“New Age Bible Versions” - Chapters One and Two

I will ignore all the drama, unwarranted assertions, suppositions, claims to know what Satan is thinking/planning, conspiracy theories, and other claims which are not directly addressed using Scripture.  And I will not address these types of claims in any future chapters either, unless they get so ridiculous as to warrant exposure.  

Riplinger alludes to much Scripture in many places before she actually addresses it, so I will hold the examination until we actually get to a Bible passage.

On p.9 is a comparison of Phil. 3:3.  KJV says “worship God” while NAS/NIV say “worship,” according to NABV.  This supposedly demonstrates that Satan has taken away the word “God.” But what are the complete texts?

KJV:  For we are the circumcision, which worship God in the spirit...

NAS: for we are the true circumcision, who worship in the Spirit of God...

NIV:  For it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God...

While the meaning is slightly different, it is dishonest to say that the word “God” has been removed, and that there is no object of worship stated. However, I maintain that if we are worshiping in or by the Spirit of God, then we are only going to be worshiping God.

On p.17 there is a chart showing supposed changes that prepare the way for the anti-christ.  The left column shows the word or phrase in KJV, the center column shows the passage, and the right column shows the “New Age” change.  Whereas Riplinger only gives a word or phrase, I will give the entire passage, if needed, so it can be examined in context.  The problem is that she heads the “New Age” version as “NASB (NIV) et al.”  This makes it difficult to know exactly which version she is using, and it would be quite time consuming to search every “new” version.  The following is from the chart:

a.  Luke 24:36  The word “Jesus” has been changed to “he”

 KJV: “And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.”

NAS:  “And while they were telling these things, He Himself stood in their midst.”  [footnoted “Some ancient mss. insert And He says to them, “Peace be to you.”]

NIV:  “While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said, “Peace be with you.”  

NIV and KJV say the same thing!  NAS “He” (not “he”) must be Jesus by context.  Verse 15 identifies the speaker as “Jesus”; there is no need to keep saying “Jesus.”  In fact, that is the only place where NIV and KJV re-identify the speaker.  This is nit-picking about writing style only.

b.  Matt. 4:18:  “Jesus” is replaced with “He.”  As with the last example, KJV and NIV say the same thing, but NAS continues the context of who “He” is beginning at v.12.

c.  Mark 2:15:  “Jesus” is replaced with “He.” Again, in context of the narrative, “He” is plainly identified as Jesus in NAS; and Jesus’ name is in the second part of the same verse!  NIV just words it differently, but the “Him” is clearly identified as Jesus.

d.  Mark 10:52:  “Jesus” is replaced with “Him.”  Both NIV and KJV say “Jesus.”  NAS says “Him,” but in the same verse it already identifies who the “Him” is as being Jesus!  Is it necessary to repeat the name?  This is purely style, and of absolutely no consequence.

e.  Matt. 6:33: “The kingdom of God” is replaced by “His kingdom.” NIV and NAS are basically identical. But, verse 32 says that “your heavenly Father” is who knows your needs, and it is “His” kingdom you should seek.  Now, since our “heavenly Father” is indeed God, and you say to seek “his kingdom,” that says to me the same thing as KJV saying “the kingdom of God!!”  Just a style change.

f.  Rev. 21:4:  “God” is replaced by “He.” NAS and NIV clearly identify who “He” is in verse 3.  Again, style is the argument.

g.  1 Tim. 3:16: “God” is replaced by “He”.  Both NAS and NIV have footnotes stating that some mss. have God instead.  This means by logic that some mss. have “He.”  So which is correct?  Is the meaning the same?  In context the meaning is obvious.  At any rate, it is not changed or hidden; just another version is used with credit given to the possibility of the other being correct.  And whether it says “God,” or “He,” the context is from the previous verse where it has “God,” so it is obvious that “God” is who “He” references.  Style change!

h.  Gal. 1:15:  “God” is replaced by “He.”  NIV says the same as KJV, NAS doesn’t.  I believe it is obvious from the context that God is meant, but this is the only example so far that may be about other than style, because one has to assume “He” is God; however, there is NO doctrinal change.

