Before you start reading this you have in front of you now, I must say that I do not in any way want to attack you or anyone who is a Catholic. I know many good, sincere, and truth-seeking Catholics, I have worked with Catholics in the past, and some of my best friends are actually Catholics. We can talk about this in a sensible way without offending each other. I hope you will not be offended by this either, and if you are offended, I beg your pardon.
What I want to do is deal with is the Catholic Church’s treatment of the Bible, the changes the Catholic Church has made there over time, and the arrogant attitude this church has shown and still shows above the Word of God.
If you are in doubt about my intentions, I ask you open your Bible and find out what the Bible, and the Bible alone, says about what you disagree with me.
Psalm 2 and the battle for the Bible.
The problem in Psalm 2.
Let us look at a word in Psalm 2 and verse 12. Such is the text of King James Version 1611/1769: Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust in him … … this is the text in Basic English 1964: For fear that he may be angry, causing destruction to come on you, because he is quickly moved to wrath. Happy are all those who put their faith in him … and this is the text in the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible: Embrace discipline, lest at any time, the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way. When his wrath shall be kindled in a short time, blessed are all they that trust in him.
Where has the Son gone?
The question is which Hebrew root word translated to the Son, what it means, and what it may mean.
But, first to what it says in some of the Bibles I have access to: Norwegian Bibles, Bibelen Guds Ord 1988 4th edition; DNB 1930; DNB 1938; The Bible 1988; The Bible 1994; Studentmållaget 1921 uses Kiss the Son. Other translations that use Kiss the Son are: the English NIV 1984; King James (1611) 1769; American Standard Version 1901; Darby Bible 1884/1890; the Spanish Reina Valera 1569/1909; Reina Valera Actualizada 1989; and the Danish Bible Dansk 1931.
The 1987 Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures uses kiss the son, but as we can see, the Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translation uses the son, with -h- lowercase and then they add to the interpretation that it is not about the Son of God.
Translations that use words associated with honouring the Son are::
New American Standard Bible: Do homage to the Son.
Young´s Literal Translation 1862 / 1898: Kiss the Chosen One.
La santa Biblia 1960: Honrad al Hijo.
Nueva Reina Valera 2000: Servid al Hijo.
Swedish 1982: Hylla sonen
Swedish 1917: Hyllen sonen (do homage to the son – lowercase)
The Norwegian Bible, Bibelen 1978/85, kyss skjelvende jorden
The Norwegian Bible, Bibelen 2011, Kyss jorden
NVI Zondervaan 1999, Bésenle los pies
Basic English 1964, kissing his feet.
Like the Catalan Bible, Basic English 1964 and Douay-Rheims, the Swedish Bible 2000 omits the term kiss the Son.
As we see, there are many different translations of the same word in the same verse. The majority of the translations agree and write Kiss the Son. The Norwegian translations DNB 1978 and Bibelen 2011 use kiss (trembling) the earth. Swedish Bible 2000 omits this sentence. A couple of English translations use kissing his feet, one Spanish and two Swedish translations write do homage to the son, and a Spanish edition says serve the Son.
The Hebrew text in verse 12 is as follows:
naš-šə-qū– ḇar pen ye-’ĕ-nap̄ wə-ṯō-ḇə-ḏū ḏe-reḵ, kî- yiḇ-‘ar kim-‘aṭ ’ap-pōw; ’aš-rê, kāl- ḥō-w-sê ḇōw.
In Strong´’s Hebrew dictionary, the word ḇar is listed five times: a: H1248, b: H1247; c: H1249;
d: H1250 and e: H1251.
a: H1248 ḇar, bar; borrowed (as a title) from bar (H1247); the heir (apparent to the throne) son.
b: H1247 ḇar (Aramaic), bar; corresponding to ben (H1121); a son, grandson, etc. x old, son. H1121 ben, from banah (H1129); a son (as a builder of the family name) in the widest sense (of literal and figurative relationship, including grandson.
