MARY SISTER OF AARON(Moses Brother) LIE BUSTED ! Continue reading
Memri TV Exposed
HOw many times have you seen videos where muslim woman or a man saying islam is false religion ,islam treats women in bad way ? Continue reading
An American Convert from Christianity to Islam
The Greatest Commandment (Mark 12: 28-35, Matthew 22:34-40) Continue reading
Verses Deleted In Modern Bible Versions
Quranic Description of Mary Virginal Conception
Sam the greatest liar of 21century is accusing Quran to describe the miraculous conception of Jesus in a very graphic way. His accusation can be divide into following categories.
1- Quran uses the term ‘farj’ which is a person’s private [here Mary’s vagina] part in the context of conception of Jesus.
2- The conception of Jesus (peace be upon him) in the Quran, as described by the Tafasir is gross and abusive.
3- To whom the Quran refer in 66:12 as ‘he’.
Before I start, I want to inform the readers that when I am going to use the word ‘God’ to refer to ‘Allah’ and ‘Yaweh’for the God of the Bible.
Refutation of Allegation #1:
Sam claims that Quran uses the word ‘farj’ to mean Mary’s vagina and he furthur twisted the translations alleges that Allah breathed into Mary’s vagina through angel Gabriel. He quoted the verses of the Quran which talks about how Maryam (A.S) got pregnant. He quoted Surah 21:90-91,66:12 regarding the verses of Maryam’s conception of Jesus (A.S). To further cement his claim he also quoted 24:30-31 and 23:125 to mean ‘farj’ as private parts. For the sake of brevity, I would quote only 21:90-91 which talks about the conception of Jesus.
The verse says:
????????? ?????????? ????????? ??????????? ?????? ??? ????????? ?????????????? ?????????? ????? ???????????????
And [mention] the one who guarded her chastity, so We blew into her [garment] through Our angel [Gabriel], and We made her and her son a sign for the worlds.
Farj – used as an honour:
The angel breathed into the garment of Maryam (A.S) not in her vagina.
So doesn’t farj means a person’s private area?
Yes it does! But only when it is referring to private parts like in one of the Hadith (Sunan of Abu Dawud, Book 11, Number 2126). Arabs sometimes refer to farj in the context of chastity or honor. A narration below is one of the few examples.
A Shiite Muslim, Al-Kulayni (d. 329 A.H.) records;
?? ??? ??????? (?) ?? ????? ?? ????? ????: ?? ??? ??? ??????
It is narrated from Abu Abdullah –on his be peace- he said about the marriage of Umm Kulthum. So he said: “That this was the honor (farj) that was coerced from us” (al-Kafi 5/494 Narration no. 9536. Al-Majlisi has accepted it as authentic)
Now here Abu Abdullah (i.e. Hassain bin Ali) is talking about his sister Umm Kulthum and it needs no elaboration that a brother –who is a learned imam- would refer to his sister as ‘honor’ and will never refer to her privacy even in his imagination, let alone mention it to others.
Farj- used as an opening [here of the garment]:
Commentators use the word farj here as a narrow opening of Maryam’s garment [not vagina since every garment has opening and it makes more sense] not vagina because the word for vagina is ‘mahbil’, if angel blew into the Maryam’s vagina the word ‘mahbil’ would have been used but that’s not the case, use of the word farj has opened the gates of two meanings. According To Lane’s lexicon ‘farj’ also means an opening.
It is unanimously agreed by commentators that the term ‘farj’ here means ‘the narrow opening of Maryam’s garment’. Some of the examples include:
1. Al-Tabari (d. 310 A.H.) states, “It is the opening of her garment.” (Tafsir al-Tabari, 23/500).
2. Al-Qurtubi (d. 671 A.H.) says it refers her garment and not her private part. (Tafsir Al-Jami’ al-Ahkam al-Qur’an, 18/203)
3. Al-Zamakhshari (d. 538 A.H.) states it’s about her garment. (Tafsir al-Kashshaf 4/573)
4- Al-Suyuti (d. 911 A.H.) says the very same. (Tafsir Jalalayn 1/754)
Refutation of allegation #2:
Let us jump to Surah 19:22-23, where a similar verse describes the conception of Isa (peace be upon him) and let us see the relevant commentary of Tafsir Ibn Kathir in this regard. Note the word farj isn’t used in this verse; Surah 19:22-23 says,
“And she conceived him, and she withdrew with him to a far place. And the pains of childbirth drove her to the trunk of a palm tree. She said, “Oh, I wish I had died before this and was in oblivion, forgotten.”
