A famine of hearing the word of the LORD (Pt. 3)

This little project to compare the verses of Psalm 91 in the KJV with the modern Bible versions is already revealing the deceitfulness of the revisers, it seems to me. I was already convinced that the revisions are a trojan horse in the house of God, but the pernicious extent of it is coming home to me with peculiar force as I've done this experiment.

To continue with Psalm 91, verse 2:

KJV: I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

NKJV: I will say of the LORD, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."

RSV: I will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress; my God, in whom I trust."

NASB: I will say to the LORD, "My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!"

NIV: I will say* of the Lord, “He is my refuge and my fortress, my God, in whom I trust.”
[* footnote here has "or He says."]

I can only repeat that there is no reason for any of these changes, showing that the revisers did not honor their agreement to leave the text intact unless there was a compelling reason to change it. Again, the changes seem minor, but the very fact of making them at all is an offense because it is unnecessary, makes the sharing of God's word among the flock difficult and raises doubt in people's minds: So what DOES the Hebrew say? OF the LORD, or TO the LORD?

Why would the NIV take "He is" out of italics, which in the KJV are there to indicate that the words are not in the Hebrew but are needed to complete the sense of the English? Is that mere sloppiness?

There is no reason not to trust the KJV translators who were a formidably learned lot, and again, the revisers are without excuse.

It is hard to avoid the impression in surveying the scattering of unnecessary little changes they made that the revisers were in fact intent on mutilating the Bible.

But to continue:

Psalm 91, verse 3:

KJV: Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.

NKJV: Surely he shall deliver you from the snare of the fowler And from the perilous pestilence.

RSV: For he will deliver you from the snare of the fowler and from the deadly pestilence.

NASB: For it is He who delivers you from the snare of the trapper, And from the deadly pestilence.

NIV: Surely he will save you from the fowler's snare and from the deadly pestilence.

In none of the changes identified so far is there any hint that the Hebrew requires them. They are all English substitutions, simply translational choices, all of them utterly unnecessary, and in fact they are vicious in the context of the stated objective to change as little as possible in the Authorized text.

Well, let's start with "noisome" which the noisome, pestilential and perhaps also deadly modern mutilations have managed to change into something else entirely. "Noisome" does NOT mean "deadly" or "perilous."

The dictionary has: noisome \NOY-sum\, adjective:1. Noxious; harmful; unwholesome.2. Offensive to the smell or other senses; disgusting. http://dictionary.reference.com/wordoftheday/archive/2003/04/10.html

It's hard to see how you get from that to "deadly" or "perilous."

The Hebrew word translated "noisome" in the KJV occurs 15 times in the entire Bible, and is translated "noisome" once, here, and in nine other ways elsewhere:

AV — calamity 4, wickedness 3, perverse thing 1, mischief 1, noisome 1, iniquity 1, substance 1, naughtiness 1, naughty 1, mischievous 1

Not one of these renderings includes a hint of "deadly" or even necessarily "perilous." "Destructive" perhaps, even "ruinous" but overall it is closer to "noxious" or "disgusting" or "obnoxious" or "extremely annoying."

Leave the word alone, it's quite apt, and "deadly" is not apt. "Noisome" is not even archaic.

Again, there was no compelling need to make this change in the Bible. Again, it serves only to obfuscate, not to clarify, only to make things more difficult for God's people, not easier.

Is "trapper" an improvement on "fowler?" True, it may be more recognizable to moderns, but even the other modern mutilations didn't use it. Again, the principle that was to have been followed was to make no unnecessary changes. This is another unnecessary change.

So is "fowler's snare" versus "snare of the fowler" (and the latter is better aesthetically). So is "save" versus "deliver" unnecessary.

All these changes do nothing but disunify believers, even in ways that escape detection. It begins to seem this had to have been the real intention of the revisers. Woe to the shepherds who scatter the flock.

A famine of hearing the word of the LORD (Pt. 2)

There's so much to say about the Bible famine, it's hard to know where to start.

Maybe here: Last night I was reading in Psalms and thought of comparing the KJV to some other versions just to see what sort of changes I might find there. It was instructive.