i.  Matt. 22:32:  “God is replaced by “He.”  I have to demonstrate, by looking at the actual passage, that this is nothing more than style, and is an excellent example of all the previous style complaints.  Remember, the claim is that these changes are made by Satan to prepare for the anti-Christ.  I’ll start with vs. 31, with Jesus doing the talking:

KJV:  But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,  “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?  God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”

NIV:  But about the resurrection of the dead - have you not read what God said to you, “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”?  He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”

NIV and NAS both say “He” is not the God of the dead vs KJV saying “God” is not the God of the dead.  And this is supposed to be a problem?!?  It is just style!!!

j.  Acts 22:16:  “the name of the Lord” replaced by “His name.”  The context of the paragraph is “The Righteous One” (or “Just One” in KJV).  In actuality, NAS and NIV are clearer as to who is being referred because they both use “His name” as being referred back to “The Righteous One,” whereas with KJV one could make the argument that “the Lord” is a different person than “the Just One,” so that you have two people being talked about!

k.  1 Cor. 14:2: “the spirit” replaced by “his spirit.”  NIV footnotes “Or by the Spirit.”  KJV has “spirit” vs. NIV footnote “Spirit;” so is KJV talking about the Holy Spirit?  Or is KJV talking about the man’s spirit?  The understanding could be either way, but if it is man’s own spirit, all three say the same thing!

l.  Rev. 14:1:  “his Father’s name written in their foreheads” replaced by “His name and the name of His Father written on the foreheads.”  “His” name is referring back to the “Lamb”, i.e., Jesus.  By the doctrine of the Trinity, don’t these really say the same thing?

m.  Phil. 3:3:  Already noted in introduction.

So here we have a complete chart of complaints about nothing other than style!  Pages 18-22 have similar charts but with no references.  How can one check these without references?   They purport to show that the “New Age” versions use the same words, not as the KJV, but of “New Age/Luciferians.”  Since we have just seen how much Riplinger takes words out of context to “prove” her case, I’m sure it will be the same with the charts on these to pages.  I just ignored these charts for that reason.  She does say that “documentation” for these charts will show up later in the book.

Pages 23 and 24 continue with rants about New Age beliefs and “Lucifer’s” handiwork, as well as citations from various sources “proving” there is a new age conspiracy.

P.25 talks about “Method, Means and Moment,” and how new versions hide these.  Let’s look at this charge.

a.  “Method”:  2 Tim. 3:6.  KJV says “creep into,” while NAS says “enter into, “ and NIV says “worm their way into.”  I can’t see a problem here - they all say the same thing!  Sure, “creep” could define nefarious activity better, but I think NIV’s “worm their way” is even more definitive!

b.  “Means”:  2 Cor. 11:3.  NAS and NIV both imply the same as KJV.

c.  “Moment”:  2 Tim. 2:26.  KJV says “at his will” while NAS/NIV say “to do his will.”  The first says at Satan’s will it was done, while the other says the reason was “to do his will.”  Yes, this says different things, but is there a doctrinal problem here?  No.

What follows, to the end of the chapter, are several pages, including a couple charts, with a continuous diatribe by Riplinger.

Summation of what Chapter 1 gives as translation problems in “new” versions:  Primarily writing style, no doctrinal changes.  The majority of the chapter is just making unsubstantiated claims against people and organization connections to the “new” Bible versions.  Chapter one, like the Introduction, has no substantive charge against the “new” versions when compared to the KJV.

CHAPTER TWO.  This chapter begins with the Lucifer argument; that only KJV has “Lucifer” and the “New Age” versions “hide” his name.  See the review of the Introduction for this problem.  In fact, the whole chapter is about conspiracy theories in regards to the “false belief” that Lucifer is not Satan, that people teach Satan doesn’t exist, and that new Bibles assist this teaching.  I have to highlight a couple of her more bizarre claims:

P.41 makes a suggestion about Chicago’s Zip code, 60606, being related to Satan.  This is nonsense, and causes a loss in credibility (as if there wasn’t enough loss to Riplinger’s credibility already).  Having worked for the U.S. Postal Service for a few years, I am familiar with how Zip codes are assigned.

