Description of site

Welcome with open arms fellow believers who don't see things the way you do.
And don't jump all over them every time they do or say something you don't agree with
- even when it seems that they are strong on opinions but weak in the faith department.
Remember, they have their own history to deal with. Treat them gently. Romans 14.1: The Message

Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#8980 - 11/15/03 06:25 PM 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible
Happy Birthday Stan Jensen Offline
Very Adventist


Registered: 09/15/06
Posts: 6041
Loc: Adventistan
19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible (The Clear Word), including one that contains Ellen White quotations printed in it.


Answer: The cover and title page of J. J. Blanco's The Clear Word clearly identify his work as "an expanded paraphrase of the Bible." It is published in the author's name, not the name of the church. The first sentence of the preface reads, "This is not a new translation but an interpretive paraphrase of the Scriptures." Seventh-day Adventists have never produced their own version of the Bible. In her lifetime, Ellen White made use of the various translations available.


The Ellen G. White Study Bible brings together relevant statements of commentary from Ellen White while preserving a format that maintains the rightful distinction between her words and the Scriptural text (as do the wide variety of study Bibles prepared by other commentators available in Christian book stores).

Top
#8981 - 10/28/04 03:03 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Halfstep Denise]
Kevin H Offline



Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 2929
Loc: New York
First of all, for a book to be a Bible it must be authoritative. Neither Elder Blanco sees his book as authoritive. The church does not build it's theology on the Clear Word. And I am free to dissagree with what the Clear Word says, a freedom that I exercise often.

Bibles such as the KJV, New American Standard, Good News, New International, the Anchor, we do indeed see as authoritive. We can argue over the bias of the translation or the interpatations given to the text, but we can not simply dissagree with something that it says and not be in trouble. These translations and other translations are indeed THE Bible and fully authoritive. As I said, we can not dissagree with the text itself, only the specific way the text was translated or applied. We are not bouned the same way to the clear word.

If someone says "The Bible Says..." and quotes any of these other translations, I do have to take what is said seriously. If someone says "The Clear Word says" I can (and often do) say "So What"

Also, have you ever been to church and the pastor reads some words of scripture, makes some comments on it, moves on to the next text, that is what Blanco does in the clear word (except that he does not even quote a text but paraphrases them). The clear word is no more than a typical sermon that happens to be printed and very long.

Another thing that the critics say about the clear word is that it brings in Mrs. White's ideas to try to make them part of the scripture. Now yes, he does indeed bring in a lot of what Mrs. White wrote (and by the way, using her writings in a way that she told us not to do.) But Mrs. White is only one source of ideas for comment. The comments and expansions also come from his own reaearch, and from comments from his students that he liked. He does not distinquish between Mrs. White's comments, his own research and comments from students, thus he does not give her any other weight in his comments than he does to the ideas of a student. When we read his expansions we have no idea which one of these three sources we are reading.

Top
#8982 - 07/06/05 09:25 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Halfstep Denise]
Gregory Matthews Offline


Registered: 05/10/00
Posts: 9915
Loc: Colorado, USA
Some SDAs act like the SDA Chruch has it's own Bible--The Clear Word.
_________________________
Gregory

Top
#8983 - 07/06/05 10:21 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Ted]
bevin Offline


Registered: 09/04/02
Posts: 4699
Loc: New England
We have discussed this mistake before. The Clear Word Bible - and indeed it was promoted by the SDA church, and is publically advertized TODAY on Amazon.Com under that name -

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/det...=books&n=507846

has been a huge PR disaster for the SDA church. It was printed, endosed, and advertised by the SDA organization with the word BIBLE right on the cover.

http://millennium.fortunecity.com/lincoln/666/clearwordbible/clear-word.htm

http://www.watchman.org/reltop/clearwordbible.htm

The SDA church should publically acknowlege this mistake, not try to pretend it was right all along.

It is not a paraphrase. It is not a translation. It does not make things clear. Instead it takes clear Bible verses and [:"red"]incorrectly states them[/] to support SDA doctrine.