I started the comparisons with a couple of the most popular psalms, 23 and 91. Here's 91:

The KJV has:

1 He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.
2 I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.
3 Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence.
4 He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth shall be thy shield and buckler.
5 Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day;
6 Nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noonday.
7 A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee.
8 Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked.
9 Because thou hast made the LORD, which is my refuge, even the most High, thy habitation;
10 There shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling.
11 For he shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee in all thy ways.
12 They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone.
13 Thou shalt tread upon the lion and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under feet.
14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.
15 He shall call upon me, and I will answer him: I will be with him in trouble; I will deliver him, and honour him.
16 With long life will I satisfy him, and shew him my salvation.

Starting at Verse 1, the KJV: He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

Differences from the KJV are highlighted in the following in a different color:

The NKJV is almost the same except for modernizing the verb: He who dwells in the secret place of the Most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty.

The RSV (Revised Standard Version), the original revision, has: He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High, who abides in the shadow of the Almighty,

The NASB has: He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will abide in the shadow of the Almighty.

The NIV has: He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty.

Comment: Up to a point the changes in the new versions appear trivial, the mere substitution of a synonym (or near-synonym) for the King James word, not substantially affecting the meaning, so that to object to it might appear merely nitpicking.

But think about this. The very triviality of such changes is an offense to God and His church. The KJV was THE English Bible of all English-speaking peoples at the time of the making of the new versions in the 19th century. The men commissioned to revise it were only to update it to the English of the day, they were not to change anything substantial in it, and wouldn't you expect that such a project would be done with the utmost respect for the word of God, and for the people who used the Bible, keeping as much of it intact as possible? Wouldn't you? And that's what they had contracted to do!

Instead they produced a new Bible, a different Bible. They went back on their agreement. They introduced a completely different set of Greek New Testament texts for starters (which of course does not affect the Psalms which are in Hebrew -- although, as a poster here reminded me, a different Hebrew text also underlies the new versions) and they went about systematically changing the text of the KJV on the basis of those texts, but also changing it apparently simply willynilly, to no rational standard whatever, as the first line of Psalm 91 demonstrates:

What would possess men of any sensitivity to the English language, not to mention spiritual sensitivity, not to mention respect for the Bible trusted by millions, to change "the secret place of the most High" to "shelter of the Most High?"

Is it a small thing? Do I cavil to no purpose? (It will get worse than this). No, this is an enormity (an outrageous, improper, vicious, or immoral act).

Have they even any textual excuse, is there anything in the Hebrew text to demand the change from the secret place to the shelter? The only way to justify it would be if there were a genuine DEMAND for such an alteration, an imperative need, something so clearly indicated in the Hebrew that it would not be right to let the KJV's translation of it stand.

No, they have no such excuse. Strong's Concordance will tell you that in a moment. The predominant rendering of the Hebrew term suggests something secret or hidden. "Shelter" is a very weak option, very weak, and in fact it is not EVER used in the KJV to translate that Hebrew term. That Hebrew term appears 36 times in the text, and was translated into TEN different English words in the KJV, not one of them being "shelter:"

AV — secret 12, secretly 9, covert 5, secret place 3, hiding place 2, backbiting 1, covering 1, disguiseth 1, privily 1, protection 1

1) covering, shelter, hiding place, secrecy
a) covering, cover
b) hiding place, shelter, secret place
c) secrecy
2) secrecy (of tongue being slanderous)

Check the Strong's Concordance at Blue Letter Bible (http://blueletterbible.org/ for Psalm 91:1 to verify the above.

The RSV also changed the grammar of the sentence from a single statement about the dweller in the secret place of the Most High, with a period at the end, to a clause that combines the dweller with the speaker of verse 2. I don't know Hebrew but surely those who do know whether there are two separate sentences there with different subjects, or one with one subject. Surely the KJV translators, a gathering of enormously qualified men, would have known what the Hebrew actually says. And other new versions have not followed the RSV's lead in this, reverting to the form of the KJV and making two sentences of it. I wonder why?

They all change the KJV's "shall" to "will." WHY? "Shall" is grammatically correct!