The first hit, H1248, shows us to the second hit H1247, and to H1121 which is translated to son and grandson.
c: H1249 ḇar, bar; from barar (H1305) (in its various senses); beloved; also pure, empty: – choice, clean, clear, pure.
d: H1250 ḇar, bawr; or bar, bar; from barar (H1305) (in the sense of winnowing); grain of any kind (even while standing in the field); by extension the open country: – corn, wheat. H1305 barar, baw-rar’; a primitive root; to clarify (i. e. brighten), examine, select:- make bright, choice, chosen, cleanse (be clean), clearly, polished, (shew self) pure (-ify), purge (out).
Det tredje og fjerde treffet gir oss mange andre ord som beloved og grain of any kind, som kan oversettes den elskede, og korn av alle slag. De øvrige ordene henspiller på å gjøre noe klart, undersøke, (ut)velge, gjøre skinnende/klart, rense osv. osv.
e: H1251 ḇar (Aramaic), bar; corresponding to bar (H1250); a field.
The fifth encounter has more to do with threshing grain of any kind, but it also points to the grain while in the field, and then the term also has an expanded meaning, implying an open field where there is grain.
Det er altså flere mulige oversettelser av ordet bar: H1247 bar: sønn; H1248 bar: sønn; H1249 bar: elsket; H1250 bar: (uttales bawr) korn; H1251 bar: (arameisk låneord) jorde/åker. I Strong´s tekstanalyse brukes H1248: naš-šə-qū- bar som betyr kyss Sønnen.
Arguments against the translation kiss the Son.
There are, of course, arguments against the use of kiss the Son, something else would be a big surprise. Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers and the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges use as an argument against the translation kiss the Son that this translation is only used in the Syrian translation. However, the Syrian translation is in the group of ancient handwritten manuscripts called the Byzantine text family, where both the Majority text and the Textus Receptus (the received text) are located. This group contains over 95% of the approx. 5,000 manuscripts, and amounts to approx. 4,750 of the manuscripts that exist from the time of the early church and a couple of centuries into the future. Ellicott and Cambridge base their comments on the Latin Vulgate Bible, a version based almost exclusively on the Alexandrian text family. The Alexandrian text family is called the minority script, since less than 1% of, or less than 50 of the approx. 5,000 manuscripts belong to this text family. Two of these manuscripts that form the basis of the Vulgate Bible are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which thus represent a small minority text. As I said, this text is only found in a few manuscripts, and has not been used in either Eastern or Western Europe for approx. 1400 years, from the middle of the 5th century to the middle of the 19th century.
I have mentioned it before, but about Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus it is the following to say: Konstantin von Tischendorf found Codex Sinaiticus in a rubbish bin during his first trip to the convent of Santa Catalina in 1844 at the foot of the Sinai on the Sinai Peninsula, and is full of corrections, corrections of corrections, crossings and additions. Notice what year Codex Sinaiticus happened to be found. It is dated to between 330 and 360 AD. and is written with what is called Alexandrian text type. Codex Vaticanus was found in a basement in the Vatican in 1868, is dated to between 300 and 325 AD and are written with the same text type as the Codex Sinaiticus which indicates that they have the same place of origin, Alexandria.
Well, I’m not an expert on either Hebrew or Aramaic, but one thing I have learned, and that is an empirical rule which in most cases turns out to be correct. Look at what the verse, passage, or chapter is about, and compare with how the Bible in general uses that word or phrase about which there is uncertainty. So, despite the fact that many, and especially newer translations do not approve kiss the Son, I still choose to believe that this is the correct translation, all the time the majority text and Textus Receptus choose to translate like that. After all, these texts are based on the text that was handed down from the apostles, and contain over 95% of the handwritten manuscripts. But the most important argument is the fact that Psalm 2 is all about Jesus Christ, the Son, and that verse 12 in Psalm 2 points directly to Psalm 34,23; 1 Kings 1,29; 1 Samuel 26,24; Psalm 37,33 and 2 Peter 2,9, and the common denominator of these six verses is also that they are about the Lord Jesus Christ, or the Son.
Based on the above, I would argue that it is correct to translate ḇar with the Son in this case. The Norwegian theologian Fredrik Wisløff says in his Bible commentary that Psalm 2 is a messianic hymn.
Other translations become for me more sought-after translations, as Psalm 2 is about:
Verse 2: His Anointed One, this is the anointed of God, Jesus Christ.
Verse 6: I have installed My King; God says that He has installed Jesus Christ as King.