For instance - see the stories of the Egyptian magicians turning rods into snakes, and Saul visiting the witch of Endor.

/Bevin

Top
#8984 - 07/06/05 10:44 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Mandy]
Happy Birthday Stan Jensen Offline
Very Adventist


Registered: 09/15/06
Posts: 6041
Loc: Adventistan
I few people who do not like it is far from A PR nightmare for the Church. This was published, distributed and promoted by the author until he agree to have the RH distribute it.

Many Adventist have many version of the Bible, and many 'types' of Bibles.

If you think that Dale Ratzlaff is a credible source of truth, then GWB has some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq he will sell you.

Top
#157535 - 02/17/08 10:59 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the [Re: Stan Jensen]
fccool Offline


Registered: 01/15/08
Posts: 4065
Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen

If you think that Dale Ratzlaff is a credible source of truth, then GWB has some weapons of mass destruction in Iraq he will sell you.


hehehe

I think that many of these theological "inconsistencies" do come from individual views of SDA members that are being interpreted as a view of the entire church.

I know many people who take CWB as the best "translation" of the Bible, as for them "it makes things really clear". It does drive me nuts as how much extra Biblical stuff that CWB plugs in to justify a position, so the word Bible IS misleading IMO. Yet, I don't see it being promoted by the church TODAY. And today is what we have to look at when we examine our beliefs.

Top
#174955 - 06/29/08 01:19 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: bevin]
doctorj Offline
I have already made 100 posts, seems iike I just started

Registered: 06/28/08
Posts: 193
Loc: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Since the post in 2005, the Clear Word Bible is now called "The Clear Word" dropping the word "Bible" from the title. You can see this at Amazon:

"The Clear Word" at Amazon

Although Amazon still lists this item as "The Clear Word Bible" in the title of the book even though the cover has the words "The Clear Word" printed on its cover.
_________________________
Make sure you have finished speaking before your audience has finished listening. -- Dorothy Sarnoff

Top
#174961 - 06/29/08 09:23 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: doctorj]
Happy Birthday Stan Jensen Offline
Very Adventist


Registered: 09/15/06
Posts: 6041
Loc: Adventistan
That was removed, in my opinion, to appease other jealous theologians.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... then.....


_________________________
The Lord bless you and keep you: The Lord make His face shine upon you, and be gracious unto you: The Lord lift up His countenance upon you, and give you peace. Numbers 6:24-26

Top
#262538 - 08/09/09 12:47 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Stan Jensen]
Haldog Offline
100% Saved by His Grace
I have already made 100 posts

Registered: 03/27/09
Posts: 239
Loc: Kansas
Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen
That was removed, in my opinion, to appease other jealous theologians.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck... then.....


it can be considered a duck.

The CWB is a deliberate distortion of God's Word. It changes the meaning of the Word to more closely align with the teachings of the SDA church.

IMO, the church should be trying to align itself more closely to God's Word, not trying to change God's Word to match the SDA's doctrine.

Shalom
_________________________
"You may not agree with everyone. But if you are an honest man, when someone says something you disagree with it’ll drive you to the Word. If you find out that you were wrong and change your thinking then you are the better for it. If you go to the Word and find out that you were right then you have been strengthened. But either way always go to the Word!!” Billye Brim

Top
#262558 - 08/09/09 02:04 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Haldog]
Kevin H Offline



Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 2929
Loc: New York
According to Graham Maxwell and I have also seen this from others, Elder Blanco was upset that the world "Bible" was put in the title of his book and that he requested it's removal.

The clear word is basically a very long sermon about the Bible, a paraphrase with ideas that Dr. Blanco found useful; yes from Mrs. White, but also from his studies, commentaries he's read, and comments by his students that very muched impressed him. We all make our own versions of the clear word. You probably heard someone else's version today in church, and tomorrow in Sunday keeping churches there will be more versions given. It is only that Dr. Blanco put it all together in Biblical order.

But again it is Dr. Blanco's understandings, ideas he found useful that he thought others would find useful too.