Then the NIV, which has a reputation for going farther than many of the revisions in undoing the KJV, changes "abide" to "rest." Do we REALLY have a problem with "abide?" It isn't even an archaic term! "Abide" means basically to stay in one place. If the Hebrew meant "rest," the KJV would have said "rest" (and so, presumably, theoretically, rightly, would the NASB and the NKJV and the RSV). Again, where is the sensitivity one would expect in the handling of the sacred text? Where is there any fear of God among these revisers?

This is all taking a lot of time, so I'm not even going to be able to get to the other verses in this post. I'll save them for the next and following posts.

To end this one, I would ask if other Christians in churches that accept a variety of different translations have been bothered by the same experience I've had. That is, when you read along in your own Bible as the pastor or elders read a passage aloud, have you had the jarring experience I've had of finding your own Bible enough out of synch with the reader's that you are actually forced to do a bit of translation of your own in order to follow along at all? Does it set your nerves on edge? Have you noticed that congregational unison reading of the Bible is no longer possible at all unless you read from a uniform text in, say, the back of the hymnal? If the congregation is assigned a passage to memorize, is it jarring to hear it recited in a variety of different forms? I can tell you that all that is true for me, and for me it is a depressing experience. Maybe I'm hypersensitive.

But it seems to me that it is fair to call this chaos, cacophony, confusion, even a confusion of tongues as at Babel.

Oh but we've adjusted. Except for the depressive effect -- on some of us anyway. No big deal, right? Well, it would be no big deal if it were worth it, if there really were a good reason to put us through it, but there isn't. There is no need for this babel of tongues in the churches. The modern versions are usurpers, inferior by almost all standards, serving only to disrupt and confuse and dumb down and divide the body of Christ.

A famine of hearing the word of the LORD? (Pt.1) Amos 8:11

Too strong a title for my topic I wonder? I don't really think so. I think we are in a famine, a famine of the true word of God while we are up to our necks in a sea of false Bibles, the modern versions that were spawned from evil seed in the 19th century and have been multiplying at an astonishing rate over the last decade or so.

For years I've hated the new versions in a visceral sort of way, after having encountered the Gail Riplinger study in the early 90s, but because so many scorned her work (perhaps rightly to some extent) and so many apparently solid Christians and highly trusted pastors defend the new versions, I struggled along accepting them in spite of myself. Specifically I personally struggled along with the New King James just because it claims to be a mere modernization of the English which preserves the essence of the King James, and because it isn't the King James, which I thought I didn't want.

The NASB (New American Standard Bible) is particularly popular in churches I've attended. The NIV (New International Version) is usually frowned upon as inferior but I know it is also a very popular Bible in other churches and Bible studies, considered more readable than the KJV. I had to go online to find any KJV-only people since I know none personally. Not real KJV-only people who say it's the only trustworthy Bible, that is: there are those who prefer it but don't claim that it should be preferred, just that they happen to like it themselves, or are used to it or something like that.

I didn't prefer it, I thought I preferred the New King James instead, I thought I wanted an updated King James -- you know, one that preserves the basic language of the King James but modernizes some of its terms, since, after all, language does evolve. I thought I didn't like reading the old English. Not that I have a problem understanding it, just that it's, well, outdated, and shouldn't the church have a Bible in the vernacular? If the NKJV had really been merely an updating I might have been happier with it.

Might, I say, because I'm rethinking all of this now, since I have committed myself to the KJV and am very happy with that decision. I'm now on the verge of throwing myself wholly on the King James and defending it, old English and all, as the only true Bible without any requirement of updating. I now use it exclusively and I've rid myself of other translations I possessed (actually I keep some in a box so I can use them to make comparisons but I don't even like having them around any more). I dropped my NKJV like a hot potato.

It turns out that I love reading my KJV. Having committed myself to it I find it easy reading, clear reading, trustworthy reading. I feel very secure reading it. I know it is true.

