This is how the taking of Babylon was recorded by the ancient historians Herodutus, Berosus, and verified by Xenophon.
"Cyrus then dug a trench and diverted the flow of the Euphrates river into the new channel which led to an existing swamp. The level of the river then dropped to such a level that it became like a stream. His army was then able to take the city by marching through the shallow waters . . . The Babylonians at the time were celebrating intensely at a feast to one of their gods and they were taken totally by surprise."
Unfortunately, the “ancient historians” erred in saying who actually conquered Babylon, and the God-denying liberal theologians (God-deniers) immediately grabbed at this straw, because they do not want to recognize the Book of Daniel as prophetic. They wanted it to be History, written after the fact. Just anything to tear down God’s Word.
Here is the “rest of the story.” The one who actually took Babylon was the Mede, Gubaru, also known as Darius, who had been appointed by the Persian king, Cyrus, to lead Cyrus’ army against Babylon. Cyrus was then occupied with leading another part of his army in a battle on the Tigris River.
“According to historical records a man named Gubaru, a Mede, was appointed by King Cyrus to be ruler in Babylon at this time. Gubaru was born in 601 B.C. which would make him 62 years old when he invaded Babylon. Exactly the age found in Daniel 5:31.
The Babylonian record of Darius the Mede's conquest of Babylon is given below:
"In the month of Tashritu, at the time when Cyrus battled the forces of Akkad in Opis on the Tigris river, the citizens of Akkad revolted against him, but Nabonidus scattered his opposition with a great slaughter.
On the 14th day, Sippar was taken without a fight. Nabonidus then fled for his life.
On the 16th day, Gubaru (Darius the Mede) the leader of Gutium along with the army of Cyrus entered Babylon without any opposition. Later they arrested Nabonidus when he returned to Babylon.
On the third day of the month of Arahshamnu, Cyrus marched into Babylon, and they laid down green branches in front of him. The city was no longer at war, peace being restored. Cyrus then sent his best wishes to the residents living there. His governor Gubaru, then installed leaders to govern over all Babylon." BM35382
This account says that Darius the Mede installed sub-governors in Babylon. The Bible says the same thing, and the prophet Daniel was one of them:
“It pleased Darius to set over the kingdom an hundred and twenty princes, which should be over the whole kingdom, (1)
And over these three presidents, of whom Daniel was first: that the princes might give accounts unto them, and the king should have no damage. (2)
Then this Daniel was preferred above the presidents and princes, because an excellent spirit was in him, and the king thought to set him over the whole realm. (3)
Then the presidents and princes sought to find occasion against Daniel concerning the kingdom, but they could find none occasion nor fault, forasmuch as he was faithful, neither was there any error or fault found in him.” (Daniel 6:1-4)
Petra, which in the Greek means "πέτρα" "rock, or fortress, and in the Hebrew, "sela," has a similar meaning, is a historic city that has rock cut architecture and a water conduits system. It was established sometime around the 6th century BC as the capital city of the Nabataeans. It lies on the slope of Mount Hor in a basin among the mountains which form the eastern flank of Arabah (Wadi Araba), the large valley running from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqaba. The site remained unknown to the Western world until 1812, when it was introduced by Swiss explorer Johann Ludwig Burckhardt. It was described as "a rose-red city half as old as time" in a prize-winning sonnet by John William Burgon.
Pliny the Elder and other writers identify Petra as the capital of the Nabataeans, Aramaic-speaking Semites, and the center of their caravan trade. Enclosed by towering rocks and watered by a perennial stream, Petra not only possessed the advantages of a fortress, but controlled the main commercial routes which passed through it. These routes continued to Bosra and Damascus in the north, to Aqaba and other locations on the Red Sea, and across the desert to the Persian Gulf.
Excavations have demonstrated that it was the ability of the Nabataeans to control the water supply that led to the rise of the desert city, creating an artificial oasis. The area is visited by flash floods and archaeological evidence demonstrates the Nabataeans controlled these floods by the use of dams, cisterns and water conduits. These innovations stored water for prolonged periods of drought, and enabled the city to prosper from its sale.
A little further from the Treasury, is a massive theatre, so placed as to bring the greatest number of tombs within view. At the point where the valley opens out into the plain, the site of the city is revealed with striking effect. The amphitheater has been cut into the hillside and into several of the tombs during its construction. Rectangular gaps in the seating are still visible. Almost enclosing it on three sides are rose-colored mountain walls, divided into groups by deep fissures, and lined with knobs cut from the rock in the form of towers.