P.51 says, “Satan stole his new name,” then it shows a chart where Luke 4:8 has a phrase with the name “Satan” removed.  Explain to me how Satan has hidden his “new name” by removal of this one phrase when there are 54 other times in the NIV (by reference to the NIV Exhaustive Concordance) where the name “Satan” is used!

P.53 has an appeal to ghostly authority:  “Scholars concur that Christ was born in the fall on the 4th day of the feast of the tabernacles.”  Other “scholars” I’ve read have given different dates and reasons for their choices.  Essentially, NO ONE KNOWS!

Summation of this chapter: Absolutely nothing factual against new versions, and virtually 100% diatribe and rhetoric.

So now we have reviewed the Introduction and the first two chapters and the only real complaint is against writing styles in the “new” Bibles.  There is no hidden agenda proven, no corruption of the Bible demonstrated.  Perhaps Riplinger will have better luck in Chapter 3.

Exposing Error - Is It Worthwhile?

Exposing Error: Is It Worthwhile?
By Dr. Harry Ironside (1876-1951)

Objection is often raised even by some sound in the faith-regarding the exposure of error as being entirely negative and of no real edification. Of late, the hue and cry has been against any and all negative teaching. But the brethren who assume this attitude forget that a large part of the New Testament, both of the teaching of our blessed Lord Himself and the writings of the apostles, is made up of this very character of ministry-namely, showing the Satanic origin and, therefore, the unsettling results of the propagation of erroneous systems which Peter, in his second epistle, so definitely refers to as “damnable heresies.”

Our Lord prophesied, “Many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” Within our own day, how many false prophets have risen; and oh, how many are the deceived! Paul predicted, “I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch.” My own observation is that these “grievous wolves,” alone and in packs, are not sparing even the most favoured flocks. Undershepherds in these “perilous times” will do well to note the apostle’s warning:

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers.” It is as important in these days as in Paul’s-in fact, it is increasingly important-to expose the many types of false teaching that, on every hand, abound more and more.

We are called upon to “contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints,” while we hold the truth in love. The faith means the whole body of revealed truth, and to contend for all of God’s truth necessitates some negative teaching. The choice is not left with us. Jude said he preferred a different, a pleasanter theme- “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 3, 4). Paul likewise admonishes us to “have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them” (Eph. 5:11).

This does not imply harsh treatment of those entrapped by error-quite the opposite. If it be objected that exposure to error necessitates unkind reflection upon others who do not see as we do, our answer is: it has always been the duty of every loyal servant of Christ to warn against any teaching that would make Him less precious or cast reflection upon His finished redemptive work and the all-sufficiency of His present service as our great High Priest and Advocate.

Every system of teaching can be judged by what it sets forth as to these fundamental truths of the faith. “What think ye of Christ?” is still the true test of every creed. The Christ of the Bible is certainly not the Christ of any false “-ism.” Each of the cults has its hideous caricature of our lovely Lord.

Let us who have been redeemed at the cost of His precious blood be “good soldiers of Jesus Christ.” As the battle against the forces of evil waxes ever more hot, we have need for God-given valour.

There is constant temptation to compromise. “Let us go forth therefore unto Him without the camp, bearing His reproach.” It is always right to stand firmly for what God has revealed concerning His blessed Son’s person and work. The “father of lies” deals in half-truths and specializes in most subtle fallacies concerning the Lord Jesus, our sole and sufficient Savior.

Error is like leaven of which we read, “A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” Truth mixed with error is equivalent to all error, except that it is more innocent looking and, therefore, more dangerous. God hates such a mixture! Any error, or any truth-and-error mixture, calls for definite exposure and repudiation. To condone such is to be unfaithful to God and His Word and treacherous to imperiled souls for whom Christ died.

Exposing error is most unpopular work. But from every true standpoint it is worthwhile work. To our Savior, it means that He receives from us, His blood-bought ones, the loyalty that is His due. To ourselves, if we consider “the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt,” it ensures future reward, a thousand-fold. And to souls “caught in the snare of the fowler”-how many of them God only knows-it may mean light and life, abundant and everlasting.