But it is not a Bible. It is not a consensious Adventist view like the SDA Bible Commentary or fundamental beliefs. It is notes Dr. Blanco found useful in his own spiritual life, it is not a Bible that I need to see as authorative.

Top
#262561 - 08/09/09 02:18 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Kevin H]
John317 Offline



Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 33718
Loc: near Loma Linda,CA
All true, Kevin. Wish people would get the facts about this issue. It dies a very slow death.

Top
#262563 - 08/09/09 02:33 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: John317]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22239
Loc: North Carolina
God gave us a brain to do our own research and study with. Not have it handed to us in a giftwrapped box with someone else's stamp of approval on it.

Top
#262565 - 08/09/09 02:41 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: RLH]
John317 Offline



Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 33718
Loc: near Loma Linda,CA
Exactly. That's so important. We need to pay attention to what the church as a whole is teaching, because God is leading out a church and not a few independent men here and there; but it's also essential that we understand the Bible for ourselves personally. It can be fun reading various paraphrases, but I know Elder Blanco himself wouldn't want readers to think his interpretations are anything more than possibilities. They're intended to help us see contexts and to give us a fresh view of something in order to stimulate our thinking.

Top
#262569 - 08/09/09 02:58 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: John317]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22239
Loc: North Carolina
I like the KJV and the NKJV.

Top
#262578 - 08/09/09 03:31 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: RLH]
John317 Offline



Registered: 11/13/05
Posts: 33718
Loc: near Loma Linda,CA

Yes, me too. They're primary translations for me. I also use the NASB, the RSV, Rotherham's Emphasized and some others, but I constantly refer to the original languages.

There are many great Bible students who use nothing but the KJV. My father was a wonderful pastor, and I gave him many translations, but he generally only used the KJV, and he didn't understand any Greek at all.

Top
#262588 - 08/09/09 03:57 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: John317]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22239
Loc: North Carolina
My dad used to tell me the KJV was the most accurate.

Top
#262592 - 08/09/09 06:13 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: RLH]
oldsailor29 Offline


Registered: 05/01/09
Posts: 1035
Loc: Lancaster, MA
my latest gem of new understanding came from my Greek interlinear Bible, which gives a literal translation of the Greek text. Revelation 7 speaks of a great multitude which cannot be numbered, and identifies them as those who are coming out of the great tribulation. Most translations say "came out," while the literal translation says "coming out," present tense. When I first read this, I could imagine seeing the great multitude coming out of the great tribulation, some not there yet, still arriving, and then it made sense to me that they could not be numbered. The number was not complete. They were still coming out. Then I remembered a text in Ecclesiastes (1:15) which says, "... that which is wanting cannot be numbered." It had never made sense to me before, because it isn't logical to say that we cannot count millions and even billions of people. We do count that many quite often. So when I saw that the great multitude were still coming out of the great tribulation, then it made perfect sense to me, that they could not be numbered. How many years have I read that text, and how many people have read it, and how many people are still reading it without seeing why the great multitude cannot be numbered? There's another multitude which cannot be numbered right there, those who are still reading and who will read it in the future. That's perfect. A multitude which cannot be numbered, reading about another multitude which also cannot be numbered. And they might have an intimate connection, for they might be reading about themselves, looking into a mirror of their future, so to speak.

Oops. Please excuse me for allowing my mind to wander, prancing about wildly and rambling about aimlessly.
_________________________
Prs God, frm whm blssngs flw
http://www.zoelifestyle.com/jmccall

Top
#262842 - 08/09/09 09:59 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Kevin H]
Haldog Offline
100% Saved by His Grace
I have already made 100 posts

Registered: 03/27/09
Posts: 239
Loc: Kansas
So then what is the purpose of the obvious and many distortions of the real Word? Why would someone want to distort Truth, and then why would an organization want to advertise and sell the distortion?
_________________________
"You may not agree with everyone. But if you are an honest man, when someone says something you disagree with it’ll drive you to the Word. If you find out that you were wrong and change your thinking then you are the better for it. If you go to the Word and find out that you were right then you have been strengthened. But either way always go to the Word!!” Billye Brim

Top
#262873 - 08/09/09 10:46 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Kevin H]
pkrause Offline


Registered: 03/24/00
Posts: 57970
Loc: Deltona, FL
I understand that he wrote the book for his son and it was to be a paraphrase and not a Bible.

pk
_________________________
phkrause

Romans 5:8: But God demonstrates his own love for us in that the Messiah died on our behalf while we were still sinners.