Evidence suggests that settlements had begun in and around Petra about 1550-1292 BC. It is listed in Egyptian campaign accounts and the Amarna letters as Pel, Sela or Seir. A sanctuary has existed there since very ancient times. This part of the country was biblically assigned to the Horites, the predecessors of the Edomites.
The habits of the original natives may have influenced the Nabataean custom of burying the dead and offering worship in half-excavated caves. 2 Kings 14:7 gives the meaning of "Sela, the rock-city of Idumæa :- rock, Sela (-h)." Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary. In the parallel passage in 2 Chronicles 25:11,12, however, "Sela" means "from an unused root meaning to be lofty, a craggy rock, literal or figurative (a fortress) :- (ragged) rock, stone (-ny), strong hold. Strong's Talking Greek & Hebrew Dictionary." 2 Chronicles 25:12 calls it the "Valley of Salt," which recalls the salt caravans of ancient and modern History.
On the authority of Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews iv. 7, 1-4, 7) Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. sacr. 286, 71. 145, 9, 228, 55. 287, 94) assert that Rekem was the native name and Rekem appears in the Dead Sea Scrolls as a prominent Edom site most closely describing Petra and associated with Mount Seir.
Under Roman rule, in 106 AD, that part of Arabia, under the rule of Petra, was absorbed into the Roman Empire as part of Arabia Petraea, becoming its capital. The native dynasty came to an end. But the city continued to flourish. A century later, in the time of Alexander Severus, when the city was at the height of its splendor, the issue of coinage comes to an end. There is no more building of sumptuous tombs, owing apparently to some sudden catastrophe, such as an invasion by the Sassanid Persians.
Christianity found its way to Petra in the 4th century AD, nearly 500 years after the establishment of Petra as a trade center. Athanasius mentions a Bishop of Petra. At least one of the tombs (the "tomb with the urn"?) was used as a church. An inscription in red paint records its consecration "in the time of the most holy bishop Jason" (447).
Petra declined rapidly under Roman rule, in large part due to the revision of sea-based trade routes. In 363, an Earthquake destroyed many buildings, and crippled the vital water management system. The ruins of Petra were merely an object of curiosity in the Middle Ages, and the first European to describe them was Johann Ludwig Burckhardt in 1812. Because the structures weakened with age, many of the tombs became vulnerable to thieves, and many treasures were stolen.
Here is Dean John William Burgon's Poem Petra. He is referring to it as the inaccessible city which he had heard described, but had never seen.
"It seems no work of Man's creative hand,
By labour wrought as wavering fancy planned,
But from the rock as if by magic grown,
Eternal, silent, beautiful, alone!
Not virgin-white like that old Doric shrine,
Where erst Athena held her rites divine,
Not saintly-grey, like many a minster fane,
That crowns the hill and consecrates the plain,
But rose-red as if the blush of dawn,
That first beheld them were not yet
Match me such marvel save in Eastern clime,
A rose-red city half as old as time."
All of the new versions come from two corrupt manuscripts and their companion, the United Bible Society Nestle/Aland Greek Text. The Codex Sinaiticus is coded as “Aleph,” and the Codex Vaticanus as “B,” Whenever you see these codes in Bible footnotes, it refers to these two manuscripts, described as the oldest and most reliable. However, nothing could be further from the truth! Aleph and B are, presumably, Fourth Century uncials which had very little use by their owners. Uncial manuscripts were written in capital letters, with no spaces or punctuation marks between the letters. Today we have about 267 uncials, which make up a small part of the approximately 5400 Greek manuscripts in existence today. Of the 267 uncials, only 9 agree with the Sinai and Vatican codices. 258 of the 267 uncials agree with the Majority Text, also known as the Received Text (Textus Receptus) which underlies our King James Bible. The Sinai (Aleph) and (B) disagree with each other in hundreds of places in the Gospels, alone.
There could be a couple of reasons why these two manuscripts were preserved so well. First, the owners could have recognized that these manuscripts had been perverted by heretics. Those who copied them probably disagreed with many of the doctrinal passages. Therefore, they omitted many passages and changed others to agree with their beliefs. This could account for the fact they were recognized as fraudulent and not distributed to other churches. Second, they were in Egypt where the climate was favorable for their preservation.