In contrast, even though in the past I thought I preferred the NKJV, instead of finding it easy to read I used to fight with it. I did read through all of it but in fits and starts, couldn't really sustain a continuous sequential reading for long. I hated its footnotes that were constantly intruding the information that there are other manuscripts that give a different reading for this or that. I also hated the logo on the front of it, that symbol that's supposed to represent the Trinity. Every time I looked at it I received an ugly sensation from the mere experience of laying eyes on it. It's hard to account for, but I had a loathing of it that was intuitive or visceral like my dislike of all the modern versions, only more intense and focused. Actually, it was spiritual: I now know that it is an occultic symbol, used widely in different forms of witchcraft and satanism. Then as I began to research all this in the last few months I also learned that the NKJV doesn't always follow the text of the KJV as it is claimed it does. Not only do its obnoxious footnotes cast doubt on the text, but in the text itself it makes unnecessary changes to accommodate it to the new versions. No wonder I had problems reading it consistently.

This is just by way of introduction. There's a lot more to come on this subject, as I'm going to be arguing that the true churches should take all their modern Bibles out to an open space, make a huge heap of them and burn them to ash.

Economic Crunch Coming

I've seen other articles since I posted on the likelihood of food shortages, which say we probably won't feel it very much as a shortage, at least not right away. We will, however, feel the price crunch and that will affect Americans on the lower end of the economic scale who are already barely making ends meet. True, most of us would be better off eating less for a while anyway.

But I do see this as part of a growing trend. Maybe I'm wrong about that, but this is how it goes: 9/11 already made a dent in the economy by forcing airlines into bankruptcy, a situation which has been evolving over time. Hurricane Katrina is what started pushing the price of oil up and up, which has been pushing food prices up, also getting worse over time. The nation has been paying out enormous sums of disaster relief money for what seems to be a string of unusually severe natural disasters over the last few years, disasters of all kinds from hurricanes to wildfires to tornadoes to floods. Relief is still available, but always there are some who fall through the cracks anyway, and at some point if the trend continues the bank that finances the relief simply has to break.

It's just a matter of time as long as we continue as a nation on our downhill slide into paganism and immorality. Surely Christians know that God is behind all these events, surely we know these are ways He brings judgment against nations, surely we know that America deserves judgment for a disgraceful list of government-sponsored sins that have been accumulating for decades now.

Surely we know that the only way to prevent complete desolation is national repentance. Is it happening? Is it even happening in the churches where of all places it should be happening? Where's the sackcloth and ashes, the weeks of corporate humbling before God in repentance and pleading for thenation? In the past America actually had some Presidents who called for times of fasting and prayer. Churches that wanted God to comedown and revive the Christian life of their communities used to praythrough the night for months. Now it's rare if a church can get it together for half a day. And individually we're a sad lot when it comes to that kind of discipline, too, and here I'm mostly speaking for myself and SO wanting a spiritual strength I continually fail to muster.

So as I see it, we may not necessarily be facing a sudden crisis (although I'm not completely sure of that), but we MUST be facing a gradual tightening of the vise that we will most likely feel when it's too late.

I know I'm repeating myself. Probably for a while to come I'll be repeating some themes.

Food prices to increase on July 1st

An email was circulated among some bloggers recently, warning about a price jump of as much as 30% at the grocery store to be expected on July 1st, after a decision by a major American distributor to increase their prices due to the increased cost of transportation. The blogger who reported it claims to have a friend who was at the meeting where the decision was made.

I have no way of verifying this myself, but there's nothing about it that's hard to believe. The price of food must go up because of the high price of gas, which continues to rise, and because of the destruction of crops by natural disasters.

Should we lay in supplies? Sure we should. But again, what is really needed is prayer and fasting, repentance for the sins of the nation. Since the nation as a whole can no longer be called to this, the churches should be doing it. Seriously, at length, days long, not just the usual token prayer during a service or prayer meeting. Not just adding it to your long prayer list.

Flooding in the Midwest

The horrendous flooding of rivers in the Midwest is just the latest disaster that is going to have repercussions on the entire nation for some time to come. They are suffering terribly there, but the rest of us will be suffering as well as the destruction of crops affects the entire national economy.

We're already paying outrageous prices for gas, which we can trace back to both 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina, and food prices have been rising steadily as a result of the increased cost of transportation. Now with the destruction of corn and soybean crops with the flooding in the Midwest, the price of feed for animals will go up drastically and consequently the price of meat:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080622/ap_on_bi_ge/midwest_flooding_food_prices

Since this is a Yahoo story and I don't know how long the link will last, here's some of it copied out:

Record corn prices mean more expensive meat, dairy
By STEVENSON JACOBS, AP Business Writer

NEW YORK - Raging Midwest floodwaters that swallowed crops and sent corn and soybean prices soaring are about to give consumers more grief at the grocery store.