Ibn Kathir’s commentary:
Ibn Kathir remarks on these verses: “Allah, the Exalted, informs about Maryam that when Jibril had spoken to her about what Allah said, she accepted the decree of Allah. Many scholars of the predecessors (Salaf) have mentioned that at this point the angel (who was Jibril) blew into the opening of the garment [farj which also means an opening] that she was wearing. Then the breath descended until it entered into her vagina and she conceived the child by the leave of Allah.” (Online Source)
First we should dig in the term ‘spirit’. Tafsir Al-Jalalayn while commenting on S 38:72 defines it as something that gives life, from a hadith (Sahih Bukhari, Book #55, Hadith #549) that says that an angel come to write about a person’s lifetime and then blow his spirit to give life to fetus which is in the womb, similarly God of the bible also blew into Adam’s nostrils [Genesis 2:7]. It would be foolish to say that God love to breath in someone’s nostrils,Adam was there with God but Eisa (peace be upon him) was to nourish in the womb of Maryam (A.S). The breath itself reaches the uterus through vagina [as in case of Adam it was his nose, so it’s just an opening into the body] as this is only opening into the uterus!
Now it’s not mentioned anywhere that embryo Eisa was there in the womb when it happened. If you read furthermore, the Tafsir ibn Kathir says.
“After this, her menstrual bleeding ceased and she experienced what the pregnant woman experiences of sickness, hunger, change of color and there was even a change in the manner of her speech.”
It means Eisa (peace be upon him) wasn’t there in the womb of Virgin. Maryam(A.S) thus conceived her son through this breath which travelled through her vagina and into the uterus (womb), where Esa (peace be upon him) was nourished like every human born of a woman, Adam didn’t nourish in the womb of a female that’s why his spirit took the route of nostrils as the Bible says.
Refutation of allegation #3:
Sam in his gown of crusades alleged that to whom Quran refer to in 66:12, he remarked :
“The second problem is caused by the Arabic language. In Arabic, Allah does not say: ‘so we breathed into her of our spirit’, but ‘into him’. Who is it, into whom the spirit was breathed? The embryo ‘Isa? That is difficult to accept, for then ‘Isa would have existed in Mary’s womb already before the spirit was breathed into her. That would mean that Allah created ‘Isa before hand or that he existed before he was conceived. Both options are out of the question for Islamic scholars.
Who is it then, into whom the Spirit from Allah was breathed? IT IS ALMOST UNSPEAKABLE, but the last expression in the previous sentence, which is masculine in Arabic, IS THE EXPRESSION FOR MARY’S GENITALS. The literal meaning of Allah’s statement in Arabic is then, ‘so we breathed into her vagina [farj] of our spirit.’ This turns the stomachs of some of our readers.”
Surah 66:12 of the Quran reads:
?????????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ?????????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ??? ????????? ??????????? ??????????? ???????? ?????????? ????????? ???? ?????????????
Dr.Ghali: “And Maryam (Mary) daughter of Imran, who kept safe her private parts, (i.e., safeguarded) so We breathed in it of Our Spirit, and she sincerely (believed) in the Words of her Lord, and His Books; and she was one of the devout.”
Actually none of the translators translated as ‘unto him’ but as ‘there in(Pickthall) , in it (Dr.Ghali), into her (Yusuf Ali, Shakir)’.
Again the Sam is playing his dirty tricks to confuse the readers and exposes his bigot nature;
the word ????? (fihi) is used in this verse as a masculine singular object pronoun and means the farj[opening] of Maryam (A.S)’s sleeves or garments as garments are treated as masculine in Arabic. We have earlier proved that Isa (peace be upon him) wasn’t there in the womb of Maryam (A.S) and she conceived him after she received the breadth from Gabriel which blew into her garment not her vagina.
Lets See What Bible says about this
Before I come to the bone of contention i.e. Luke 1:35, let me reply to Sam’s argument on this verse.
Argument 1: The word come upon is used in Luke 2:25 and Luke 3:22, about Simon’s righteousness and Jesus’ baptism.
My Response: The Greek word used in Luke 1:35 is ?p????µa? (Strong’s G1904-eperchomai), and in context of spirit coming upon someone is used only in Luke 1:35 and Acts 1:8, but the spirit when came upon the disciples in acts, one of the disciples of Jesus Mary Magdalene didn’t conceive any baby so it must have come upon them in a different way. The Luke 1:35 uses this word for explaining the impregnation of Mary, as something is coming upon her as a husband come upon his wife.