Aleph and B. Most people are not aware that Aleph and B, and a handful of their allies (other corrupt manuscripts), make up only about 1% that disagree with the 99% of the 5400, or so, manuscripts, known as the Majority Text which underlie your King James Bible today. The Sinaitic (Aleph) was discovered by Dr. Constantin Tischendorf, a German biblical scholar and professor in 1844. He was visiting the monastery of St. Catherine, at Mt. Sinai, when he noticed a basket of parchments that the monks had discarded as worthless. There were 43 leaves of parchment, which contained a portion of the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament). He returned in 1853 and found nothing more. He returned again in 1859, commissioned by the Czar of Russia and, again, finding nothing he was about to leave. He was talking to one of the Stewards, just prior to departing, who advised him he had kept in his room some copied manuscripts the monks had discarded. These contained about half of the Old Testament (Greek Translation, the Septuagint), the New Testament, with the exclusion of Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11. Tischendorf secured these in return for some gifts to the monastery at Sinai. They were given to the great Imperial Library at St. Petersburg, (now Leningrad), Russia. In 1933, the U.S.S.R. sold it to the British Museum in London, England, where it resides today. This collection of manuscripts omits some 4,000 words from the Gospels alone, plus, about 1500 readings that show up in none of the 5400 New Testament manuscripts of the Majority Text. It also contains many other discrepancies.
The Sinaiticus is one of two manuscripts which are called by many "the oldest manuscripts." The other, is the Vaticanus. This is a prime example of "oldest is not always best." The Sinaiticus is also known, and referred to, as Codex Aleph, a Hebrew Letter.
When referring to the Sinaiticus as a historical manuscript witness, it is most often coupled with the Vaticanus. They both are alleged to have been dated around AD 350. And both, are the major building blocks of most Modern Versions of the New Testament. They are used because of their age, as so many claim them to be the oldest, and thus, most reliable. However, this is untrue. As human witnesses are found to be liars, or truthful, by the words they speak, and if they agree amongst other witnesses, so are manuscript witnesses. This is how we rightly determine whether a manuscript is worthy to be used for our Bible.
Found by a Constantin Tischendorf in St. Catharine's Monastery in the Sinai desert, Codex Aleph was written on vellum in book form (hence the name "codex"). Its pages are about 15" by 13.5," and on each page are four columns of Forty-eight (48) lines. Sadly, when reading the Sinaiticus, one will find many mistakes which are neglected and ignored by those who love it. It contains extra-biblical books such as "Epistle of Barnabas," "Didache," and "Shepherd of Hermas." Tischendorf actually is said to have rescued the manuscript from the trash at the monastery! This sheds some doubt on the manuscript, why would such a "valuable" manuscript be in the trash? Obviously, someone in the monastery saw it, deemed it garbage, and put it with the rest of the trash.
There is a rumor that it was actually written by Constantine Simonides, a Greek from Syme. He told the world that he actually scribed codex Aleph from 1839-1840! As to whether this is true or not, is of little importance, because only to the foolish, worldly, "scholars" is such a thing good or bad to them. As they believe oldest is best, this would devastate them. However, the content of Codex Sinaiticus, itself, is enough to discredit it, not just its age.
Of Codex Aleph, Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener says in his work A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus:
“The Codex is covered with such alterations . . . brought in by at least ten different revisors, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separated portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century.
Dr. Scrivener also says of Tischendorf, that he is of the least reliable in discernment and accuracy. Obviously both the person who supposedly found the manuscript, and the manuscript itself, aren't reliable!
Remember that to tell a good witness from a bad one, a witness is compared to other witnesses, more rightly other witnesses which have stood the tests and proven themselves to be true and accurate! The same with Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). Sadly, when put to the test, the Sinaiticus disagrees with all other extant manuscripts, save a handful. The Sinaiticus has in the Gospels alone over 1,400 readings which are only found within itself, affecting more than 2,600 words.
Many of the differences the Sinaiticus has from all other manuscripts are, that it nearly always says the exact opposite! One example of this is a reading of 1 Corinthians 13:5 which says "charity seeketh not her own” the Sinaiticus reads "love does not seek that which is not hers" which is indeed the opposite meaning of the true Word of God!
The Sinaiticus often is said to contain the best readings, while it is neglected to be told how contrary it is to all but a handful (perhaps 40 out of 500) manuscripts. Erasmus, when studying the manuscript, let on that he believed the manuscript only agreed with those few, because those few were pressured into being rewritten to agree with the Codex!