HT: Lighthouse Trails Research Project, e-mail update

Random Apostasies and Heresies

I was surprised by how many e-mails and comments I received when I discussed the probability of eliminating my “Random” posts as a regular posting; many said it was one of their favorite articles!  Well, I don’t know how regular I can keep doing them, but I guess I won’t totally discontinue them.  This past week has been one of those times when I read much that needed sharing with as many people as possible, so as to protect the flock from deception.  And I didn’t have time to finish my next episode on the book I’m reviewing.

Let me start with a report about how Radio Bible Class has been promoting the writings of Philip Yancey.  If you don’t know about the problems with Yancey, I recommend you read the article I wrote about him a bit over a year ago.  If you don’t want to take the time to read that article, I summed it up as follows:

My case against Philip Yancey has demonstrated him to be a follower and promoter of New Age mysticism in its many permutations, a teacher of unbiblical secular psychological theories, a teacher of varieties of ecumenicism; that he often fails to base his beliefs and teachings on the clear Word of God, that he defends homosexuality, approves of the Emergent movement, and has demonstrated ignorance of the Islamic faith.  To top it all off, he rejects correction, denigrating those who would dare point out error.

RBC has been using Yancey’s writings for over four years now.  As Lighthouse Trails reminds us, now that RBC’s founder has gone, we need to realize that there is a whole new generation running the organization which “negates the guarantee that the ministry will be run with the same biblical integrity.”  Lighthouse trails then posted a rebuttal from RBC, followed-up by more examination and their response to RBC.

There’s been quite a stir about Andy Stanley’s comment about President Obama being “the Pastor in Chief.”  Andy has an explanation, but I don’t buy it.  Just because Obama showed some sort of compassion, that doesn’t make him even close to being a pastor.  Barak Obama has demonstrated that he is pretty much anti-Christ: he is the most pro-abortion president in history, he endorses and promotes the homosexual agenda, and has no compunction about violating the rights of Christians.  To even mention the word “Pastor” in the same breath as “Obama” is disgraceful.

The Bible makes it plain that Christians should not sue each other (1 Cor. 6:1-8), yet Jonathan Cahn has decided to sue David James for quoting too much of Cahn’s book in Jame’s book exposing the false teachings of Cahn.  Apparently, false teachers just can’t  accept exposure of their false teachings!

Speaking of false teachers, Jay Bakker (son of Jimmy and Tammy Bakker) is still preaching pro-homosexual theology.  He claims that evangelical pastors don’t endorse homosexuality only because they fear losing money, power and acceptance.  I hate to be the one to break Jay’s bubble, but REAL Christians don’t endorse homosexuality because God calls it an abomination!

So, we know Roman Catholicism is not a Christian organization, and yet ecumenicism is rearing its ugly head again and again as many protestant teachers, as well as denominations, are joining up with Rome in many venues.  Now we have some churches who have signed an agreement with Rome to honor each others’ baptisms.  with some of these denominations, it is no surprise that they would compromise, but what is odd is that Rome would accept such apostate denominations in said agreement!   I don’t know anything about the Reformed Church in America other than with a name like that it is probably Calvinist, but I do know about the PCUSA, and UCC as apostate denominations and yet Rome signs with them?!?

Rick Warren is showing more and more of his ecumenical colors as he butters up to the Roman Catholic Church.  Romanism is nothing but apostasy and heresy, and yet Warren sees nothing wrong with joining up with them in Christian endeavors.  Additionally, he will be having a Cardinal speaking at Saddleback!  Well, I guess this shouldn’t be surprising, since he previously had a Muslim Imam speaking there!  I guess he never read 2 John 9-11.

There are more problems with Warren this week (as if there aren’t enough problems with him as a teacher as it is) as we learn that he thinks we need to build “bridges of friendship and love” so Jesus will be able to walk across.

Perry Noble showed up on a blog this week, in reference to an Easter service which opened with Highway to Hell.  If you’re not familiar with this song, just look for it on Google.  The article examining this topic demonstrates conclusively that Noble is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  (Some of the comments on this post excusing Noble just show the damage sheep have already suffered at his “church.”   Of course Perry’s church is just one of many in this article which also panders to the idolatry of football, changing the church schedule so his followers can have the Super Bowl as their priority.

Old Joyce Meyer stuff continues to prove that she is not a teacher anyone should be listening to.  Check out her self-esteem philosophy and some other heresies over the years.