In the latest bout of food inflation, beef, pork, poultry and even eggs, cheese and milk are expected to get more expensive as livestock owners go out of business or are forced to slaughter more cattle, hogs, turkeys and chickens to cope with rocketing costs for corn-based animal feed.

The floods engulfed an estimated 2 million or more acres of corn and soybean fields in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and other key growing states, sending world grain prices skyward on fears of a substantially smaller corn crop. The government will give a partial idea of how many corn acres were lost before the end of the month, but experts say the trickle-down effect could be more dramatic later this year, affecting everything from Thanksgiving turkeys to Christmas hams.

Rod Brenneman, president and chief executive of Seaboard Foods, a pork supplier in Sawnee Mission, Kan. that produces 4 million hogs a year, said high corn costs were already forcing producers in his industry to cut back on the number of animals they raise.

"There's definitely liquidation of livestock happening," and that will cause meat prices to rise later this year and into 2009, said Brenneman, who is also the vice chairman of the American Meat nstitute. Brenneman's cost for feeding a single hog has shot up $30 in the past year because of record-high prices for corn and soybeans, the main ingredients in animal feed. Passing that increase on to consumers would tack an extra 15 cents per pound onto a pork chop.

It's a similar story for U.S. beef producers, who now spend a whopping 60-70 percent of their production costs on animal feed and are seeing that number rise daily as corn prices hover near an unprecedented $8 a bushel, up from about $4 a year ago.

"This is not sustainable. The cattle industry is going to have to get smaller," said James Herring, president and CEO of Amarillo, Tex.-based Friona Industries, which buys 20 million bushels of corn each year to feed 550,000 cattle.

How many have recognized this as the hand of God against the nation? Very few recognized it in 9/11 or in Katrina either. No, Americans don't seek God, we seek solutions. When gas prices go up we hear all kinds of ideas for increasing our supply from other sources. The immediate victims of the disaster will get government money. We'll pray for them and some will go give physical help as well, all good things, but where is the sackcloth and ashes, the repentance, the fasting and prayer, where is the recognition that this is God's handwriting on the wall against America? This is what is really needed.

Please, America, Repent

All this destruction by the forces of nature, growing economic disaster. We didn't repent at 9/11 and we aren't repenting now. You think it's going to stop?

The news coverage of the flooding in the Midwest highlights the usual community spirit, people coming together to help one another in their shared disaster. People also come from outside to help. America is justly proud of its community spirit. It is always a news item when these things happen.

A 91 year old lady in a shelter had a very upbeat attitude: it's an adventure, she said. Yes, Americans are a hardy and generous lot.

And they ask why would God allow this? They speculate about why bad things happen to good people. They may argue that God doesn't do such things. Disasters are just random phenomena. We all suffer.

I don't want to make too much of this, but there was also the story of Ms. X who is pregnant showing her and her "fiance" returning to their home to find all they had worked for ruined. It's sad no matter who it happens to. But here's an unmarried couple living together and about to have a baby, a situation so commonplace now that it is described matter-of-factly by the media.

But do you ask why God is allowing disaster after disaster on a nation in which this attitude has become the norm? We despise His institution of marriage in SO many ways these days, even to legalizing the marriage of homosexuals. Fornication has become mere recreation. Living together is just as good as marriage and so much less complicated if it doesn't work out. But divorce is also common, though God says specifically in His word that He hates divorce. Adultery is prohibited in the 7th of the 10 commandments. Exodus 20:14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Thou shalt not kill is the previous commandment, but the nation LEGALLY murders millions of its unborn children every year. Their blood cries out to Him from the ground as Abel's did. The nation has the guilt of their blood against it and God will bring vengeance against it for that.

We have a long list of sins by now all crying out for judgment, which has already started and MUST get much worse considering our sins. Will we repent? Will the churches at least seek God on behalf of the nation, that He might grant repentance and cleanse the land?