Top
#262874 - 08/09/09 10:47 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Stan Jensen]
BobRyan Offline


Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 6678
Loc: Georgia
Originally Posted By: Stan Jensen
19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible (The Clear Word), including one that contains Ellen White quotations printed in it.


Hurray! Finally! We got our own translation like the Catholics have the Duay version or Jerome's "Vulgate" or Luther's Bible or many single-person versions done by the Wycliffe Bible Translators for newly reached people groups.

It is about time!! What is it?

Quote:

Answer: The cover and title page of J. J. Blanco's The Clear Word clearly identify his work as "an expanded paraphrase of the Bible." It is published in the author's name, not the name of the church.


Oh - rats! We are still stuck with "there exists a paraphrase written by an Adventist".

Oh well - we can still hope that "one day" we get our own "translation".

in Christ,

Bob


Edited by BobRyan (08/09/09 10:48 PM)
_________________________
John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free
“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.

Top
#262876 - 08/09/09 10:49 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Haldog]
BobRyan Offline


Registered: 09/26/08
Posts: 6678
Loc: Georgia
Originally Posted By: Haldog
So then what is the purpose of the obvious and many distortions of the real Word?


Hint - Every Paraphrase known to man would fall under that statement. That never stopped me from paraphrasing the Bible when I read it to my children in their early years.

in Christ,

Bob


Edited by BobRyan (08/09/09 10:50 PM)
_________________________
John 8:32 - The Truth will make you free
“The righteousness of Christ will not cover one cherished sin." COL 316.

Top
#263145 - 08/10/09 07:21 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: BobRyan]
Haldog Offline
100% Saved by His Grace
I have already made 100 posts

Registered: 03/27/09
Posts: 239
Loc: Kansas
Originally Posted By: BobRyan
Originally Posted By: Haldog
So then what is the purpose of the obvious and many distortions of the real Word?


Hint - Every Paraphrase known to man would fall under that statement. That never stopped me from paraphrasing the Bible when I read it to my children in their early years.


Hint....did you take the bible out of context and change the meaning for your children? I surely hope not.

Do you have no discernment on the difference between making a story easy to read/narrate and changing the actual meaning of what the passages say?
_________________________
"You may not agree with everyone. But if you are an honest man, when someone says something you disagree with it’ll drive you to the Word. If you find out that you were wrong and change your thinking then you are the better for it. If you go to the Word and find out that you were right then you have been strengthened. But either way always go to the Word!!” Billye Brim

Top
#318410 - 01/06/10 02:50 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Haldog]
Fausto Offline
I have already made 100 posts

Registered: 06/23/08
Posts: 186
Loc: South Africa
I wonder if I can debate my own opinions and likes or dislikes here too, after all we're all here to learn:

I quite enjoy the Clear Word, but use a variety of other translations when studying, including the NIV and the KJV, I find the e-Sword an invaluable tool as well, and there I have the various KJ versions like the 2000, the NKJV, the MKJV, the KJ Red Letter as well as teh KJ with Strong's concordance but also the literal translation, Webster's and Young's literal translation.

All of these help one to understand things better, specially if one asks for a comparison of a verse.

One thing that kind of bothers me from an authoritative view is that the Sabbath School Books we have (published in the USA) use the NIV almost exclusively and we all know the NIV misses and diminishes the divinity of our Lord in many instances, as well as omits certain verses and parts thereof...it just...bothers me.

What is the general opinion here?