Compared to those manuscript witnesses proven to be true, the Sinaiticus, in the Gospels alone, 3,455 words are omitted, 839 words are added, 1,114 words are substituted, 2,299 words are transposed, and 1,265 are modified! Note, this is just in the Gospels alone, four books of the New Testament!
All in all, the most shocking piece of information is the fact that the Sinaiticus not only was revised and changed over the time, by at least Ten (10) different people, but it was done so very carelessly. It has many places where even words and phrases are repeated one right after the other! The conclusion of the matter has proven that the Sinaiticus, which is so very often referred to in Biblical footnotes as the "oldest manuscripts," is highly unreliable, even according to secular historians.
Its early history is obscure. Scholars believe it was copied in the Fourth Century. It was written in Greek, not Hebrew, and first appears in the Vatican Library Catalog in Rome, Italy, in 1481. For the next 328 years there didn’t seem to be much interest in it. Then, when the Pope and the papal states were captured in 1809 by Napoleon, he carted off wagon loads of documents, papal archives and books. He also took the cardinals and all the chief officers of the papal government, along with the Codex Vaticanus (B) to Paris, France. It was restored to Rome in 1815. In 1889-90, Pope Leo XIII allowed the Vatican Press to release a photographic facsimile of the manuscript. Copies could now be obtained by libraries where scholars could have access to them. It is presently in the Vatican Library in Rome, Italy, and the property of the Roman Catholic Church.
The Vaticanus contains many omissions. There are some from Genesis, 2 Kings, Psalms; and, in the New Testament, Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are missing. Also, Hebrews to the end of the New Testament are missing.
What is interesting about these two fraudulent copies, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, are the hundreds and hundreds of passages in which they disagree with each other, exposing those that copied them as heretics. One scholar said, “The Sinai and Vatican disagree with each other a dozen times on every page.” Another scholar states, “It is easier to find two consecutive verses in which these manuscripts differ, than two in which they agree.” Yet another says, “They disagree 70% of the time and in almost every verse of the Gospels.”
“Aleph” and “B” were the two main manuscripts that B.F. Westcott (1825-1901) and F.J.A. Hort (1828-92) used to form their New Greek Testament in 1881. These two men were apostate Anglican preachers. For example, in his biography, Volume I, P.207, Westcott states, “I reject the words “INFALLIBILITY of the Holy Scriptures” overwhelmingly.” Hort’s opinion was the same. These two denied most of the fundamental doctrines of the Bible. The opinions of these two apostate men, with their two corrupt manuscripts, Aleph and B (and a handful of others), underlie almost all of your new versions which are in disagreement with the 5,400 Greek manuscripts, making up the Majority, or Received Text, which underlies the King James Translation.
The Nestle/Aland GreekText, with its many revisions, took over from the Westcott and Hort era, along with the United Bible Society (UBS). These used, basically, the same Sinaitic (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) manuscripts with its allies, which amount to less than 1% of the 5400 Greek manuscripts that make up the Majority Text. For example, the New International Version (NIV) concerning Mark, Chapter 16:9-20, wants you to believe these verses do not belong in God’s Word. They draw a line across the page after Verse 8 and insert their explanation. “The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20.” The two manuscripts they are referring to are the Sinaitic and the Vaticanus, two corrupt manuscripts which disagree with each other in hundreds of places.
Notice the New King James Version (NKJV), published by the Thomas Nelson Publishers, regarding Mark 16:9-20. The footnote concerning these verses supports what we have been saying thus far. “Vss. 9-20 are bracketed in NU as not in the original text. They are lacking in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, although nearly ALL OTHER Mss. (manuscripts) of Mark contain them.” The “NU” stands for Nestle/Aland, United Bible Society. In other words, they want you and me to believe that the two corrupt manuscripts, Aleph and B, are the original texts. We are supposedly, to follow their blinded philosophy and disregard the Majority Text composed of 5400 manuscripts.
