The
Berean Chronicles Forums
King
James Bible Discussion
Barbara
Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
|
Support
Search
|
Page:
1 2
[Click here to read page 1]
[Click here to read page 3]
n8tureboy
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
5
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Thank's Barbara for clarifying
your thoughts on the NKJV.
quote:
I
suspect Texe Marrs may be cooperating with this. He is a
Ruckmanite. I used to get his newsletters and bought Ruckmans books from him several years ago. I read them and
did learn quite a bit about manuscripts and the history of
them, etc., but there is an attack against the Hebrew and
Greek in them and the idea that the translators were
inspired with the words rather than just a good translation
from the original languages.
This is interesting to me, I've noticed some suspicion cast
upon Texe Marrs' ministry by others and I'm curious to learn
what others are thinking?
I have been following Mr. Marrs' newsletter for over 10 years.
Thank's,
Patrick 
|
|
7/3/2006, 5:02 am |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to n8tureboy
Send PM to n8tureboy
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Dear Lisa and Mary,
"We have expressed in our Statement of Faith that our final
authority is the Greek Textus Receptus. This Greek text is
available in various Greek-English Interlinear New Testaments. I
work with a researcher who has studied Greek and we frequently
compare the KJV to the Greek text, and note where they differ."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
Greetings Barbara,
Since you believe the researcher is finding errors in the King
James Bible, do you intend to make these (as you refer to them)
errors known to the public?
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Recently, we began comparing the NKJV to the Greek text and
were surprised that we could not find any significant departures
from the TR."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
How can this be in view of the charts/information on your
website that shows the corruption of the New King James Version
as well as the clearly occult logo the publishers placed on the
cover?
"The triquetra is also displayed on the New King James Version
of the Bible. There is a reason for this, which has nothing to
do with the Trinity (their excuse), for "we ought not to think
that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven
by art and man's device." (Acts 17:29)
The reason for the occult logo probably has something to do with
the fact that the NKJV was edited by a committee comprised
largely of neo-evangelical leaders with ties to the occult. See
Unholy Hands on the Bible and New King James Version:
Counterfeit for eye-openers on the NKJV."
http://www.watch.pair.com/stuph.html
http://www.watch.pair.com/scriptures.html
Barbara Aho wrote:
"I shared this with Mary but have not made a public statement
because we are still in the process of researching the NKJV. To
post a private e-mail which says the NKJV “seems to follow the
TR more closely than the KJV” and interpret this as “support of
the New King James Version” is neither a fair statement nor a
fair way of handling the matter."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
It was fair of Kelly in her (and presumably your) view to post a
private email that cuttingedge.org's ex-pastor sent to one of
her listeners. Why? Because it exposed what was needful to
protect the body of Christ from information that he might
present to his subscribers in the future. David Bay does not
hold to the King James only (he promotes the Amplified) but he
does not say that the King James is not properly translated from
the Textus Receptus in all places. You do. He does, however say
that the Amplified Bible restores the full meaning, which is
essentially saying the same thing--the King James is deficient.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Had you asked me I would have explained that we are in the
process of researching the NKJV and not prepared to draw any
conclusions yet. I think my e-mail said as much."
[Note to the reader:
Barbara Aho and Kelly Mc Ginley were notified about my concerns
about Ms Aho's teachings about the King James Bible and the mark
of the beast months before I confronted Barbara publicly in the
"Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority" thread. Both
ladies received an
email about this matter on or about April 30th.]
Lisa Ruby wrote:
I was planning to email you on Monday (June 26th) because the
Friday before I spoke with one of our website readers about
these matters. No, I did not seek her out to discuss this. This
individual called me to enthusiastically endorse your website.
(Others have emailed me with concerns about your mark of the
beast article where you say the mark is ON rather than IN.) I
told her I was going to email you regarding the King James
matter and pre-trib and unconditional eternal security
doctrines.
Mary apparently emailed you much earlier and decided to forward
your reply to me on Monday, June 26th out of concern for others.
