Article: Modern Versions Teach Racism by Will Kinney - Revision history

Beza 1598: /* External Link */

2016-03-12T02:23:23Z

External Link

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:23, 12 March 2016
Line 90:		Line 90:

	* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsandracism.htm Modern Versions Teach Racism] by [[Will Kinney]]		* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsandracism.htm Modern Versions Teach Racism] by [[Will Kinney]]

			{{Donate}}

Nick at 13:22, 20 January 2011

2011-01-20T13:22:29Z

Nick: Protected "Article: Modern Versions Teach Racism by Will Kinney" [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]

2011-01-20T13:20:22Z

Protected "Article: Modern Versions Teach Racism by Will Kinney" [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:20, 20 January 2011
(No difference)

Xangenz: New page: '''Do the modern Bible versions teach racism?''' We hear a lot today about the different races of people on this planet. Race is defined as “people who are believed to belong to the...

2010-02-28T23:16:47Z

New page: '''Do the modern Bible versions teach racism?''' We hear a lot today about the different races of people on this planet. Race is defined as “people who are believed to belong to the...

New page

'''Do the modern Bible versions teach racism?'''

We hear a lot today about the different races of people on this planet. Race is defined as “people who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock”, and as, “subspecies, race, in biology, a taxonomic division of a species, usually as a consequence of geographical isolation within a species.”

However, with the recent advancements in the human genome project, scientists are coming out with some alarming declarations. This quote from an article by Charles Petit, Chronicle Science writer, “Surely, one may suppose, the American melting pot is brimming with different races and racial mixtures. Wrong, say a broad coalition of experts.” “The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. . .Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically,” according to a policy statement by the American Anthropological Association. “It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of ‘race’ had no validity. . .in the human species.”

The Elder Web.com Newsletter of June 28, 2000 states concerning the human genome project: “Celera Genomics was responsible for the research done in the private sector. Celera CEO and lead researcher J. Craig Ventor states, “the concept of race has no genetic basis.”

Local newspapers have recently come out with articles showing that all human beings are genetically 99.9% the same. The differences are truly only skin deep. So we see that scientists today are coming around to the view that people should not be classified as belonging to different “ races.”

This idea of races smacks of evolution, and the idea that some races are superior to others was very popular with Darwin and Adolf Hitler.In fact, it is still popular today. Many people are unaware of the full, original title of Darwin's book. It's original title was '''"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."'''

'''Evolutionism is RACIST!'''

"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man ...The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins ..." T. H. Huxley

“No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man” - Thomas Huxley, Lectures and Lay Sermons, 1871, p. 115.

"The standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens." Henry Osborne, professor of biology and zoology at Columbia University, discoverer of "Nebraska man", which turned out to be a peccary tooth.

"Every consideration should lead those who believe in the superiority of THE WHITE RACE to strive to preserve its purity and to establish and maintain the segregation of THE RACES, for the longer this is maintained, the greater the preponderance of THE WHITE RACE will be." Edwin Conklin, professor of biology at Princeton University and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the CIVILIZED RACES will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the SAVAGE RACES throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes ... will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man. New York: A.L. Burt Co., 1874. p. 178.

Does the Bible ever speak of people belonging to different races, or even of some races being inferior to others? The answer may surprise you.

The King James Version never speaks of people as being of a certain race. It speaks of running the race that is set before us, but never uses this word when referring to people.

This is not the case with the new Bible versions that are so popular today. In their efforts to be “modern and up to date” they have actually proven themselves to be foolish and unscientific. The NKJV uses the word “race” when referring to people once, the NIV twice, and the NAS six times. Let’s look at these examples and compare them with the King James Bible.

In Ezra 9:2, the sins of the people of Israel are recounted. Among them is listed the fact that they had mingled themselves with the idolators of the land of Canaan and had done according to their abominations: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons; so that the holy SEED have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.”

The word [zera] here, is clearly “seed”, yet the NIV and the NAS say “the holy RACE”. Are there unholy races? Are the Israelites a separate race or genetic aberration from the rest of mankind? Only one time have they rendered this word as race.

Again, in Romans 9:3 the apostle Paul testifies “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my KINSMEN according to the flesh”. Here the NIV says, “for the sake of my brothers, those of my own RACE.” I didn’t know the Jews were a separate race - I thought we all came from Adam and Eve, and after that from Noah and his family.

In Mark 7:26 we are told, “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by NATION”; yet the NAS says, “a Syrophenician by RACE”. In Acts 7:19, “The same dealt subtilly with our KINDRED”, is replaced in the NAS with, “he who took shrewd advantage of our RACE.” In I Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen GENERATION, a royal priesthood, an holy nation”, has become “you are a chosen RACE”, in the NASB.

The passage in James 3:7, “For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of MANKIND” now reads in the NAS as, “been tamed by the human race”.