Remember, all of your new versions and so-called translations are under laid by these corrupt manuscripts making up less than 1% of the Majority Text, composed of 5400 manuscripts. The NIV (New International Version), the NASB (New American Standard Bible), the NEB (New English Bible), the NKJV (New King James Version), the NAB (New American Bible), the NRSV (New Revised Standard Bible) are all the corrupt product of manuscripts Aleph and B and their handful of allies. These were fostered on to the unsuspecting public from Westcott and Hort’s corrupt Greek Testament in 1881. Nestle/Aland “took the baton” and raced to the finish line, hand-in-hand with the United Bible Society. Then, publisher after publisher had visions of Fort Knox! Their dreams were realized as new translations poured on to the market. Their coffers were being filled, while the pockets of the unsuspecting were being emptied.
Satan is the “master deceiver” as he uses people to deceive other people. Through the greed of many, the publishers have poured out versions of perversions, leading millions into spiritual poverty. It is only natural for a person to ask, “Which version IS the real Word of God?”
May I, in closing, relate to you that the King James Translation is under laid by the Majority Text (5400 manuscripts). It is the finest translation we have, and this is why Satan wants to discredit it so badly. For example, the largest selling imitation of a Bible today is the NIV. What the publishers don’t tell you is that there are approximately 64,000 words missing. Whole verses are missing: and, in many places, they never even translated the Hebrew and Greek words.
As evidence, look up and see if you can find the following verses in the NIV. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14. Mark 7:16, 9:44,46, 11:26,15:28. Luke 17:36, 23:17. John 5:4. Acts 8:37, 24:7, 28:29. Romans 16:24. These are only a handful.
My prayer is that this limited information will stimulate you to a more in-depth study, so you can help others beware of Satan’s deceits through these corrupt new versions.
Notice how tricky the New International Version amd the New American Standard Bibles are. These are two of the best-selling, so-called counterfeit Bibles today.
The Hebrew for “Lucifer, Son of the Morning” is: hêlēl bēn shakḥar. That is accurately translated as “Lucifer, Son of the Morning” in the King James Bible. That is what the Hebrew reads. The New American Standard Bible mistranslates it as “O Star of the Morning,” and the New International Version as mistranslate it as “Morning Star.” Remember this, there is no Hebrew word in the text for “star.” None! No Hebrew manuscripts anywhere, anyplace, not the Uncials, nor the Miniscules, or the Lectionaries. None of the Hebrew manuscripts have the Hebrew word “star” for this verse. It is not there that I know of.
To show the deceit of the translators of the NASB and the NIV, they know that “kôkāb” is the Hebrew for “star.” They know that and they have translated it so in many other places. “bōqer kôkāb” is the Hebrew for “Morning Star,” and it is used by them in Job 38:7, so they know the Hebrew word for “star”is “kôkāb.” They also know it appears nowhere in Isaiah 14:12, but they have put the English word “star,” with no Hebrew word for “star” whatsoever in, to deceive you. Purposely they have also tried to deceive the innocent to believe that Lucifer is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is identified as the “Morning Star” in Revelation 2:28, Revelation 22:16, 2 Peter 1:19, but not as Satan in Isaiah 14:12.
|"How you have fallen from heaven, O star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the Earth, You who have weakened the nations!” Isaiah 14:12 (NASB)
“How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the Earth, you who once laid low the nations!” Isaiah 14:12 (NIV)
“How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!” - Isaiah 14:12 (KJT)
Now, let us see who the “Morning Star” really is:
“I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.” - Revelation 22:16 (KJT)
To show how deceptive this is, the NASB places a reference to Isaiah 14:12, which is 2 Peter 1:19, to make you think that Jesus Christ is the villain in Isaiah 14:12.
Look up Luke 4:8 in both the NASB and the NIV and you will find both of these translations have omitted the words “Get thee behind me, Satan.” They don’t have much to say about Satan, do they?
The New International Version, and all of your new versions come from two manuscripts in 1881, along with a Greek New Testament that was perversely written by two men: Brooke Foss Westcott (1825–1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828–1892). I am going to give you some quotes from these two men who wrote the Greek text from corrupt manuscripts that almost all of your new versions are based on today.
Let me give you one example:
Fenton John Anthony Hort, D.D. (Doctor of Divinity) was Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University, and a member of the Anglican Church in England. Before this time the Majority Text had been used for 1600 years until you come to 1881. Then Hort and Westcott got together and set about to write a perverted Greek text that would deceive the world. They were necromancers and spiritualists. They hardly believed any of the teachings of the Bible, yet on every pastor’s desk you will find the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, or the Nestle-Aland Text which followed the Westcott and Hort Text. The Westcott and Hort Greek Text underlies the Revised Version, the New Revised Standard Version, the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New Century Version, the Good News for Modern Man, the Jerusalem Bible, the Book, the Everyday Bible, and all new versions of the Catholic Bibles.