Top
#321804 - 01/15/10 03:49 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Haldog]
Kevin H Offline



Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 2929
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Haldog
So then what is the purpose of the obvious and many distortions of the real Word? Why would someone want to distort Truth, and then why would an organization want to advertise and sell the distortion?


Who says it is a distortion of truth? It is no more than what pastors do week after week, Sabbath after Sabbath and Sunday after Sunday, and what you and I do every time we open the word of God. Who gives all these preachers the right to have distortions and what gives you the right to distort, and who gives me the right to distort? Answer that question and you know about the purpose for Blanco's so called distortions.

The clear word is basically one very long sermon on the Bible starting with Gen 1:1 and going through the Bible. Elder Blanco paraphrased the Bible as he understands it and makes comments of things he has studied (Ellen White is only ONE of many of his sourses, which includes people from serious scholarly works to speculation comments by college freshmen that he though was worth merit to speculate on). He simply wanted to share his testimony on what the Bible has done for him and share things that he finds useful. I'd like to write my own version of the clear word. Whether you end up doing it on the while Bible as Elder Blanco did, or you only do it orally on certan passages as you discuss the Bible with others, you are making your own version of the Clear Word.

The Clear Word is NOT a Bible. It is a vehical that can share information that Elder Blanco found useful that I can read and either find useful, nuteral, or have my soul depart from my body in terror over the ideas, and Elder Blaco's response would be "Hey, if you find it useful then fantastic, if not, no big deal, go and study the Bible."

Top
#321806 - 01/15/10 04:23 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Fausto]
Kevin H Offline



Registered: 01/23/02
Posts: 2929
Loc: New York
Originally Posted By: Fausto
I wonder if I can debate my own opinions and likes or dislikes here too, after all we're all here to learn:

I quite enjoy the Clear Word, but use a variety of other translations when studying, including the NIV and the KJV, I find the e-Sword an invaluable tool as well, and there I have the various KJ versions like the 2000, the NKJV, the MKJV, the KJ Red Letter as well as teh KJ with Strong's concordance but also the literal translation, Webster's and Young's literal translation.

All of these help one to understand things better, specially if one asks for a comparison of a verse.

One thing that kind of bothers me from an authoritative view is that the Sabbath School Books we have (published in the USA) use the NIV almost exclusively and we all know the NIV misses and diminishes the divinity of our Lord in many instances, as well as omits certain verses and parts thereof...it just...bothers me.

What is the general opinion here?


I am critical of the NIV in that it tends to translate towards the Fundamentalist Evangelical camp. However as to the other issues I think that if you were to study them out you would find that it is more critics who are looking for fault, upset that they can't use their favorite proof texts as a hammer and that their criticizisms don't hold up to careful study.

Some of the verses are not in the oldest copies of the Bible (sometimes this can be due to the end of the book deteriating) but often the text is put in foot notes, as it might be a part of the original text or it might have been a scribes comment later. Other times it is clearly scrible comments and they are tryig to stick to the actual text. Then there are different ways they could translate the words and thus choose different words that come from further studies of what the words mean or shades of meaning. The King James has a lot of words that the translators had to guess at, or even if they had some general idea as to the word that they did not know the shades of meaning; like if I was to talk about clicking my mouse the King James translators might think that I have a pet rodent and wonder what I mean by clicking that rodent and just try to guess. When the NIV was written, while there were still a number of words that they have to guess at (last I heard there were about 3,000 words that we don't know at all, and we still don't know shades of meaning like how we have the word "Mouse" or "Apple" [am I discussing fruit, the Big Apple New York City, or a computer])

As for the texts that supposably diminish the divinity of Christ, let me tell you a story about one such verse and there are similar explanations for the others:

In the KJV we read in Mark 15:39 the centurion saying "Truely, this man was the Son of God" but in modern translations it is often translated "Truely, this man was a son of the gods" and critics say this lessens Jesus' divinity; but does it?

