptists) and like yours (Independent fundamental Baptists)-- and even my pastor has acknowledged that. I think it more has to do with us being Calvinist (not hyper-calvinist) than being KJV-only. On all other things considered, there are no other prominent differences (unless you think that our ladies who wear head-coverings during church services is a little 'old-fashioned'!)**

Would it be wrong to 'advertise' to others that I can create and manage websites for IFB's?? I'm not sure if you are the person to ask, but it has come across my mind.

Click to expand...

There is a Classified Forum here on the BB that you can post such information on. As far as me being the one to ask, I'm just a member like the rest of you. The only authority I have is to edit your post if you call me a "heretic." </font>[/QUOTE]
You? heretic.... No, I don't believe that at all! I do believe that KJV-onlyism is heresy, and at best considered to be error in bibliology. As I had stated earlier in my 'diatribe', I had given the basis of my reasoning of why KJV-onlyism (in its various forms) equals error and heresy. I can only think of this and possibly our differences about the Doctrines of Grace (TULIP) as things we would depart from, so this is not much to sneeze at (or, is it?).....

[ February 25, 2003, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: LRL71 ]

Originally posted by LRL71:
It's too bad the website didn't come up (I just tried to access it through Netscape and through MSIE, and both are fine. Perhaps you could visit again.....

Click to expand...

I see the problem. You included the right parentheses and period in the URL. I'll let you edit it yourself.

Originally posted by HankD:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> ...the true revision of the AV1611 text...

Click to expand...

The original work of the 1611KJV translators is lost. You cannot know or discern a
"true" revision from a "false" or "dishonest" one because you do not have the original autographs from the hands of the "inspired" translators.</font>[/QUOTE]Hank, you are absolutely correct. There are fairly significant differences between the 1611 KJV and its later editions in matters of the text which affect its meaning. Some examples:


"And she laid up his garment by her, until her lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, 1611 KJV)

"And she laid up his garment by her, until his lord came home." (Gen. 39:16, today's KJV)

Whose lord came home -- hers or his?


"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, 1611 KJV)

"If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned." (Ex. 21:32, today's KJV)

Just "shekels?" Or "shekels" of a specific type?


"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the names of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, 1611 KJV)

"And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth." (Ex. 23:13, today's KJV)

One name or many names?


"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be an unleavened cake of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, 1611 KJV)

"And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baken in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil." (Lev. 2:4, today's KJV)

How many unleavened cakes are required here? Just one? Or more than one?


"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the houses of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, 1611 KJV)

"Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families, by the house of their fathers, were two thousand and six hundred and thirty." (Num 4:40, today's KJV)

One house or many houses?


"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, 1611 KJV)

"O that there were such an heart in them, that they would fear me, and keep all my commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children for ever!" (Deut. 5:29, today's KJV)

Will it be well with Israel if they keep just some of God's commandments, or must they keep all of them?


"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks at the time of harvest,)" (Josh. 3:15, 1611 KJV)

"And as they that bare the ark were come unto Jordan, and the feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,) (Josh. 3:15, today's KJV)

Does the water of the Jordan overflow at some point during harvest season, or does it overflow throughout the entire harvest season?


"And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple." (2 Kg. 11:10, 1611 KJV)

"And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple of the LORD." (2 Kg. 11:10, today's KJV)

Is it just "temple," or is it "temple of the LORD?"


"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek good." (Psa. 69:32, 1611 KJV)

"The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God." (Psa. 69:32, today's KJV)

So do we seek good or God?


"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yea further though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, 1611 KJV)

"Then I beheld all the work of God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun: because though a man labour to seek it out, yet he shall not find it; yea further; though a wise man think to know it, yet shall he not be able to find it." (Eccl. 8:17, today's KJV)

Are the words "yet he shall not find it" the words of God or not?


"Sing, O heaven; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *God* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, 1611 KJV)

"Sing, O heavens; and be joyful, O earth; and break forth into singing, O mountains: for *the LORD* hath comforted his people, and will have mercy upon his afflicted." (Isa. 49:13, today's KJV)

Is it "heaven" or "heavens?" And is the Divine Name used here or not?


"So the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, 1611 KJV)

"So Zedekiah the king sware secretly unto Jeremiah, saying, As the LORD liveth, that made us this soul, I will not put thee to death, neither will I give thee into the hand of these men that seek thy life." (Jer 38:16, today's KJV)

So is the king mentioned by name or not?


