Which Bible?
Christians need to have some acceptance of what will be the final authority for faith and practice. Without that, we will not have a common frame of reference.
"The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience." The Great Controversy page vii in the introduction.
"The Word of God is our sanctification and righteousness, because it is spiritual food. To study it is to eat the leaves of the tree of life." Evangelism page 138.
There are verses in the Bible that describe how important the Holy Scriptures are.
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:1-3, 14.
"And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called the Word of God." Revelation 19:13.
"Thy word have I hid in mine heart that I might not sin against thee." Psalms 119:11.
"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalms 12:6-7
Ask yourself if the bible you use qualifies as "the voice of God." Is it infallible which means without ANY error? Are the words of your bible pure words? If you can't answer yes to those questions, the bible you have doesn't meet the criteria for being the Word of God.
It appears that the Holy Scriptures are extremely important in finding out what God wants of us and enabling us to conform to His will. Is it conceivable that Satan wouldn't try to corrupt the Word of God? In a world that is becoming increasingly sinful do you think the profusion of new bible versions are being produced to further God's glory and kingdom? Do you believe the reason new bible versions are constantly appearing and existing versions change with each edition is because the scholars are trying to make it more like God wants it? Is it possible the New King James Version (NKJV), revised by Baptist, Presbyterian, Church of the Nazarene, Mennonite and scholars of other faiths, could have had conflicting and erroneous doctrines slipped into it?
I recently attended a series of evangelistic meetings presented by a speaker who was very competent in explaining end time prophecy as written in Daniel and Revelation; his message was very refreshing. That said, he as is the case with most ministers and church members, apparently didn't think he could rely on just one bible. Is it possible that God really made it so by His providence, that one had to have a multitude of bibles to know what He said? Out of the hundreds of bible versions (I've seen figures as high as 600) how many must I have to know what God says and which ones do I choose? I only have fifty some different English bible versions. Is that enough?
The following are some points the evangelist made. He used mostly the King James Bible but occasionally used the NKJV which, despite the name, is not an improved King James Bible.
He emphasized the infallibility of the bible.
He several times said that in order to be deceived, you have to have no idea you are being deceived..
He said to only believe him if what he said agreed with what the bible said.
He said one little word could make a big difference.
He said that if something was mostly good but had just a little poison in it, it could still be lethal.
He said the majority is usually wrong.
I agree with all of those statements.
I composed and printed a small booklet comparing texts in the Queen James Version (QJV), the NKJV and the King James Bible and gave it to him. He asked me if I was a "King James man." I'm a King James man only because the NKJV and other readily available bibles have been seriously corrupted.
For those not familiar with the QJV, it's a King James Bible with only eight verses modified to remove the doctrine of the sin of homosexuality. The NKJV isn't as efficient as removing that doctrine but they've made a good start. My booklet demonstrated that the NKJV has changed as many verses related to that doctrine. That is the most shocking thing I can think of. If a Seventh-day Adventist evangelist or church member doesn't care that has been done, I don't think they'll care about anything that has been done to God's Word. The QJV is a far better bible than the NKJV since the authors inform readers in the introduction of the verses they've modified and why they did it. All you will read in the introduction of the NKJV Andrews Study Bible is about how good it is when that bible has corrupted far more verses and doctrines than the QJV.
The evangelist used some texts from the King James Bible he could not have used to make the same points had he been using the NKJV.
He compared the prophecy of Isaiah 45:1 where it says God will "loose the loins of kings" and Daniel 5:6 where is says Belshazzars's "loins were loosed." He could never had made that connection, which is significant, if he had used the NKJV where it says "loosed the armor of kings" and "joints of his hips were loosened" respectively. He also used Daniel 8:25 from the King James Bible to illustrate how ecumenism is destroying "by peace." He could not have made that meaningful connection with the NKJV where it says they'll be destroyed by "their prosperity."
The evangelist was pretty good about avoiding corrupt NKJV verses but he did mess up when he used Matthew 7:23 where Jesus says "depart from me you who practice lawlessness." The King James Bible says "depart from me, ye that work iniquity." This is where an English dictionary comes in handy. Practicing "lawlessness" and working "iniquity" are different. If I stole something or committed adultery but my life in general was OK, no one would accuse me of being lawless even though I had worked iniquity and was guilty and worthy of death according to the law of God.
When he wished to define sin, the evangelist used 1 John 3:4 from the King James Bible where it says, "Whosoever committeth sin, transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law." If he had used the NKJV or one of the other multitude of bibles, sin would have been defined as "lawlessness." It appears Seventh-day Adventist ministers like the King James Bible definition of sin. Pastor Stephen Bohr wrote the book Worship at Satan's Throne. In the front of his book it says, "All Bible Scripture is taken from the King James Version, unless otherwise noted." In reality he used the NKJV mostly with no credit to indicate he did so but when it came to the definition of sin he used the King James Bible definition in 1 John 3:4. I wrote to brother Bohr about that many months ago and never received a response from him.
It is evident that too many Seventh-day Adventist ministers and church members are deceived, the majority are wrong, and a great many are using leaves from the tree of life that have been contaminated with poison. By perusing other pages on this site, you will see some of the poison that has entered the new bibles that most readers are unaware of. What I have written on this site is only a small part of what I have found.
Here are some questions for pastors, evangelists, elders, deacons, Sabbath School teachers, givers of bible studies and anyone else that attempts to instruct others in the Word of God.
I understand there are times when one must use a defective bible if that's the only one someone you're teaching will accept. Does that make it acceptable to teach with one when you don't have to?
When using a text from the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the American Standard Version or any other corrupt bible because you "like what it says," does that make the "sheep" and "lambs" believe that bible is OK and even infallible?
If you teach with a bible because you "like what it says" does that mean anyone can use any bible or bible verse because they "like what it says?"
Does God approve any bible verse because you "like what it says?"
Does the spiritual food you feed the sheep have any poison in it?
If someone is misled by a bible they started using because "you like what it says" is that, as it says in Leviticus 19:14, putting "a stumblingblock before the blind?"
Do you tell people the "Bible" is infallible (if so, which one) or that the "bibles" are infallible?
Do you give "bible studies" or "bibles studies?"
If you give "bibles studies" do you disclose that fact to your students?
And from "the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God:"
"And in their mouth was found no guile: for they are without fault before the throne of God." Revelation 14:5.
Speaking of the Holy City; "And there shall in no wise enter into it anything that defileth, neither whatsoever worketh abomination or maketh a lie: but they which are written in the Lamb's book of life." Revelation 21:27.
Also speaking of New Jerusalem, the Holy City; "For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." Revelation 22:15.
If one likes what a counterfeit bible says, does that mean one "loveth" a lie? If one teaches from a corrupt bible does that mean one "maketh" a lie?
Just asking...
Home
Counterfeit Bible?
King James Bible "Errors"
The New Steps to Christ
What I Learned in Church
The Clear Word Bible
Ellen White and Bible Versions
Andrews Study Bibles
Blind Guides
Tracts
Stewardship
Christian Code Words and Phrases
© Martin J. Lohne 2019.