The worst example of a bad translation and bad theology is found in Zechariah 9:6. Here the KJB reads, “And a BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.”

This Hebrew word ‘mamzer’ is found only twice in the entire Old Testament. The other time is in Deut. 23 :2 where it says, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD” .

This word is not archaic, and means an illegitimate son, born out of wedlock. In fact here the NAS and NKJV have translated it as, “one of illegitimate birth” but the NIV has messed it up by rendering this single word as “one born of a forbidden marriage.” So also does the highly touted 2001 English Standard Version, “No one born of a forbidden union”. None of these words occur in the Hebrew text, and if the child were born of any kind of a marriage, it would not be a bastard or of illegitimate birth.

The word is correctly translated as bastard by the Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Darby, Young’s, Geneva, RSV, Hebrew Names Bible, Webster’s 1833, the Hebrew-English translation of 1936, Third Millenium Bible, World English Bible, Lamsa’s translation from the Peshitta, the Italian Diodati, and the Spanish as ‘bastardo’.

However, when we get to Zechariah 9:6 the KJB phrase, “a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod” has now been replaced in the NIV as, “a foreigner”, which is totally wrong, and in the NKJV as “a MIXED RACE”. The English Standard Version of 2001 says: “A mixed people” but then has this footnote: Hebrew - a bastard.

If there is a mixed race, is there then such a thing as a pure race? This is what Hitler thought. The New English Bible has “a half breed”. But the NAS is the worst of all here. It actually says “a MONGREL RACE”. Mongrel usually refers to dogs of mixed breeds and has a negative connotation, especially when applied to people.

Remember, this is supposed to be God’s word and His perspective. Is there such a thing as a mongrel race that He has created? I don’t think so. Relations among people of different skin color are difficult enough because of our pride and our fallen, sinful nature, without having the “word of God” actually referring to some people as of a ‘mongrel race’.

It’s really a very simple equation. The KJB does not teach that there is such a thing as different “races” of men. It teaches that all are equal, in respect to our creation, before the God Who made us. The NKJV, NIV, and NAS all teach there are different races and some are inferior to others. Which one presents the truth? Clearly it is the “old fashioned” King James Bible. I would rather have the Truth that is harder to read and understand, than error which is in modern updated English. How about you?

Will Kinney

== External Link ==

* [http://brandplucked.webs.com/mvsandracism.htm Modern Versions Teach Racism] by [[Will Kinney]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:22, 20 January 2011
Line 1:		Line 1:



Line 20:		Line 19:


	~~'''~~Evolutionism is RACIST!~~'''~~		==Evolutionism is RACIST!==


	"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man ...The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins ..." T. H. Huxley		"It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men, but no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man ...The highest places in the hierarchy of civilization will assuredly not be within the reach of our dusky cousins ..." T. H. Huxley
Line 41:		Line 39:


	The King James Version never speaks of people as being of a certain race. It speaks of running the race that is set before us, but never uses this word when referring to people.		The [[King James Version]] never speaks of people as being of a certain race. It speaks of running the race that is set before us, but never uses this word when referring to people.


	This is not the case with the new Bible versions that are so popular today. In their efforts to be “modern and up to date” they have actually proven themselves to be foolish and unscientific. The NKJV uses the word “race” when referring to people once, the NIV twice, and the NAS six times. Let’s look at these examples and compare them with the King James Bible.		This is not the case with the new Bible versions that are so popular today. In their efforts to be “modern and up to date” they have actually proven themselves to be foolish and unscientific. The [[NKJV]] uses the word “race” when referring to people once, the NIV twice, and the NAS six times. Let’s look at these examples and compare them with the King James Bible.


	In Ezra 9:2, the sins of the people of Israel are recounted. Among them is listed the fact that they had mingled themselves with the idolators of the land of Canaan and had done according to their abominations: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons; so that the holy SEED have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.”		In [[Ezra 9:2]], the sins of the people of Israel are recounted. Among them is listed the fact that they had mingled themselves with the idolators of the land of Canaan and had done according to their abominations: “For they have taken of their daughters for themselves, and for their sons; so that the holy SEED have mingled themselves with the people of those lands.”


Line 53:		Line 51:


	Again, in Romans 9:3 the apostle Paul testifies “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my KINSMEN according to the flesh”. Here the NIV says, “for the sake of my brothers, those of my own RACE.” I didn’t know the Jews were a separate race - I thought we all came from Adam and Eve, and after that from Noah and his family.		Again, in [[Romans 9:3]] the apostle Paul testifies “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my KINSMEN according to the flesh”. Here the [[NIV]] says, “for the sake of my brothers, those of my own RACE.” I didn’t know the Jews were a separate race - I thought we all came from Adam and Eve, and after that from Noah and his family.