"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit God, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, 1611 KJV)

"Concerning the Ammonites, thus saith the LORD; Hath Israel no sons? hath he no heir? why then doth their king inherit Gad, and his people dwell in his cities?" (Jer. 49:1, today's KJV)

Have the Ammonites inherited both God and God's cities? Or merely the territory and cities of Gad?


"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

"And go, get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, and speak unto them, and tell them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; whether they will hear, or whether they will forbear." (Ezek. 3:11, 1611 KJV)

To whom is Ezekiel to go -- to his people, or to their children?


"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, 1611 KJV).

"For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust" (Ezek. 24:7, today's KJV).

So did she pour it out or not?


"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, 1611 KJV)

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Mt. 16:16, today's KJV)

Just Christ? Or THE Christ?


"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he came and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, 1611 KJV)

"But when he saw Jesus afar off, he ran and worshipped him" (Mk. 5:6, today's KJV)

Did the man simply come to Jesus, perhaps walking? Or did he run to Jesus?


"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, 1611 KJV)

"It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus" (Lk. 1:3, today's KJV)

Did Luke have perfect understanding of only a few things, or of all things?


"Therefore his sister sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, 1611 KJV)

"Therefore his sisters sent unto him, saying, Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is sick." (Jn. 11:3, today's KJV)

Did only one of the two sisters send word to Jesus about Lazarus, or did they both send word?


"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps in governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, 1611 KJV)

"And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. 12:28, today's KJV)

Is Paul speaking of one administrative gift known as "helps in governments," or is he speaking of two different gifts, a gift of "helps" and a gift of "governments?"


"In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, 1611 KJV)

"In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:" (2 Cor 11:32, today's KJV)

Just "the city?" Or "the city of the Damascenes?"


"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." (Eph. 6:24, 1611 KJV)

"Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity. Amen. " (Eph. 6:24, today's KJV)

Do I hear an "amen" or not?

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than edifying which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, 1611 KJV)

"Neither give heed to fables and endless genealogies, which minister questions, rather than godly edifying which is in faith: so do." (1 Tim. 1:4, today's KJV)

So is it merely edifying, or is it a particluar kind of edifying, namely, godly edifying?


"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, 1611 KJV)

"The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments." (2 Tim. 4:13, today's KJV)

Was Timothy to bring the books or not?


"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifice, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, 1611 KJV)

"Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5, today's KJV)

Is Peter telling us to offer one single spiritual sacrifice, or many different spiritual sacrifices?


"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, 1611 KJV)

"He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life." (1 Jn. 5:12, today's KJV)

So is it "the Son" or "the Son of God?"

And because we no longer have the proofs that the KJV translators sent to the printers -- the "originals" are lost! -- we cannot know for certain which of these different KJV's is the "right" one.

OK Archangel,

You have drawn your line in the sand.

Dont forget the Oxford vs Cambridge edition differences.

I think maybe you included at least one.


HankD

Originally posted by baptist4u:
I am seeking advice on this subject. I have come across lots of people that are only willing to use the KJV and clam that it is the "ONLY VERSION".So I ask what is wrong with the NASB?

Click to expand...

NASB has 4,000 different words that disagreed with the identity of the wording of the autographs.

the poly-versions are all based on the same text(s) of the Jesuit Vatican dark age text of the Rheims bible

Click to expand...

Do we have to go through this again? You are just dead set to have double standards, aren't you? Remember a Catholic cleric compiled the first TR and the KJV has readings from the official Catholic Bible for centuries, the Latin Vulgate. Get a new argument, JYD. This one just shows your hypocrisy.

Neal

the poly-versions are all based on the same text(s) of the Jesuit Vatican dark age text of the Rheims bible

Click to expand...

And most of the KJV translators held several heretical dogma in common with "the dark age text" translators of the Rheims Bible (for example : baptismal regeneration, paedo-baptism, transubstantiation... etc).

HankD

Originally posted by Askjo:
NASB has 4,000 different words that disagreed with the identity of the wording of the autographs.

Click to expand...

Finally ... someone with the autographs ... Oh wait, you don't really mean you have the autographs; you are just referring to a text that contains what you think he authographs must have said ... and that is a big difference. You do not know the identity of the wording of the autographs.