It was not until after the time of Jesus as the apostels were begining to realize who Jesus was that the term "The Son of God" picked up divinic aspects. In Jesus' day itself the term "The Son of God" meant no more than Kind David and any king of David's house. David was the Son of God. Solomon was The Son of God. Rehoboam was The Son of God. Ahaz was The Son of God. Manasseth was The Son of God. Jehoiakim was The Son of God. The term "The Son of God" was no more than a local political term, like "Commander in Chief"

One of the theams of Mark (and a big difference between Mark and Luke) is that Mark had Jesus not recognized for who he truely was, that is until the pagan centurion; a man so far away from the truth that he would make a phrase that would shock every good monothiestic Jew. The phrase from his culture meaning a divine being, a real god. The centuran was not intersted in local Judain politics. He did not care that this man was to sit on David's throne. What he realized was that Jesus was indeed God and said it in the only words that a Pagan would say it in. It was a rebuke that those who have studied the scripture, who knew about the one true God did not recognize that this one true God was with them, but that a polythiestic pagan relized that this person was indeed God and expressed it even though the words choosen came from his polythiestic context.

(By the way. Luke on the other hand had nearly everyone knowing who Jesus was, but when he came to this centurian, he has the centurian missing the point and only saying that Jesus was a good man). Ok, so we loose the proof text "Truely, this was the Son of God" but we get to see the message that Mark was actually telling us and as we understand this context and present the text in it's context it again becomes a proof text that the centuran indeed realized that Jesus was God.

Top
#321816 - 01/15/10 07:27 AM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Kevin H]
Kountzer Offline


Registered: 10/18/02
Posts: 1571
Loc: Houston, Texas
There are people in this world & on this forum who will use anything possible to discredit and smear this church. This clear word issue is just another example of such.
_________________________
I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I prayed with my legs.

Frederick Douglass


Top
#321931 - 01/15/10 02:20 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Kevin H]
Steve Billiter Offline
Broke the 400 mark

Registered: 11/24/09
Posts: 618
Loc: Reno, NV
Originally Posted By: Kevin H
Originally Posted By: Fausto
I wonder if I can debate my own opinions and likes or dislikes here too, after all we're all here to learn:

I quite enjoy the Clear Word, but use a variety of other translations when studying, including the NIV and the KJV, I find the e-Sword an invaluable tool as well, and there I have the various KJ versions like the 2000, the NKJV, the MKJV, the KJ Red Letter as well as teh KJ with Strong's concordance but also the literal translation, Webster's and Young's literal translation.

All of these help one to understand things better, specially if one asks for a comparison of a verse.

One thing that kind of bothers me from an authoritative view is that the Sabbath School Books we have (published in the USA) use the NIV almost exclusively and we all know the NIV misses and diminishes the divinity of our Lord in many instances, as well as omits certain verses and parts thereof...it just...bothers me.

What is the general opinion here?


I am critical of the NIV in that it tends to translate towards the Fundamentalist Evangelical camp. However as to the other issues I think that if you were to study them out you would find that it is more critics who are looking for fault, upset that they can't use their favorite proof texts as a hammer and that their criticizisms don't hold up to careful study.

Some of the verses are not in the oldest copies of the Bible (sometimes this can be due to the end of the book deteriating) but often the text is put in foot notes, as it might be a part of the original text or it might have been a scribes comment later. Other times it is clearly scrible comments and they are tryig to stick to the actual text. Then there are different ways they could translate the words and thus choose different words that come from further studies of what the words mean or shades of meaning. The King James has a lot of words that the translators had to guess at, or even if they had some general idea as to the word that they did not know the shades of meaning; like if I was to talk about clicking my mouse the King James translators might think that I have a pet rodent and wonder what I mean by clicking that rodent and just try to guess. When the NIV was written, while there were still a number of words that they have to guess at (last I heard there were about 3,000 words that we don't know at all, and we still don't know shades of meaning like how we have the word "Mouse" or "Apple" [am I discussing fruit, the Big Apple New York City, or a computer])

As for the texts that supposably diminish the divinity of Christ, let me tell you a story about one such verse and there are similar explanations for the others:

In the KJV we read in Mark 15:39 the centurion saying "Truely, this man was the Son of God" but in modern translations it is often translated "Truely, this man was a son of the gods" and critics say this lessens Jesus' divinity; but does it?