Argument 2: Jesus was transfigured by clouds in Luke 9:34.
My Response: The term overshadow doesn’t always mean that a person is shadowed by some cloud, we should have to see the context also as to where and why the word is used and what possible meanings it may have, which I have discussed below.
Catholic assumption about Luke1:35 :
The Catholic view about the birth of Jesus can be put in a nutshell by this simple picture.
Holy Ghost hovered over Mary exhorted creative energy on her womb while Yahweh was overshadowing her with clouds and boom! Jesus was conceived. Infact, early church fathers gave many theories which we will view in the later text and this isn’t the first place where God of the bible sounds pornographic, the intention of God to have martial relationship with his people is also reflected in.
In Ezekiel, God compares Bride Israel to a young woman, using some striking imagery to describe his love for her:
Then you grew up, became tall, and reached the age for fine ornaments; your breasts were formed and your hair had grown.Yet you were naked and bare.Then I passed by you and saw that you were ready for love; so I SPREAD MY CLOAK OVER YOU and covered your nakedness. I swore to you and entered into a covenant with you so that you became mine, declares the Lord God. – Ezekiel 16:7-8
The phrase “spread my cloak over you” was a Hebrew euphemism for conjugal relations (see Ruth 3:9). This passage should give us an idea of the basic goodness of the marital act as God designed and intended it.
Ruth 3:9 : And he said, Who art thou? And she answered, I am Ruth thine handmaid: SPREAD THEREFORE THY SKIRT OVER THINE handmaid; for thou art a near kinsman.
Barnes’ Notes on the Bible: Spread thy skirt … –
The phrase indicates receiving and acknowledging her as a wife.
Due to the nebulous and somewhat graphical language of Luke 1:35 several theories are proposed depending which sect of Christianity you are talking about, since Catholics aren’t the only Christians in the scene.
Intimacy with Yahweh:
The language of Luke 1:35 made some Christians (Mormons) to believe that Yahweh was sexually involved with Mary. Luke 1:35 states, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon you and the power of the most high (Yahweh) will overshadow you. This makes some Christian to come to conclusion when Holy ghost came upon Mary she became unconscious and Jehovah had an intercourse with her.
To further explain as to why he reach this conclusion on Luke 1:35, he said,
Intimacy with Holy Ghost:
Luke 1:35 says that holy ghost will come upon Mary and the power of the most high will overshadowed her. A Christian source remarked, ‘overshadowed’ is just another delicate discreet way of saying a man got on top of a woman, casting his shadow over her, and entered her with his penis and ‘made love’ to her. This is just the good old-fashioned missionary way of producing babies. The woman gets ‘overshadowed’…or as King Solomon via the Holy Spirit said… His left hand is under my head, and his right hand doth embrace me. (Song of Solomon 2: 6) Because her lover is over top of her…. and he is overshadowing her …..’and his banner over me was love’ (2: 4).Do clouds penetrate into the womb ?…. Does gas produce babies ? The answer obviously NO. The Lord created sperm to break thru the egg of a woman to combine with the cell of a woman to reproduce into a new body for a new soul. That’s the Lord’s biology, that’s His embryology. That’s the Lord’s sexuality.
Mathew 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is CONCEIVED IN her is of the Holy Ghost.
And the conception happened INSIDE Mary’s womb.
Luke 2:21 And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called JESUS, which was so named of the angel before he was CONCEIVED IN THE WOMB.
Some Christians are of the view that Holy Ghost was the spouse of Mary. Can a spirit have sex with humans? According to a Christian source, there is a possibility, according to Zohar [a book on Jewish kaablah] and the Alphabet of Ben Sira [wrote by Jesus bin Sirach], Lilith was Adam’s first wife who later became a succubus[female demon]. She left Adam and refused to return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with archangel Samael (who was an angel) and according to another source, even Pope Sylvester also had a sexual relationship with a succubus. However, Catholics kept this relationship in just spiritual realm;
Saint Maximillian Kolbe say that the relationship between the Spirit of God and the Theotokos is redolent of a marriage in the following ways: As a husband and wife become “one flesh” in marriage (Genesis 2:24) yet remain distinct persons, so Mary and the Spirit are two distinct persons who share a deep spiritual union. As human spouses cooperate in giving life to their children, so, analogously, the Spirit and Mary “cooperate” in communicating spiritual life to us. (H.M. Manteau-Bonamy, The Immaculate Conception and the Holy Spirit: The Marian Teachings of Saint Maximillian Kolbe (Libertyville, IL: Franciscan Marytown Pr, 1977 ) , So how does husband and wife become one? Of course after sexual intercourse .Levi Jones, associate pastor of theology in U.S.A see the impregnation of Mary analogous to Zeus’s relationship with Leda.