Lastly, an article worth pondering is about why so much garbage is showing up in our churches today - “because there is no fear of God in the church!”

A Contemporary Worship Song

Our music leader brought in a new song today, and it is a contemporary song which actually has good lyrics.  WIth contemporary “worship” songs, good lyrics are few.  Here is the song we sang today, by Gateway Worship;

O The Blood

O the blood

Crimson love

Price of life's demand

Shameful sin

Placed on Him

The Hope of every man

CHORUS

O the blood of Jesus washes me

O the blood of Jesus shed for me

What a sacrifice that saved my life

Yes, the blood, it is my victory

Savior Son

Holy One

Slain so I can live

See the Lamb

The great I Am

Who takes away my sin

(BRIDGE)

O the blood of the Lamb

O the blood of the Lamb

O the blood of the Lamb

The precious blood of the Lamb

What a sacrifice

That saved my life

Yes, the blood, it is my victory

O what love

No greater love

Grace, how can it be

That in my sin

Yes, even then

He shed His blood for me 

I didn’t care for the music because I couldn’t find any order to it.  I’m not a musician, and I’ve always found music easy to learn only if it had some recognizable order and good flow to it; it has to make sense to me.  That’s why I’ve never been good singing any sort of harmony - it rarely makes sense to me.  (I do play harmony for six pipe tunes, because those are the only tunes where the harmony makes sense to me!)

The tune to this song just wasn’t catching in my brain so I didn’t sing it at all, but did marvel at the decent lyrics!

"New Age Bible Versions" - Introduction

There is a chart opposite the page beginning the “Introduction.”  It complains of the lack of the word “Holy” in “New Age” versions.  In the examples listed for 2 Pet. 1:21, Matt. 25:31, 1 Thes. 5:27 and Rev. 22:6, the context itself implies holy men, angels, brethren, prophets.  So deleting the actual word changes nothing; the meaning is the same.  For John 7:39, Acts 6:3, Acts 8:18, and 1 Cor. 2:13, NAS and NIV both say “Spirit” (capital S), which designates only the Holy Spirit, so there is no confusion with man’s spirit.  For Acts 8:18 the following verse says “Holy Spirit,” further clarifying the context of 8:18.  In Matt. 12:31, even the KJV has “Holy” italicized, meaning it is not in the original!

The first paragraph of the Introduction speaks of an “alliance between the new versions of the Bible . . . And the chief conspirators in the New Age movement’s push for a One World Religion.”  This definitely sounds like an accusation of conspiratorial participation.  Subparagraph 1 reinforces this implication.

Two of the last three items on page 2 are all about dire consequences which happened to editors of “new versions,” and the last item claims that a reference dictionary “new version” editors used was edited “Hitler’s propaganda ‘high priest.”  No documentation is given, and they sound very much like spurious anecdotes.

On p.3, subparagraph 3, claiming new versions are more difficult to read than the KJV, is wrong in my opinion, and in the opinion of all the Sunday School students I have taught over the past 10 years.  KJV is difficult to read, especially with today’s public school graduates who don’t understand current English, let alone 1611 English.

Subparagraph 4 says, “A ‘new’ Christianity is emerging from the new versions which substitute riches for righteousness, a crown for a cross, and an imitation for a new creation.”  This is an undocumented assertion.

On p.4 we begin the complaint about Lucifer being missing from the new versions. Riplinger gives an anecdote as follows:  “..a young man asked, ‘Is the fall, recorded in Isaiah 14 about Lucifer [as the KJV and Hebrew text indicates] or Jesus, the morning star, as the NIV and NASB imply?’” I don’t think the question that was asked would have been asked if the individual had read the context of all verses using the terms.  Actually the whole argument in reference to “Lucifer” being changed to “morning star” or “star of the morning” is, in my opinion, untenable.  In the past I have read much about the translation of the term, but my wife gave me a copy of a children’s magazine sample we picked up at a home-school conference which explained things quite simply.  It is called “Discovery,” and the March 1999 issue has the following on page 20:

Have you ever heard of a “morning star”?  Or and “evening star”?  Many years ago, early in the morning as the Sun began to rise, people saw what they thought was a bright star in the sky and decided to call it the “Morning Star.”  At a different time of the year. . . they saw another light, which they named the “Evening Star.”