I was alarmed to see that you told her that the King James Bible
does not follow the Textus Receptus--the message you are getting
across is that is has errors in it.
I have had a warning about Peter Ruckman on my website since
March of 2005. I do not endorse him. See the warning on my
site here:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/king_james_links.html
Also see:
Peter Ruckman and His
View on the KJV
[See the
article,
About
Gail Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions]
Also see:
NON-RUCKMANITE
ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV QUESTIONS
Barbara Aho wrote:
"You find fault with my interpretation of the Mark of the Beast
because I “cited the George Ricker Berry Interlinear
Greek-English New Testament (Textus Receptus) to "correct" the
King James Bible.”
(Note added
1/14/07: Thomas Newberry, the late Plymouth Brethren
leader who authored the George Ricker Berry English Interlinear,
did NOT regard the Textus Recpetus as the word of God.) See:
The George
Ricker Berry English Interlinear: Corrupt Foundation
Do you believe that where there are differences between the KJV
and the TR that the KJV reading is right and the Greek wrong?"
Lisa Ruby wrote:
I do not believe the Holy Bible, which was already translated by
a large committee of godly and very scholarly men can be
corrected by a man who wrote a lexicon.
The King James was 100% properly translated from the Received
Text that the translaters used. Those who say it was not do not
believe we have a preserved, perfect Holy Bible in the English
language. (Unless you are saying that the New King James is 100%
properly translated from the Received Text? Is that what you are
trying to ascertain with your researcher? What is his or her
name please?)
Barbara Aho wrote:
"If so, you should know that it was Peter Ruckman who introduced
the notion that “the English KJV corrects the Greek Text” and
that many King James defenders have taken issue with this as a
false teaching. To believe that the KJV corrects the Greek
Textus Receptus puts one squarely in the Ruckmanitecamp. See: http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/ruckman.htm
quote:
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/3/2006,
2:38 pm
|
|
7/3/2006, 12:21 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
[continued]
Barbara Aho wrote:
"The KJV is far superior to any modern version based on the very
corrupt Westcott-Hort Greek Text, but only the Greek Textus
Receptus can be considered inerrant and therefore the standard.
Even the AV translators esteemed only the Received Greek text as
the perfect standard, and all translations to be imperfect
versions:"
http://www.ccel.org/bible/kjv/preface/pref9.htm
“No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to
be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that
some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting
forth of it. For what euer was perfect vnder the Sunne, where
Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an
extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priuiledged with the
priuiledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?…
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the
beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor
yet to make of a bad one a good one,... but to make a good one
better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not
justly to bee excepted against; that hath beene our indeavour,
that our marke.” (1611 AV Preface)
"Barbara Aho wrote:
There were many revisions of the 1611 Authorised Version in the
years that followed its publication. The Apocrypha was part of
the 1611 AV and it was not permanently removed until 1827."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
This is an argument used by those who seek to discredit the King
James Bible as being the inerrant word of God in English.
"QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed
contain the Apocrypha?
ANSWER: Yes.
EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out
that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though
that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be
examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the
Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value,
though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the
Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it
between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to
its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament
text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscnpts."
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq/apocrypha.html
[Note to the reader:
(The truth is that there have been
several editions of the King James Bible but
no revisions.)
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Erasmus did not include the Apocrypha in the Received Text,
however it was included in the Codex Alexandrinus A, Vaticanus B
and Codex Sinaiticus. In this respect, the AV translators did
not follow the Textus Receptus but the Alexandrian manuscripts.
Actually, they were imitating the earlier English Bibles which
contained the Apocrypha."
Barbara Aho wrote:
"If King James Only believers are going to insist that the KJV
is a perfect translation, then it will be at the expense of the
Greek Textus Receptus, for they cannot both be inerrant."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
If we do not have a perfect translation then we do not have a
perfect Bible. A man who wrote a lexicon is not able to correct
the men God used to translate the flawless King James Holy
Bible.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"This is precisely what the Masonic conspirators want us to do,
for their endgame is to get rid of the Textus Receptus, which
will effectively do away with the New Testament in every
language."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
The Masons (the job of the higher-ups is to destroy
Christianity) also want Christians to use the lexicons written
by liberal, apostate infiltrators to undermine the King James
Bible because it (not corrupt, copyrighted new versions) will
get Christians through the tribulation without their succumbing
to apostasy.
