Small Anglo-Saxon words can change your perception

By | June 27, 2011

Small Anglo-Saxon words can change your perception!
Watch Video 1:

Watch Vidoe 2:

When it comes to English Bibles, small changes in Anglo-Saxon words have the power to change your perception and understanding of the word of God. I’ll show you an example of this by carefully comparing the same Bible verse from two different Bible translations in the English language. The two versions that I’ll choose are the King James Bible & the Revised Bible. You have to be careful when referencing Bibles that are called revised. There are several Bibles with the name revise or revised in their title. We want to look at the Revised Bible. The reason for this is because this Bible was the first major English revision of the King James Bible, and it starts a deliberate trend to hide the real word of God from us, the English-speaking people.

Keep Reading! 

Here is a brief summary of the revised version: The Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of the Bible is a late 19th-century British revision of the King James Version of 1611. The work was begun in 1879. The New Testament was published in 1881, the Old Testament in 1885, and the Apocrypha in 1894. It is the only officially authorized and recognized revision of the KJV. There were over 50 “scholars” from various denominations on the team. American “scholars” participated by correspondence. The revisers were charged with introducing alterations only if they were required in order to be faithful to the original text. In the New Testament alone, there are more than 30,000 changes made, over five thousand of them based on a new “so-called” better Greek text. I can assure you that they did not stay faithful to the charge that they were given. Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort were the best known of the translation committee members; their fiercest critic of that period was John William Burgon. Hort & Wescott introduced reference documents that were never considered part of the original text at any time in previous church history. Most of the changes are as a result of using these corrupt manuscripts. Hort & Wescott have very detailed profiles that show that they were anything but godly. Burgon strongly opposed this English revision and forcibly argued that the result was not the word of God. This revised version also opens the way for publishers to become extremely protective of their copyright entitlements.

We are going to look at just two parallel versus:

(Heb 1:1 RV) God, having of old time spoken unto the fathers in the prophets by divers portions and in divers manners,

(Heb 1:1 KJV) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

The first thing you notice is that the word order and the structure of the sentences are changed. You have to look carefully at them to spot differences. This is not just a matter of using different definitions. The changes between the two will alter your perception about the word of God.

Let us look at two small words “in” & “by.” In the way that the mind Works, these two small Anglo-Saxon words will change your perception of the word of God, unless you are well informed. By saying that the word of God or rather, what God spoke, is “by” the prophets, you imply that what the prophets spoke is the word of God. By saying that the word of God or rather, what God spoke, is “in” the prophets, you imply that what the prophets spoke contains the word of God.

If you believe beyond all reasonable doubts that the Bible is the word of God, then trusting it to reveal God’s words to you is simple. If you believe that the Bible only contains the word of God then you need some sort of reference to show you clearly (I had a split infinitive here “to clearly show you” but I decided to change it) just what is the word of God and what is merely the reports of mankind. By using the simple word in the phrase “in the prophets” you entrench your perception that the Bible, as we know it, only contains the word of God and therefore its meanings are up for change and debate. This implies that you need someone with specialist knowledge to interpret whatever God might have said.

I’m sure that you can see the problems here. By using the word “in” you are now at odds with the word “all.”

(2Ti 3:16 KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

We would then have to do know what the word “Scripture” means. Is the whole of our Bible the Scripture or is only part of our Bible the Scripture? In other words, if the Bible that we are reading only contains Scripture but is not totally Scripture, then who is qualified to make these distinctions?

I believe that the King James Bible is the word of God in English. This English word of God can be traced all the way back to the day of Pentecost when travellers from Britain heard the gospel in their own native language and brought it back to Britain as the word of God.

(Act 2:8 KJV) And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?

I think that it is wonderful that every vernacular Bible up to & until the work on the Revised Bible all agree with one another. Once the Revised Bible was published the way was open for all the vernacular Bibles in the languages of the world to be polluted and changed into something that only contained the word of God and certainly was not the word of God. I think that Revised Edition translation committee has a lot to answer for.

I have endeavoured to keep this Post short. I would welcome any comments or questions & I have posted this through several different blogs and social networks sites. When you develop a love for the word of God you will have access to something that is far more than just another resource for living.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook

Leave a Reply