It was not until after the time of Jesus as the apostels were begining to realize who Jesus was that the term "The Son of God" picked up divinic aspects. In Jesus' day itself the term "The Son of God" meant no more than Kind David and any king of David's house. David was the Son of God. Solomon was The Son of God. Rehoboam was The Son of God. Ahaz was The Son of God. Manasseth was The Son of God. Jehoiakim was The Son of God. The term "The Son of God" was no more than a local political term, like "Commander in Chief"

One of the theams of Mark (and a big difference between Mark and Luke) is that Mark had Jesus not recognized for who he truely was, that is until the pagan centurion; a man so far away from the truth that he would make a phrase that would shock every good monothiestic Jew. The phrase from his culture meaning a divine being, a real god. The centuran was not intersted in local Judain politics. He did not care that this man was to sit on David's throne. What he realized was that Jesus was indeed God and said it in the only words that a Pagan would say it in. It was a rebuke that those who have studied the scripture, who knew about the one true God did not recognize that this one true God was with them, but that a polythiestic pagan relized that this person was indeed God and expressed it even though the words choosen came from his polythiestic context.

(By the way. Luke on the other hand had nearly everyone knowing who Jesus was, but when he came to this centurian, he has the centurian missing the point and only saying that Jesus was a good man). Ok, so we loose the proof text "Truely, this was the Son of God" but we get to see the message that Mark was actually telling us and as we understand this context and present the text in it's context it again becomes a proof text that the centuran indeed realized that Jesus was God.


The NIV is a deception and a fraud perpetrated upon God's people by the enemy of souls. IT has over 5000 omissions and changed words. It also attacks the sanctuary doctrine by changing "cleansed" to "reconsecrated." Heb.9:12, changes holy place to Most Holy seemingly to prove Jesus entered the Most Holy at His ascension. This is precisely why Desmond Ford used liberal faulty Bible versions and still does.


Both major minority manuscripts, A and B, that are used for the NIV and others were found in the Vatican library, and a trash can outside of a Catholic monastery.

That is why the NIV and the catholic Douay version are nearly the same.

The apostles, and all the prophets had a correct understanding of the deity of Christ, it is nonsense to assume the Holy Spirit would use the name of pagan gods for Christ. It is instead a subtle deception of Satan that attacks the deity of Christ.

Daniel 3:25 (New International Version)

25 He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods."
What son of what gods?

Dan 3:25 He answered and said, See, I see four men loose, walking in the middle of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
(AKJV)

"a son of" and "the Son" also is significant.


Below is a well researched article from a former Catholics point of view, very powerful.

http://www.geocities.com/heartland/plains/2594/nivmay97.htm
Although the KJB clearly states that we should, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God...” (2 Tim.2:15), the NIV is not so clear: “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved....” This irreverence for the word is obvious in many NIV passages and corresponds with Rome’s attitude towards the scriptures. She has put her traditions above the word and brought it under subjection to her interpretations. Another good example is 1 Pet. 2:1:
“As newborn babes, desire the sincere MILK OF THE WORD, that ye may grow thereby.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)


“Like newborn babies, crave pure SPIRITUAL MILK, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
The NIV leaves the reader with no direction to where this “spiritual milk” can be found. The same problem exists with the NIV rendering of Heb.5:14:

“For every one that useth milk is UNSKILFUL IN THE WORD OF RIGHTEOUSNESS: for he is a babe.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is NOT ACQUAINTED WITH THE TEACHING ABOUT RIGHTEOUSNESS.” (NIV) (Emphasis mine)


Since the NIV has corrupted the word of God, I can see why they changed the next scripture:
“For we are not as many, which CORRUPT THE WORD OF GOD....” (2 Cor.2:17) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“Unlike so many, we do not PEDDLE THE WORD OF GOD FOR PROFIT....” (NIV) (Emphasis mine)


It is a common practice of Roman Catholicism to take a verse of scripture out of context to promote their unbiblical doctrines. I personally believe that the NIV is not only intended to be the Bible for whatever belief or doctrine you may be searching for, but particularly and deliberately intended to support and defend Roman Catholic doctrine.