I was talking with a Catholic priest in my home after dinner about these manuscripts. I said, Let’s get that Bible out that you use now, and find out what manuscripts they are translated from. Well, I knew the information was not there. He looked and he was shocked that he could not find it. Then he went to the Monastery in Nebraska and couldn’t find a thing out down there. He even gave me one, “The Saint Joseph Medium Size Edition New American Bible.” I knew that they were translated from Westcott and Hort. All the new Catholic Bibles are based on them.
I said to the Priest, “Turn to Romans 11:6 and I will lay you ten-to-one that half your verse is missing.” It should say:
“And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” (Romans 11:6
And, of course, the last half of the verse was missing from his Bible. I said, “If you take this Bible and use it to teach your Roman Catholic people, you are only going to teach them half the Bible, because half of this verse is missing.” And I said, “Also, if you go back to the Old Testament, you will find “Lucifer” is missing in Isaiah 14:12, too. So, you are not giving the people the Bible. You are reading them a perverted thing and you, yourself, as a priest do not even know what it is translated from.”
But he said he was going to be working on it. I have to give him credit. We have a good relationship and he really is working on it. It’s a great challenge for him to find out and not just take what the Roman Catholic Organization says. “Here, just take this Bible, you must use this one because you are a priest and do not think for yourself!” This is one priest who is thinking for himself. “Study to shew thyself approved.”
This statement was made by the co-author of the Greek Text found on almost every pastor’s desk. In the Life of Hort, Volume II, Page 234, here’s what he states, and this will demonstrate what the philosophy is behind the new versions.
“…My deep hatred of democracy in all of its forms.”
Most of you have heard of the CFR, or the Council on Foreign Relations. I am bringing this in about the Council on Foreign Relations as it is propelling the nation-states toward a one-world government. The Thirteenth Chapter of the Book of Revelation proposes a one-world government. Verse 17 shows that you cannot buy or sell. Verse 18 shows that everyone must take the Mark of the Beast, 666, to prove their allegiance to the Antichrist, a man who will be the head of the One-World Government. To show you how we are progressing and how the men in our government are bringing this along, I will relate the following:
As I said, the Council on Foreign Relations is propelling the nation-states toward a one-world government. Ex-President Bush, Sr. is a member of the CFR as were almost half, 28 of the 59 major appointees of the Reagan Administration. President Bush’s nationally televised speech before congress on September 11, 1990, during the Iraq Crisis, hailed the dream of a New World Order. You heard that over and over from President Bush, Sr. Representative Gephardt’s Democratic Response incurred these exact words again. United Nations leader, Robert Mueller, continues the calling for a New World Order. On August 22, 1990, Public Television News, Henry Kissinger said, “the Iraq Regime was not cooperating with, Get this now!, the New World Order. President Clinton is cooperating.”
As many have discovered, the Latin phrase for “New World Order, is on the back side of our one dollar bill. When you look on the left hand side of the back, you will see a pyramid with a big eye at the top, and the words “Novus Odo Seclorum.” They are located at foot of the pyramid with the “all-seeing eye at the top.” The “all-seeing eye” is that of the Egyptian god “Horus.” Horus is the impersonator of Jesus Christ in Egyptian mythology. So, the Latin phrase “Novus Odo Seclorum” means “a New World Order.
Pope John Paul II, in June of 1990 in his speech in San Francisco, said this. What Pope John Paul said goes right along with this Antichrist movement. “Everything must change. Tolerance is the Alpha and Omega of a New World Order.”
Strangely enough, the NIV changes the words in Hebrews 9:10 to reflect this.
“Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.” – Hebrews 9:10 (KJT)
The NIV has changed it to “the time of the new order.” Isn’t that amazing? You can see how those apostates have translated the new versions, eliminating about 64,000 words. If you are using an NIV, you have one of the most perverted counterfeits of a Bible that you will ever find.
Here is their philosophy. Neither does the Greek word for new” or “order” appear in the Greek text for Hebrews 9:10. This should not surprise anyone, since the NIV follows the Westcott and Hort Text.
Here is the opinion of a man who is a New International Version committee member, R. Laird Harris. He contends that Isaiah 14:12 is not about Lucifer and his descent into Hell, but the King of Babylon and his interment in the grave. This shows you where this apostate is coming from.