The Greek Textus Receptus is inerrant but we do not speak
ancient Koine Greek nor do we have the original manuscripts. (We
have carefully copied ones.) Now we must believe that God has
purified his word seven times (Psa 12:6 ) and has preserved it
for us in English--the King James Bible. (English is the
international language). We have a perfect God who gave us a
perfect Bible in the Authorized King James. God kindly did not
wait until the last days to suddenly give us his perfect word in
the English language.
Kelly McGinley of Berean Chronicles needs to seek God with
prayer and fasting and clarify if she is still a King James only
believer or if she is allowing herself (and her listeners) to be
subverted from the right way of the Lord.
Sincerely,
Lisa Ruby
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/3/2006, 12:43
pm
|
|
7/3/2006, 12:22 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
quote:
Barbara Aho wrote:
Anthos, the issue at stake is the Textus Receptus, the Greek
text from which both the KJV and the NKJV New Testaments are
translated and many foreign language translations as well.
Although there are some mistranslations in the KJV and most
probably the NKJV, both of these Bibles are light years
ahead of the modern versions based on the corrupt Westcott-Hort
Greek text. So the main issue is the Greek manuscript family
on which a translation is based – the Byzantine (Textus
Receptus) or Alexandrian (Westcott-Hort Text).
Barbara Aho is sending the message loud and clear that we do not
have a perfect Bible that we can count on.
Barbara Aho says that the issue at stake is the Textus Receptus.
Actually, as I see it, the issue at stake is whether or not
God's people in these perilous last days have a perfectly
translated Bible into English--the international language.
Barbara is communicating that we do not have it.
According to the tract, "New King James Omissions" by Gail Riplinger, "The NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew (ben Chayyim) with
the corrupt Stuttgart edition (ben Asher) Old Testament."
The King James and the New King James are not translated from
the same manuscripts. That (in addition to the fact that you
must include LOTS of changes to obtain a copyright) explains why
there are so many ommissions in the NKJV text. Hell was removed
22 times, Jehovah is missing, heaven is left out 50 times,
repent is left out 44 times, and more.
order the tract from AV Publications at
www.avpublications.com
Lisa Ruby
http://www.libertytothecaptives.net
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/3/2006, 1:13 pm
|
|
7/3/2006, 12:39 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
I have had a warning about Peter
Ruckman on my website since March of 2005. I do not endorse him.
See the warning on my site here:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/king_james_links.html
Barbara Aho wrote:
"In my report on the Mark of the Beast I used the Greek-English
Interlinear as proof that the word “epi” in Rev. 13:16, 14:10
and 20:4 is more accurately translated “on” than “in.” The
primary meaning of “epi” is “on” and the KJV translates “epi” 45
times as “on” in the book of Revelation. (Strong’s #1909) If God
wanted to use the word “in,” He would have used the Greek word
“en.” We should also look at Biblical precedents where a mark
was set on people: Gen. 4:15 “the Lord set a mark upon Cain” and
Ezek. 9:4 “And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of
the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon
the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the
abominations that be done in the midst thereof.”
"I cited Strong’s Concordance #5480 to show that “charagma”
means an “imprint” or “brand” which would be “on” the skin, not
a microchip “in” the skin. James Strong was not on the committee
for the 1881 ERV, but on the O.T. Committee for the 1901
American Standard Version, still not good. However, the meaning
of “charagma” is corroborated in other sources such as Wesley
Perschbacher’s New Analytical Greek Lexicon: #5480 “to notch,
engrave; an imprinted mark, Rev. 13:16, et al.; sculpture, Acts
17:29.”