As said earlier it is possible that a spirit can have sexual relationship with a human. However, Jesus is refereed to son as the son of Yahweh i.e. born of Yahweh’s sperm or semen and the spirit act as a vector in transferring the sperms of Yahweh into Mary’s womb probably in an old fashioned way. We see that Holy Spirit can take physical forms such as dove, thus it possible that it came upon her and overshadowed her. According to a source, Holy Spirit is also designated as the most high and he was the one overshadowing her and ejaculating the seed of Yahweh into her. Some Christian may say if this copulation then Mary is no longer a virgin which goes against Isaiah 7:14, Oh really? The word used for defining the virginity of Mary in the New Testament is pa?????? (strong’s G3933-parthenos), however! It also mean a marriageable maiden; Infact in Septuagint, this term is also applied for woman who are already deflowered women and harlots.
As for Isaiah 7:14, the R.S.V. 1952 Bible which was produced by Thirty-two scholars of highest eminence, and reviewed by fifty representatives of cooperating denominations, gives its translation as;
“Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Imman’u-el.”
And in the footnote to this verse it says;
“Young woman, Hebrew ‘almah, feminine of ‘elem, young man (1 Sam.17.56, 20.22); the word appears in Gen.24.43; Ex.2.8; Ps.68.25, and elsewhere where it is translated “young woman,” “girl,” “maiden.”
(The Holy Bible, Revised Standard Version 1952, Edited by Herbert G. May and Bruce M. Metzger, Oxford University Press, New York 1962)
Intimacy with Gabriel and Jospeh:
In a book Unveiling God’s Presence in the Bible By Tommy C. SEAY, he claims that it was the angle Gabriel sexually involved with Mary and this claim is inspired by his holy ghost (pg297-301). Bible Review Magazine 1902-1903 By Harry et al Wright, he claims that when ghost came upon both both Mary and Joseph when they were in bed and clouds overshadowed them, they committed sex unconsciously and this how Jesus was born (pg.113-114). All these books can be read on Google books.
Early Church fathers unable to understand how Mary became impregnated with Jesus, posed different drawings. One of them was that a Yahweh is oozing semen from his mouth through a tube which is going beneath Mary’s skirt.
Summary & Conclusion:
Even the spirit brought the breath of God, there was no sex at all, the conception was totally spiritual etc etc. The point is that Luke 1:35 is at the time so graphic and nebulous that it made Christians to came up with some nasty and promiscuous thoughts about the conception. On the other hand, Quran is very clear and free of such imagery. Christians should check their own sources before criticizing ours. Infact, both Mathew and Paul never made any claim about the virgin birth, why? I leave this answer to the Christians.
Qur’an refers to Mary, the most chaste woman ever in the most excellent manner and in the language befitting the Divine Majesty. This is why Muslims never have had any graphical or immodest description of her conception, whereas the Biblical description speaks of a human mind behind the narrative which brings in a mental picture which has lead to all the non-sense shown above. And perhaps all this was a reflection of Greek mythology cf. Zeus’ relation with Leda.
Whatever is given in the “Lets see What Bible says” section is just a showing of the mirror to Christian missionary haters of Islam otherwise neither the author of this post and nor any Muslim can ever think of anything remotely akin to it. No Muslim is a Muslim if he has any such imagination about the purest and greatest woman of all times.
Hidden Truth about the WTC 7 (3rd tower) Collapse on 9-11
Everyone remembers the Twin Towers exploding at 9:59AM and 10:28AM EDT on September 11, 2001. Comparatively few people can recall that there was a third massive skyscraper, also a part of the World Trade Center, which fell very rapidly to the ground on that day. This was World Trade Center Building 7.1
One reason that few remember WTC Building 7’s collapse is that after September 11th it has been treated, both in the media and in The 9/11 Commission Report, as if it didn’t happen.