Verse 7: You are my Son; this is what God says about Jesus Christ.
Verse 9: You will rule them with an iron sceptre; You here in verse 9 refer back to You in verse 7 who is Jesus Christ.
Verse 11: Serve the Lord with fear. The Lord is here Jesus Christ. It therefore becomes meaningless to translate with kiss the earth.
The battle will continue.
There is no doubt that this battle will continue with increasing intensity until Jesus returns. Since the Catholic Church was dominant, it was not necessary for Satan to intervene in the scriptures other than those he had initiated through the arrogant attitude of the Catholic Church. All Bibles were written in Latin, and the Catholic Church claimed that only the clergy could understand and interpret the scriptures. In this way, the Catholic Church managed to keep the people in ignorance of the truth, and in other words, no more changes were needed than what was done, as they had already done in Alexandria in the early 4th century. Groups such as the Waldenses, who tried to translate the Bible into a readable language, became the subject of hatred by Satan and the Catholic Church, and they were outright hunted like wild beasts, and thousands were killed as they tried to spread the pure and unadulterated word of God.
When the Reformation was a fact, a ‘new’ need arose. Luther translated the Bible into German so that the people themselves could read the word of God and thus be independent of the clergy of the Catholic Church. The art of printing also helped to spread the Bible, even though each copy was relatively expensive. The Catholic Church also had to stop this, and in order to keep people away from the truth, they began seriously to change the Bible. Words and phrases were changed and words, sentences and even whole paragraphs were removed from the Bible, and the punctuation, comma; colon; semicolon; etc. were used to distort the text so that the original message had a different content / meaning. Especially after the emergence of the Advent movement in the early 1800s, this struggle has become increasingly acute. We have a battle against the powers of darkness, or as Paul says in Ephesians 6,12: For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.
In our day, the battle for the Bible continues in most arenas. Not only is the Bible changing over a low shoe, but more and more theologians are questioning the credibility of the Bible, and many reject the creation, the virgin birth, and many of the miracles in the Bible, calling it fairy tales. It may not come as a surprise that Satan uses theologians to destroy God’s Word. If he had attacked the Bible only from the outside, this would certainly have had a unifying effect on the various denominations in order to preserve the Bible against the secular forces’ attempts to destroy it. Instead of attacking it from the outside, Satan uses the fallen church to do so. We know from history that it has always been one of the devil’s most important weapons to infiltrate the church to destroy it from within. Nevertheless, we see that God has always preserved a small remnant that has kept His Word high, and so it is today. God has raised up a people, a small group of people who do not want to be blinded by the big and beautiful words of ecumenical cooperation, and who reject the ‘ecumenical’ Bible that is adapted by all congregations … … except Gods little remnant.
But even among those who call themselves the remnant of God, the enemy has managed to penetrate. This is not new either, nor is it a surprise if we read and understand the Bible correctly. The devil managed to divide the people into two groups just after Adam and Eve had their first two sons. Satan managed to get Cain to sacrifice what he himself had grown – which is to try to justify himself with his own deeds, while Abel sacrificed as God had prescribed, and thus make himself dependent on Jesus’ righteousness. The division of people into two groups was a fact. Later it is said that the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful and they married those they wanted, Genesis 6,2. The sons of God must be understood as the group that obeyed God and followed God’s commandments, while the daughters of men must be understood as the group that did as they pleased. It was in this way that the devil managed to infiltrate God’s people and influence them from within. It is therefore no wonder that this is happening in our time, for now our enemy knows that time is short, and the best way to destroy God’s remnant is to affect it from within. (See also Daniel chapters 10, 11 and 12, part 2 where I explain this.)
Words replaced in the text.
In recent times, when new Bible translations have been made, the editorial staffs have been ecumenical, and consisted of members from most denominations, including Adventists and Catholics. As we saw in the battle for the Bible, part 1, the Catholic Church has a stated goal of creating an ecumenical Bible in collaboration with all denominations, and with the goal in mind that the new text will be accepted and used by all Christians and Christian communities. Therefore, there are more and more changes in the Bible as we get new ecumenical editions.
Many of these changes are directly detrimental to the understanding of the text, where a word that means something very special has been replaced with a word that means something completely different, such as here in Genesis 1,14. Where King James Version 1611 says: And God said, let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years, New International Version says. And God said, Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years.