Additionally, not only does the NASB have all these words changes, so does the KJV. The translators of the KJV changed thousands and thousands of words. You see, they had to or else they wouldn't have accomplished a translation. I translation by nature invovles the changing of words into the receptor language.

The fact is that the NASB is a very good, very literal translation, even more literal than the KJV. It is a fine choice for students fo the Bible and should be readily used and fully trusted.

Originally posted by JYD:
Either.The true revision of punctuation,orthography,typographical correction has already been covered and proven to be honest revisions;

Click to expand...

Why did a perfect Bible need to be revised?? Is your God not powerful enough to give it right the first time??

Besides these changes have been shown to involve more than punctuation and spelling. They are actually word changes.

Why did a perfect Bible need to be revised?? Is your God not powerful enough to give it right the first time??

Click to expand...

Why dont you ask MY God(the Lord Jesus Christ)why He "revised" and "added LIKE words" to Jeremiah 36,and why did He keep "revising" Moses' speech to Pharoah every time Moses went back to him? could He not get it right the first time?? Ask HIM...

Besides these changes have been shown to involve more than punctuation and spelling. They are actually word changes.

Click to expand...

Again,if you compare genuine revision of the AV1611 to what has been going on since 1881 with the poly-versions that come from corrupt North-African Catholic Dark-Age texts of the Vatican is not only false,but dishonest.

Here is an exercise in comparison of the dreaded Rheims, (the dark age text of the Jesuits) and the KJV.

DRA John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word: and the Word was with God: and the Word was God.
KJV John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

DRA 2 The same was in the beginning with God.
KJV 2 The same was in the beginning with God.

DRA 3 All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.
KJV 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

DRA 4 In him was life: and the life was the light of men.
KJV 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

DRA 5 And the light shineth in darkness: and the darkness did not comprehend
it.
KJV 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

DRA 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
KJV 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

DRA 7 This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.
KJV 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.

DRA 8 He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.
KJV 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

DRA 9 That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.
KJV 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.

DRA 10 He was in the world: and the world was made by him: and the world knew him not.
KJV 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not

DRA 11 He came unto his own: and his own received him not.
KJV 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.


DRA 12 But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.
KJV 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:


Here is another :

DRA 1 John 5
7 And there are Three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
8 And there are three that give testimony on earth: the spirit and the water and the blood. And these three are one.
9 If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater. For this is the testimony of God, which is greater, because he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth in the Son of God hath the testimony of God in himself. He that believeth not the Son maketh him a liar: because he believeth not in the testimony which God hath testified of his Son.
11 And this is the testimony that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life. He that hath not the Son hath not life.
13 These things I write to you that you may know that you have eternal life: you who believe in the name of the Son of God.

KJV 1 John 5
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.


Here is a question: Since the Rheims was published several years BEFORE the KJV, who do you think copied who?

Oh yes, one more thing, BOTH the Douay-Rheims and the KJV contained the "Alexandrian" Apocrypha at first publishing

HankD

Here is a question: Since the Rheims was published several years BEFORE the KJV, who do you think copied who?

Click to expand...

Please! I know you could come up with somthing more original Every body knows that in order to pass off a corrupt bible,it has to look like the real thing..Case in point,look at what has been put out since 1881 to get what I mean.

Oh yes, one more thing, BOTH the Douay-Rheims and the KJV contained the "Alexandrian" Apocrypha at first publishing

Click to expand...

Well,once again,the underlying text of the beloved NASB is the SAME Dark-Age Jesuit North African texts of the Vatican that in FACT had the Apocrypha in its Canon deemed by the Pope as Holy Scripture.

[ February 25, 2003, 09:11 AM: Message edited by: JYD ]

Please! I know you could come up with somthing more original Every body knows that in order to pass of a corrupt bible,it has to look like the real thing..Case in point,look at what has been put out since 1881 to get what I mean.

Click to expand...

Wait a minute, you didn't answer the question but side-stepped it.

First you say the Wescott and Hort 1881 which came AFTER the 1611 is the villain now (somehow by an incredible piece of logic) the Rheims which was published BEFORE the KJV in 1582(NT) and 1609 (OT) is also the villain.

Actually JYD, this is fine with me that you promulgate the worst of the KJVO logic (which actually defies logic) because you really do a dis-service to the KJV claiming something for it that even its "inspired" translators did not, who admitted to using "other translations" which they called "the Word of God" but you call "corrupt".