“The total collapse of the third huge skyscraper late in the afternoon September 11thwas reported as if it were an insignificant footnote… most people never saw video of Building 7’s collapse… Incredibly, it is virtually impossible to find any mention of Building 7 in newspapers, magazines, or broadcast media reports after September 11th.” 2
The collapse of Building 7 at 5:20PM EDT was in itself a major event; the sudden and unexplained fall to earth of a 47-story steel-framed skyscraper is certainly news. Why has there been almost no mention of this in the U.S. media, and why was there no mention of Building 7’s collapse in The 9/11 Commission Report? These are questions of great significance, and they cry out for answers. To be able to approach any kind of explanation, however, first some pertinent and verified facts of the Building 7 aspect of 9/11 need to be scrutinized.
The following eleven facts have been compiled from the research of reputable sources – those who have dared to question and have devoted innumerable hours into discovering what really happened on 9/11.
FACT 1: WTC Building 7 was one of the largest buildings in downtown Manhattan. It was 47 stories tall, about half the height of the Towers, and took up an entire city block. It was 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower (the North Tower, WTC 1), and was a steel-framed, concretestructure.4
FACT 2: WTC Building 7 – on its 23rd floor – housed an Emergency Command Center for the City of New York that Mayor Rudolph Giuliani had built in the mid-1990’s. On the morning of September 11th, Mayor Giuliani did not go “to his Command Center – with its clear view of the Twin Towers – but to a makeshift, street-level headquarters at 75 Barkley Street.” WTC 7 also held the offices of numerous government agencies, including the Department of Defense, the CIA, the Secret Service, the IRS, and the Security and Exchange Commission.5 Late 2001 was the time of “the height of the investigation into Enron, so the majority of Enron’s SEC filings were likely destroyed when World Trade Center 7 came down.”6
FACT 3: WTC Building 7 was not hit by airplane or significant debris on September 11th. It had been evacuated after the planes hit the towers. By the afternoon of September 11th, there were a few small fires of unknown origin evident in the building, and these small fires could be seen in only a few of the hundreds and hundreds of windows in the building.7
FACT 4: On September 11, 2001, at 5:20PM, EDT, World Trade Center Building 7 suddenly and rapidly collapsed. Beginning with the penthouse, all 47 stories of it imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds.
FACT 5: On September 16th, NASA flew an airplane over the World Trade Center site, recorded infrared radiation coming from the ground, and created a thermal map. The U.S. Geological Survey analyzed this data, and determined the actual temperature of the rubble. This map shows that five days after the collapse of Building 7, the surface temperature of asection of its rubble was 1,341º F.8 This high a temperature is indicative of the use of explosives.
FACT 6: Fire Engineering magazine is the 125-year-old paper-of-record of the fire engineering community. Bill Manning, editor-in-chief, wrote an Editor’s Opinion in the January, 2002 edition. His editorial, $elling Out the Investigation, pointed out that destruction of evidence – the hurried removal of rubble which should be examined by investigators – is illegal. He also issued a “call to action”. To quote excerpts:
“For more than three months, structural steel from the World Trade Center has been and continues to be cut up and sold for scrap. Crucial evidence that could answer many questions … is on the slow boat to China …”
“I have combed through our national standard for fire investigation, NFPA 921, but nowhere in it does one find an exemption allowing the destruction of evidence for buildings over 10 stories tall.”
“Fire Engineering has good reason to believe that the ‘official investigation’ blessed by FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and run by the American Society of Civil Engineers is a half baked farce [emphasis mine] that may have already been commandeered by political forces whose primary interests, to put it mildly, lie far afield of full disclosure. Except for the marginal benefit obtained from a three-day, visual walk-through of evidence sites conducted by ASCE investigation committee members – described by one close source as a ‘tourist trip’ – no one’s checking evidence for anything.”
“The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately.”