Many will say that this is a negligible change, but there is a significant difference between a season and sacred times.
Words removed in the text.
Elsewhere, words are removed so that the text takes on a new meaning, as in Matthew 1,25 where KJV 1611 / 1769 says. And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son, and he called his name JESUS, while text in the NIV edition on the other hand is as follows: But he did not consummate their marriage until she gave birth to a son.
Because the word firstborn is deleted in the 2011 edition, the text moves away from the fact that the Bible says that Jesus should be the firstborn, (see Psalm 89:28) which ultimately implies that Jesus’ mother, Mary, was not a virgin when Jesus became conceived.
Words added to the text.
Elsewhere, words are added that also have something to do with the text, in that the addition they insert provides guidelines for how we should understand a verse such as Matthew 24,36. In KJV 1611 the text is like this. But of that day and hour knoweth no [man], no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only, while text in the NIV edition on the other hand is as follows: But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. This is a subtle change of text that makes Jesus a little smaller than He is. When the Bible Societies add and nor the Son, they lay down guidelines that Jesus is not divine. Jesus probably knows as well as God the Father the day and hour of His return.
Sentences and sentence structure changed in the text.
In Matthew 16,18, the editorial team of New Living Translation has changed the entire structure of the phrase which leads to the meaning becoming the way the Catholic Church wants it to be. KJV 1611 says: And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter*, and upon this rock** I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, while New Living Translation says. Now I say to you that you are Peter (which means rock) and upon this rock I will build my church, and all the powers of hell will not conquer it.
As we see, NLT explains in parentheses that Peter means rock, and this leads to the sentence structure being such that NLT lays down guidelines for Peter being the rock, but that is wrong. * The Greek word for Peter is petros meaning stone or pebble. ** The Greek word for rock is petra. When NLT writes like this: you that you are Peter and upon this rock, the word this in this context points back to Peter. To see what KJV 1611 says, we must include verses 16 and 17 where Jesus and Peter are in conversation, and where Peter says that Jesus is the Son of the living God … The two verses are as follows. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. It is from Peter’s answer that we can see whom the church is to be built upon, and then it becomes clear that it is Christ who is the foundation, or the Rock of the church.
The Greek text of this verse is as follows: Kai legō petros tautē petra, and translated with:
Kai – and, even, too; legō – to say; petros – a stone; tautē – this; petra – a cliff or bedrock.
Subtle changes in the text.
Other types of changes may be of the more subtle changes such as the one we find in Revelation 1,13, and KJV 1611 says this. And in the midst of the seven candlesticks [one] like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle. TheNew International Version says, and among the lampstands was someone like a son of man, dressed in a robe reaching down to his feet and with a golden sash around his chest.
Once again, we see these subtle changes. The Son of Man with a capital M has become a son of man with a small s. The difference between the Son of Man versus a son of man is greater than it seems. The Son of Man with a capital M and in particular form undoubtedly refers to Jesus Christ, while a son of man with a small s can just as easily be you or me. These kinds of changes help to make Jesus smaller than He is. Jesus is the Son of God but neither the devil nor his henchmen will accept this, therefore Jesus will be made an ordinary human being.
At least it looks like they are inconsistent, but it is probably only a preparation for what will happen of further changes at the next crossroads. In KJV 1611, we have the same wording in both Isaiah and Matthew with regard to the prophecy of the virgin birth:
Isaiah 7,14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel..
Matthew 1,23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
As we see, in KJV 1611, Isaiah’s prophecy is expressed verbatim in the quote that Matthew uses. However, in Good News Translation (GNT), we find this, Isaiah 7,14 Well then, the Lord himself will give you a sign: a young woman who is pregnant will have a son and will name him Immanuel.
Matthew 1,23 A virgin will become pregnant and have a son, and he will be called Immanuel (which means, God is with us).
In the GNT edition, a change has been made in the actual prophecy in Isaiah, while the quote in Matthew is retained. This is what is inconsistent. Replacing the virgin with a young woman is a bigger change than it seems. We must take into account what it was like in the time of Isaiah, and in the time of Jesus. Girls could be married very young, far younger than is usual today. A young girl could therefore be married, and if the girl was married, she was no longer a virgin. An older woman could be a virgin if she had never been married. By replacing the term a virgin with the term a young woman, it is implicit in the expression a young woman that Mary was not a virgin when Jesus was conceived, and then one destroys the story of the virgin birth.