Let me say this about Satan. There was a lady back in the 19th Century whose name was Helen P. Blavatsky. She was a Luciferian, or Satan-worshipper. All of these men have followed her. She is the “Mother of the New Age Movement.” You can go into the stores which sell satanic and New Age literature, and you can buy all kinds of books by Helen P. Blavatsky. Here is what she says about Satan.
“The Devil is a metaphysical attraction. There have never been any Devils, or disobedient angels.”
Here is the view of Hort concerning Hell. He is one of the two men who wrote the Greek text in 1881 that underlies all the new translations. Life of Hort, Volume I, Page 118. “The second death is probably a combination of the Deluge (the Flood) and Sodom. It stands between the Garden of Eden and the Manna. Finite sin cannot deserve infinite punishment. That’s an outright denial of the Bible, isn’t it?
Another quote from Hort: “Hell is figurative…” in Hort’s Commentary on 1 Peter.
Again from The Life of Hort, Volume I, Page 149. “We have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future punishment, and the word “eternal” has a far higher meaning.
I would like to talk to you now, Mr. Hort. You’ve been dead for a number of years, and I expect you have changed your mind.
Westcott, the pen pal of Hort in writing the Greek Text of 1881. Even though 1881 was many years ago, this is what our “new, modern” translations are based upon.
Westcott: “Hell is not the place of punishment of the guilty, but Hades is the common place of departed spirits.”
Then you have J.P. Phillips. He is the translator of the J.P. Phillips Translation. “To the question of “Does Hell exist? Phillips says, ‘I seriously doubt this.” Source: Ring of Truth and the Price of Success, Page 10.
Concerning Hell, this agrees with the NIV editors, along with Armstrongism. Herbert W. Armstrong, of the World-Wide Church of God, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses. These all agree. Let me quote Herbert W. Armstrong from “Tomorrow’s World,” April 1971, Pages 14 and 18. “The concept of Hell is part and parcel of folklore as a place of punishment. When a human being dies, he is dead.”
Jehovah’s Witness, “Let God Be True, 1952, Page 99: “The doctrine of a a burning Hell after death cannot be true. A dead person is unconscious, inactive, the soul is dead.” It is strange that a Jehovah’s Witness would say that, as they claim to believe the Bible.
The Bible says in James 2:26 “For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.”
So, Jehovah’s Witnesses, if you say the body, soul, and spirit go to the grave, you must not believe the Bible, because it says: “…the body without the spirit is dead.” The body is going to be living as long as the Spirit is there, only does the body die when the Spirit is taken.
Larry Walker, one of the NIV editors. “The committee did not feel absolutely bound to the Hebrew Text. The other Canaanite deity, Mot, for death is personified.” So, instead of translating the word “Hell,” from the Greek, “Hades,” correctly, they purposely deceived you by translating it as “death,” incorrectly. They also left the Hebrew word for “giants” in Genesis 6:4 untranslated. Unless you can read Hebrew, you will not know what the word “nephalim” means.
Says another member of the NIV committee, R. Laird Harris: “This view of Hell has some problems. It refers only to death, not to any punishment.” The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Pages 58-71.
Jehovah’s Witnesses: “Hell applies to the common grave of all mankind. The words contain no thought, or hint of pain.” That is amazing, isn’t it, when Luke 16:24:
“And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.” (Luke 16:23
- Laird Harris: “The NIV translators came to a decision regarding the meaning of the word “Hell.” The meaning “grave” fits. The translation “grave” is the most appropriate one. The terms “Hell” and “grave” are synonymous, (He must not know his Greek very well.) no more than darkness, dissolution and dust of the tomb, to lie in the tomb, decay or perish in the grave.” This man agrees with the cult religions that say there is no Hell, does he not?
Hort says: “Hell is figurative.’
Hort again: We have no sure knowledge respecting the duration of future and the word “eternal” has a far higher meaning.”
Westcott says: “Hell is not the place of punishment of the guilty, but Hades is the common abode of departed spirits.” The NIV puts the Greek “Hades” instead of “Hell” and tells you it is easier to read.
This is the New International Version that you hold in your hands, that is missing 64,000 words. The translators did not even believe in Hell.
It also goes along with Charles Filmore of the cult religion, Unity. He said in “Christian Healing,” Page 114. “There is no warrant for the belief that God sends men to everlasting punishment.”