Let me repeat the question Who copied from whom?

Or is it just a coincidence that the English KJV in about 2/3rd of its passages is a word-for-word (including the Apocrypha) copy of the Rheims?


HankD

[ February 25, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Well,once again,the underlying text of the beloved NASB is the SAME Dark-Age Jesuit North African texts of the Vatican that in FACT had the Apocrypha in its Canon deemed by the Pope as Holy Scripture.

Click to expand...

Then why and with what logic can the Apocrypha be justified in a publication (the 1611KJV) which supposedly has been promulgated by those who have an "inspired" connection with God and His "perfect" and "pure" English Word?

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

HankD

[ February 25, 2003, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: HankD ]

Originally posted by JYD:
Why dont you ask MY God(the Lord Jesus Christ)why He "revised" and "added LIKE words" to Jeremiah 36,and why did He keep "revising" Moses' speech to Pharoah every time Moses went back to him? could He not get it right the first time?? Ask HIM...

Click to expand...

I "already have." Through much study and prayer and have come to the conclusion that your position is wrong. This is not a problem for my position. It is a problem for yours. You keep telling us that the KJV is the only word of God and that things that are differen t are not the same. But you won't tell us which is these KJVs is teh actual word of God and which are satanic frauds becuase of the changes involved ... satanic if we believe your words about changes that is. Of course, the KJV is not satanic in any of its revisions, nor is it dishonest. It is an excellent translation of God's word made by men who were not inspired.

Again,if you compare genuine revision of the AV1611 to what has been going on since 1881 with the poly-versions that come from corrupt North-African Catholic Dark-Age texts of the Vatican is not only false,but dishonest.

Click to expand...

This is simply not true. I have preached exclusively from the NASB for four years and I have seen God bless it in many different ways. In the previous 3 years, I had preached exclusively from the KJV and had seen much confusion and wasted time explaining things that were clear in modern translations. That is one reason I switched. Preaching time should not be wasted explaining old words and sentence structures when they can be made perfectly clear by using a modern version. God's word is too valuable.

Originally posted by Pastor Bob 63:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LRL71:
It's too bad the website didn't come up (I just tried to access it through Netscape and through MSIE, and both are fine. Perhaps you could visit again.....

Click to expand...

I see the problem. You included the right parentheses and period in the URL. I'll let you edit it yourself. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, I fixed the boo-boo!

www.gbcbradenton.com

Or is it just a coincidence that the English KJV in about 2/3rd of its passages is a word-for-word (including the Apocrypha) copy of the Rheims?

Click to expand...

Everything that Satan told Eve was about 2/3 truth(Gen 3:1).Corrupt(IICor 2:17) bibles have to look legit in order to sell($$$)No coincidence there..

Everything that Satan told Eve was about 2/3 truth(Gen 3:1).Corrupt(IICor 2:17) bibles have to look legit in order to sell($$$)No coincidence there..

Click to expand...

But you still haven't answered the question...

Who copied from whom?

Here is another item you haven't addressed:
why did the KJV translators call even the "meanest translation" the Word of God?

And another?
Why did the KJV translators (who supported many heresies of the RCC) include the "corrupt North-African" Apocrypha sandwiched between the Two Covenants of the "pure" and "perfect" Word of God?

If what you say is true and God does not approve of the Apocrypha why then did He allow His Holy Word to be defiled with the "corrupt"?

Leviticus 5:2 Or if a soul touch any unclean thing, whether it be a carcase of an unclean beast, or a carcase of unclean cattle, or the carcase of unclean creeping things, and if it be hidden from him; he also shall be unclean, and guilty.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Is not the Apocrypha the shadow of the Vatican?

Also, is the mark of a corrupt bible now the fact that it sells?

As you probably are aware the KJV is still the number one Bible on the market, so according to your criteria it must therefore be corrupt.

Or perhaps dear brother, you have a double-standard?

Deuteronomy 25:15 But thou shalt have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure shalt thou have: that thy days may be lengthened in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

HankD

Originally posted by JYD:
Every body knows that in order to pass off a corrupt bible,it has to look like the real thing

Click to expand...

You mean like all those evil revisions of the KJV that have foisted themselves on unsuspecting christendom who think they are using the real KJV while in reality they are using but a cleverly corrupted version???

Can you not see this??