Her har jeg gjengitt bare seks forskjellige typer endringer som er gjort i 2011-utgaven. I hver av disse seks kategoriene er det til sammen mange hundre endringer. I tillegg til disse type endringer er det også vers hvor man både har: … fjernet og endret ord … fjernet og lagt til ord … fjernet, lagt til og endret ord i samme vers. Og som om dette ikke skulle være nok har utgiverne av 2011-utgaven reist tvil om hele avsnitt i Bibelen.
Doubts are raised about some texts.
Many translations cast doubt on the last 12 verses of Mark, (Mark 16,9-20). The reason they use is that these verses are missing in the oldest manuscripts. The oldest manuscripts they refer to are Codex Sinaiticus from between 330 and 360, and Codex Sinaiticus from between 300 and 325. Then the publishers follow up by saying the following. They are known by some church fathers in the last half of the second century. The last half of the second century is between the years 151 and 200 AD. In other words, this section was known more than 150 years before Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Sinaiticus were written at all. I believe that the publishers have deliberately circumvented the truth, and planted a lie to create the first ecumenical Bible that all denominations from SDA to the Catholic Church, can use.
In many translations, the footnotes of Mark 16 9-20 state the following: Many theologians question the authenticity of verses 9-20, mainly because some of the oldest manuscripts omit the verses … //…
Second-century Christian writers attest to the inclusion of the verses – for example, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tatian, and all of the earliest translations into Latin, Syriac, and Coptic include them.
We find the same thing in the Gospel of John. Here everything between 7,53 and 8,11 is explained in the same way as Mark 16,9-20. They are not found in the oldest manuscripts, but add that they are found in an old tradition.
We can state that there is a struggle going on to change the Bible so that it can appear as an ecumenical Bible that all churches and denominations can gather around. The driving force behind this is quite obviously the Catholic Church which has stated that the inter-church translation will continue to be based on a Hebrew version of the Old Testament and a Greek version of the New Testament, as agreed by representatives of the various denominations. The draft and review of the translation will be carried out in close collaboration, with the aim that the new text will be accepted and used by all Christian and Christian communities.
We have seen that major changes are being made, and these are fortunately easy to spot. We find minor changes that are difficult to detect, and subtle changes are almost impossible to detect. This work has been going on for a long time. At first, for natural reasons, only the Catholic Church was behind the changes, now all denominations have united in this work, SDA also regrettably participates in this work. The changes that are made in the Bible are destructive to the faith we must have in order to survive in a dark world that is completely in the hands of the devil. In many cases, the ecumenical Bibles portray Jesus Christ as an ordinary man, and they distort many of the truths that God has laid down in the Bible. This work will continue with increasing intensity in the time that lies ahead of us, until Jesus returns to redeem his faithful people. Perhaps this is one of the things Jesus had in mind when he said. I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless, when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18,8.
There is nothing we humans can do to stop this destruction of the Bible, because as Ephesians 6,12 says, we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. The only thing we can do is pray to God that He will continue to preserve His Word from complete destruction, and that He will continue to raise up people who will undertake to defend God’s pure Word.
Let us therefore stick to Bibles based on Textus Receptus, as the English King James Version 1611, the Spanish Reina Valera 1569 and the Norwegian Bibelen Guds Ord do, for these are closest to the original text. I do not mean that we should burn all other translations, not at all. Although they are what I call ecumenical editions, there are many good translations there as well. I use the translations I have access to, to get a bigger and more complete picture of verses and words I doubt, by comparing the different translations with each other.
Revelation 14,12 tells us: Here is the patience of the saints: here [are] they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus. This verse describes God’s people in the end times, which is the time we are living in now. The Greek word translated for patience means, in addition to patience perseverance and endurance. We should also hold on to the faith of Jesus, but how can we hold on to the faith of Jesus if the ecumenical Bibles make Jesus an ordinary man? That is when we must have perseverance and endurance and have enough patience to defend God’s Word pure and unadulterated.