FACT 7: In May of 2002, FEMA published their report #403 titled World Trade Center Building Performance Study. This report claims that the fires caused the building to collapse, but that the specifics of how this is supposed to have occurred “…remain unknown at this time.”12
FACT 8: The collapse of WTC Building 7 shows five characteristics of a controlled demolition:
It “dropped directly into its own footprint in a smooth, vertical motion”;
It “collapsed completely in less than seven seconds”;
“Dust streamed out of the upper floors of Building 7 early in its collapse”;
“WTC 7’s roof inverted toward its middle as the collapse progressed”; and
FACT 9: “Larry Silverstein is a rather large player within the realms of 21st Century real estate, finance, and politics.”14 He “…had taken out a long lease on the World Trade Center only six weeks before 9/11. In a PBS documentary entitled ‘America Rebuilds’, originally aired in September of 2002, Silverstein made the following statement about Building 7:
‘I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse.’” 15 16
FACT 10: “It is inconceivable that anyone could be running around placing explosives in exactly the right places all within seven hours. In fact, implosions take a minimum of two weeks and up to two months to plan and place the charges. The fire department of New York does not even train their personnel to do controlled demolition. They are done by highly skilled experienced specialists who plan and test far ahead.”17
FACT 11: “… [George W.] Bush’s brother, Marvin Bush, and his cousin, Wirt Walker III, were principles in the company [Stratesec, formerly named Securacom] that was in charge of security for the World Trade Center, with Walker being the CEO from 1999 until January 2002.”18
In summation: A major aspect of 9/11 has been excluded from the entire U.S. media after September 11th, and was also omitted from The 9/11 Commission Report. This was the sudden fall to earth, on September 11th, 2001, of World Trade Center Building 7. Not hit by airplane or significant debris, 300 feet from the closest Twin Tower, and with just a few small fires burning within it, at 5:20PM EDT this massive concrete and steel-framed 47-story skyscraper imploded into its own footprint in less than seven seconds. Its rapid implosion had all of the characteristics of a controlled demolition, and the World Trade Center leaseholder, Larry Silverstein, stated in so many words that the building had been collapsed by demolition. It takes weeks, if not months, to prepare the demolition of a building as large as WTC 7; this implosion could not have been engineered and implemented in seven chaotic hours on September 11th. Therefore, a question emerges:
Who had the means and expertise to engineer such a demolition and acquire needed materiel, and who had access to WTC Building 7 PRIOR TO September 11, 2001 in order to place the explosives?
300 Changes In The NIV & Other Modern Bible Versions
“Is ‘King James’ Version the Actual Bible?”
Note: The word “Bible” comes from the Koine Greek word “biblios” and it simply means the same as the word “book” in English. Nowhere in the Bible do we find the word “Bible.” However, it is interesting to note the word “kitab” (Bible in Arabic) appears many times in the Quran, referring to the Bible and the People of the Book (Jews and Christians).
Let me begin by saying that the King James “version” of the Bible is in English. There was no English language until the year 1066 AD when the Normans invaded the Saxons. Therefore the English Bible cannot be anything like what any of the prophets spoke or understood, as it did not exist in their times.
Next, my grandfather, who was a devout and wonderful Christian man gave a gift of the Holy Bible to my sisters and I almost fifty years ago. It was an authorized version of the Bible, being The Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was a revised version of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a version of the King James Version, published in 1611, which was revised and corrected for the first time in 1612, etc. I was very much impressed with the easier to read text and clarification of some of the wording which was presented in this version and began to read the Bible on a daily basis for hours at a time. The removal of the Elizabethton English terms, phrases and expressions made the Bible a more accessible and understandable and intimate Book for me. But that is not all the RSV did for me and many others, as well.
My love and respect for the Word of God increased the more that I spent time reading and understanding the message. The Bible became my most prized and respected book in my life. I often turned to it throughout the rest of my life in times of joy, happiness, sadness, troubles and pain. It was my compass, my road map, my weather vane and my friend. However, there were still some problems with this IMPROVED VERSION of the Holy Bible. It began to disturb and concern me to the extent that I made consultation with my father, who was also an ordained minister and student of the Bible since childhood. Based on his research and background in the origin and sources for modern day Christianity, I began to go deeper into the problems which had plagued my thinking and faith since childhood.
I prayed to Almighty God and then found the answers to some of the problems were spelled out very clearly in the very beginning of the exact same book. I have that book lying in front of me on my desk as I write this article and would like to quote to you from some of the PREFACE page iii and iv:
“The King James Version has with good reason been termed ‘the noblest monument of English prose.’ Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration of ‘its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of express… the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.’ It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.”
“Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bibles was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.”
“Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.”
“…. decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the version of 1901..””In 1937 the revision was authorized by vote of the Council.”
“Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations.”
“Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee.”
“The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament.”
“For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books.”
“For the Old Testament only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea Texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written.”
“The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the ‘Masoretes’) of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done.”
“… vowel points are less ancient and [less] reliable than the consonants.”
“Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized.”
“Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions [translations into Greek Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin], which were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text.”
“Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.”
“Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain.”
“Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote.”
“If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note.”
“It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated.”
“To record all minority views was obviously out of the question.”
“The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying.”
“It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts.”
“The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and [yet] he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.”
“We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the new Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better that for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.”
The words are in plain English. The second paragraph says it all, “Yet, the King James Version has grave defects.
Therefore, we must conclude the “King James Version” is NOT the Actual Bible sent by God to mankind.