	In Mark 7:26 we are told, “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by NATION”; yet the NAS says, “a Syrophenician by RACE”. In Acts 7:19, “The same dealt subtilly with our KINDRED”, is replaced in the NAS with, “he who took shrewd advantage of our RACE.” In I Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen GENERATION, a royal priesthood, an holy nation”, has become “you are a chosen RACE”, in the NASB.		In [[Mark 7:26]] we are told, “The woman was a Greek, a Syrophenician by NATION”; yet the NAS says, “a Syrophenician by RACE”. In Acts 7:19, “The same dealt subtilly with our KINDRED”, is replaced in the NAS with, “he who took shrewd advantage of our RACE.” In I Peter 2:9, “But ye are a chosen GENERATION, a royal priesthood, an holy nation”, has become “you are a chosen RACE”, in the NASB.


	The passage in James 3:7, “For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of MANKIND” now reads in the NAS as, “been tamed by the human race”.		The passage in [[James 3:7]], “For every kind of beasts, and of birds, and of serpents, and of things in the sea, is tamed, and hath been tamed of MANKIND” now reads in the [[NAS]] as, “been tamed by the human race”.


	The worst example of a bad translation and bad theology is found in Zechariah 9:6. Here the KJB reads, “And a BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.”		The worst example of a bad translation and bad theology is found in [[Zechariah 9:6]]. Here the [[KJB]] reads, “And a BASTARD shall dwell in Ashdod, and I will cut off the pride of the Philistines.”


	This Hebrew word ‘mamzer’ is found only twice in the entire Old Testament. The other time is in Deut. 23 :2 where it says, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD” .		This Hebrew word ‘mamzer’ is found only twice in the entire [[Old Testament]]. The other time is in Deut. 23 :2 where it says, “A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD” .


	This word is not archaic, and means an illegitimate son, born out of wedlock. In fact here the NAS and NKJV have translated it as, “one of illegitimate birth” but the NIV has messed it up by rendering this single word as “one born of a forbidden marriage.” So also does the highly touted 2001 English Standard Version, “No one born of a forbidden union”. None of these words occur in the Hebrew text, and if the child were born of any kind of a marriage, it would not be a bastard or of illegitimate birth.		This word is not archaic, and means an illegitimate son, born out of wedlock. In fact here the [[NAS]] and [[NKJV]] have translated it as, “one of illegitimate birth” but the [[NIV]] has messed it up by rendering this single word as “one born of a forbidden marriage.” So also does the highly touted 2001 English Standard Version, “No one born of a forbidden union”. None of these words occur in the Hebrew text, and if the child were born of any kind of a marriage, it would not be a bastard or of illegitimate birth.


	The word is correctly translated as bastard by the Revised Version of 1881, ASV of 1901, Darby, Young’s, Geneva, RSV, Hebrew Names Bible, Webster’s 1833, the Hebrew-English translation of 1936, Third Millenium Bible, World English Bible, Lamsa’s translation from the Peshitta, the Italian Diodati, and the Spanish as ‘bastardo’.		The word is correctly translated as bastard by the [[Revised Version]] of 1881, [[ASV]] of 1901, Darby, Young’s, Geneva, [[RSV]], Hebrew Names Bible, Webster’s 1833, the Hebrew-English translation of 1936, Third Millenium Bible, World English Bible, Lamsa’s translation from the Peshitta, the Italian Diodati, and the Spanish as ‘bastardo’.


	However, when we get to Zechariah 9:6 the KJB phrase, “a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod” has now been replaced in the NIV as, “a foreigner”, which is totally wrong, and in the NKJV as “a MIXED RACE”. The English Standard Version of 2001 says: “A mixed people” but then has this footnote: Hebrew - a bastard.		However, when we get to [[Zechariah 9:6]] the KJB phrase, “a bastard shall dwell in Ashdod” has now been replaced in the NIV as, “a foreigner”, which is totally wrong, and in the NKJV as “a MIXED RACE”. The English Standard Version of 2001 says: “A mixed people” but then has this footnote: Hebrew - a bastard.


Line 83:		Line 81:


	It’s really a very simple equation. The KJB does not teach that there is such a thing as different “races” of men. It teaches that all are equal, in respect to our creation, before the God Who made us. The NKJV, NIV, and NAS all teach there are different races and some are inferior to others. Which one presents the truth? Clearly it is the “old fashioned” King James Bible. I would rather have the Truth that is harder to read and understand, than error which is in modern updated English. How about you?		It’s really a very simple equation. The KJB does not teach that there is such a thing as different “races” of men. It teaches that all are equal, in respect to our creation, before the God Who made us. The [[NKJV]], [[NIV]], and [[NAS]] all teach there are different races and some are inferior to others. Which one presents the truth? Clearly it is the “old fashioned” King James Bible. I would rather have the Truth that is harder to read and understand, than error which is in modern updated English. How about you?


	Will Kinney		[[Will Kinney]]