Lisa Ruby wrote:
My source for the statement that James Strong was on the 1881
Revised English Version committe:
http://www.bible-researcher.com/ervhistory.html
The Title of the Page is English Revised Version so that must be
why I thought he was on the 1881 committee. His definitions
cannot be used to disprove a word used in the King James Bible
because his concordance contains definitions of words that are
from both the Received Text and the Corrupted Minority Greek
Text.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"Some of our reports which were written many years ago used the
KJV as the standard of comparison with modern versions because
we “assumed” the KJV was a word-for-word translation of the
Textus Receptus."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
I think that since you no longer believe that the King James
Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God in English, those articles
should be removed lest your readers get the wrong impression and
believe that you defend the King James Bible as being the word
of God in English.
Barbara Aho wrote:
"We have since learned that, although the KJV translates the
Greek properly in most areas, in some places it does not and we
are concerned about a few problem areas."
Lisa Ruby wrote:
What are the "problem areas" in the King James Bible? Already
you have sided with the corrupt versions by taking the mark of
the beast out of the hand or forehead and placing it ON the hand
or forehead.
I am very sorry to hear that you now have gone another way on
such a fundamental matter. I pray that Kelly and her listeners
will not go with you in this most crucial area of concern to the
body of Christ.
{continued}
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/3/2006, 1:17 pm
|
|
7/3/2006, 1:02 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Saved
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
2
Karma:
0 (+0/-0)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Hello Lisa,
I'm curious about your position on the mark of the beast. Do you
believe it will be an embedded/subdermal chip of some kind?
Thank you in advance for your reply.
|
|
7/3/2006, 1:54 pm |
Applaud
Smite
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho, Which Bible is Your Final Authority?
Hello Saved,
You asked, "I'm curious about your position on the mark of the
beast. Do you believe it will be an embedded/subdermal chip of
some kind?"
Lisa Ruby wrote:
The mark could be a chip but I cannot say this for sure because
I do not know. I want to have "ears to hear" what God reveals
about the mark when the time comes.
I do wonder why the Left Behind Prophecy Conferences are pushing
microchips for "good" reasons and why their speaker Gary
Frasier, said:
"The Bible says clearly in Revelation 13 that the mark is going
to be ON the forehead or ON the hand, it does not talk about
being underneath..."
Listen to AUDIO here:
http://libertytothecaptives.net/leftbehind_microchip_manipulation.html
I believe that Christians should avoid microchip implants
because at this point we know they can used for tracking and
control.
[note added
7/17/06:
The
VeriChip, "the worlds first subdermal, radio frequency
identification (RFID) microchip, can be used in a variety of
security, financial, emergency identification and other
applications." For more
information see:
ADSX Press Release]
Last edited by
Lisa Ruby, 7/3/2006, 2:12 pm
|
|
7/3/2006, 2:10 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby
|
Lisa Ruby
Registered user
Global user
Registered:
06-2006
Posts:
9
Karma:
0 (+1/-1)
|
|
Edit | Delete | Reply | Quote
|
|
Re:
Barbara Aho (cont'd)
Barbara,
I wish you would not cast doubt on the King James Bible by
citing writings based on the work of unbelieving infidels.
According to Gail Riplinger's In Awe of Thy Word, (page 766)
George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament
follows Thayer. (Thayer was a Unitarian!)
This is mentioned in the Introduction to New Testament Lexison
pp ii-vi
In Awe of Thy Word will rock the boats of those who refuse to
believe that God has done what he promised he would do: preserve
his word. Those who trust in lexicons and inerlinears over and
above the King James Bible will not like her book. She exposes
how the (unsaved) scholars arrived at their definitions for
their concordances. You will be shocked.
|
|
7/3/2006, 2:29 pm |
Applaud
Smite
Send Email to Lisa Ruby
Send PM to Lisa Ruby |
Add a reply
Page: 1 2
[Click here to read page 1]
[Click here to read page 3]
Powered
by AkBBS 0.9.4 - Link
to us - Blogs
- Hall
of Honour - Chat
Click here to get your own free message board
|
Logged in as
Lisa Ruby from xxx.xxx.217.121 (logout)
Board's time is: 7/3/2006, 2:38 pm |
|
|