They did not realize for a long time that the Morning Star and the Evening Star actually were the same thing.  They also did not realize that what they were seeing wasn’t a “star” at all, but the planet Venus. …

In their own language, the Greeks called it Hesperus in the evening, and Phosphorus in the morning.  Later, the Romans called it Vesper in the evening, and Lucifer in the morning.  Hesperus and Vesper mean “evening.”  Phosphorus and Lucifer mean “light-bearing.”

Does the name “Lucifer” sound familiar to you?  Perhaps you have heard people use it as another name for Satan, but this is not at all what the Bible teaches.  The story begins with a man called Jerome who translated the Bible into Latin. . . .  When he came to the book of Isaiah, he found the Hebrew name Helel, which means something like “the Shining One.”  It described Helel as “the Son of the Dawn.”  Jerome concluded that Helel was just another name for Lucifer  - the Morning Star.

Next, the people who prepared the King James Version borrowed heavily from Jerome’s Latin Bible.  Their translation of Isaiah 14:12 went like this:  “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!”  The confusion was started when someone incorrectly decided that this was talking about Satan and his rebellion against God (read Jude 6; Matthew 25:41).  In fact, the prophet Isaiah was talking about the wicked king of Babylon who claimed to be like God, and who boasted that his throne would lie beyond the stars (Isaiah 14:13-14).  The king sought the glory associated with Helel, but God had other plans.  He would bring this wicked king down to the depths of the Earth where he belonged (verse 11).  Today, in order to avoid this confusion, modern translations use “Morning Star” or “Day-Star” instead of “Lucifer.”

Isn’t it odd how weird ideas sometimes get started and then everyone seems to think they are right?

As I have written in a previous blog post about “Lucifer,” here’s the summation: Tertullian and Origen originated the teachings that Isaiah 14 referred to Satan.  Then “Lucifer” first entered the Bible in 405 A.D. when Jerome translated the O.T. into the Latin Vulgate.  In 1611, the KJV translators left the word “Lucifer” in the text instead of translating the Hebrew.  This led to John Milton, in 1667, putting the idea of Isaiah 14 applying to Satan, along with the KJV use of “Lucifer,” into his famous book, “Paradise Lost,” which had Lucifer as an angel who sinned and was cast out of heaven.  And this is how Lucifer became Satan.

I had never heard of the Lucifer/Satan connection when I first read the Isaiah passage, and I never would have gotten the connection from the context.  KJV translators merely left the Latin word from Jerome’s Vulgate in the text.  The doctrine that Isaiah 14:12 refers to Satan is disputed among many theologians in commentaries I have read.  From research I have done, the idea that this passage refers to Satan first appeared in the Second Temple Period in the pseudepigrapha of Enochic Judaism, which was a totally aberrant and mystical Jewish movement.  Early Christians were affected by this movement, and when the Latin Vulgate was written, the word “Lucifer” began to be taken as a proper name for Satan.

Dogmatically pushing this doctrine to prove that new versions of the English Bible are wrong is silly.  Almost everyone I have encountered who wants to discount the newer versions bring up the Lucifer argument immediately.  (I wonder what word other language translations use instead of Lucifer?)  Just because the term “morning star” is used in Isaiah, that doesn’t mean every use of the term must be identified with the same person.  Rev. or II Pet. can use the term without associating it with the Isa. passage.  As a matter of fact, isn’t one translating Hebrew while the others are translating Greek?  And if a literal name is going to be given to Satan, shouldn’t it have been the original Hebrew word instead of a Latin transliteration?

Now we have finished the Introduction and I find, what?

a.  Out of context use of Rev. 22:18-19.

b.  Complaints of removing the word “holy” from the text, even though the meaning is clear, and other writing devices (capital S) accomplish the same thing.

c.  Charge of conspiracy with the New Age movement.

d.  Opinions and undocumented assertions implied as fact.

e.  The Lucifer argument which (in my opinion) has nothing to do with translations being wrong.

Not a good start!  I can hardly wait to examine Chapter 1.