I don’t think you have to be a genius to figure out that if two Bibles disagree with each other, one of them has been altered. A good example of this is Hosea 11:12:
“Ephraim compasseth me about with lies, and the house of Israel with deceit: BUT JUDAH YET RULETH WITH GOD , AND IS FAITHFUL WITH THE SAINTS.” (Emphasis mine)


Now let’s look at the NIV’s version:
“Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, the house of Israel with deceit. and JUDAH IS UNRULY AGAINST GOD, EVEN AGAINST THE FAITHFUL HOLY ONE.” (Emphasis mine)


Now which is it? Is Judah “faithful with the saints” or “unruly against God”? How do we know which one to trust? We know that God is not the author of confusion (I Cor.14:33). We also know that, “Every word of God is pure....” (Prov.30:5)


It is essential, when contending for the true faith, that one have the “pure” word of God. The sword of the Spirit, the word of God
“...is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” (Heb.12:4)
If a man tamper with that word in any way by adding or taking from it, he will suffer the wrath of God. (Rev.22:18-19, Deut.4:2, Prov.30:5-6)


“ I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” (Ecc. 3:14)
Either the NIV has taken from the word or the KJB has added to the word, but they both cannot be right!!! One reason that I believe the KJB is the correct version is because of the contradictions found in the NIV. An example is found in comparing three verses in both versions: 1 Sam.17:51, 2 Sam.21:19 and 1 Chron.20:5. You will find that the KJB correctly states that David killed Goliath and that Elhanan killed Goliath’s brother. But in the NIV (and the Catholic Bible) you will discover that David kills Goliath in one verse and Elhanan kills Goliath in another.


Upon further examination, we find the reason for these contradictions. The NIV is taken from corrupt manuscripts out of Alexandria, Egypt. Rome has used these manuscripts as a foundation for her Bible. But the KJB comes from the Textus Receptusmanuscripts (which had not been tampered with) that came out of Antioch.


There are two men responsible for the newer translations, whose work was based on the corrupted manuscripts of Rome. I would like to take a look at the doctrines held by these two men, Wescott and Hort.


“Brook Foss Westcott (1825-1903) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were two non- Christian Anglican ministers. Fully steeped in the Alexandrian philosophy that "there is no perfect Bible", they had a vicious distaste for the King James Bible and its Antiochian Greek text, the Textus Receptus” (The Answer Book, Samuel Gipp, Question #44).

They both believed that Heaven only existed in the mind of men and believed it possible to communicate with the dead and often attempted to do just that through a society which they organized and entitled "The Ghostly Guild".
“Westcott accepted and promoted prayers for the dead. Both were admirers of Mary (Westcott going so far as to call his wife Sarah, "Mary"), and Hort was an admirer and proponent of Darwin and his theory of evolution” (The Answer Book, Samuel Gipp, Question #44).


Hort called Christ's substitutionary atonement "immoral." Writing to Westcott, he said:
“I entirely agree -- correcting one word -- with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an IMMORAL AND MATERIAL COUNTERFEIT ..... Certainly nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal HERESY.”


These men denied the finished work of Christ on the cross for our sins!! Does the NIV reflect that? Yes it does. One verse that I find most disturbing is Col.1:14 which reads in the KJB:
“In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins.” (Emphasis mine)


The NIV omits “through his blood”. Why? We know that Hort called a substitution sacrifice “immoral”. We also know Rome teaches that the mass is an “unbloody” sacrifice that takes away sins. But this verse makes it clear that “redemption” “even the forgiveness of sins” is “through the blood”. A most powerful verse is rendered impotent by the NIV. Likewise, Romans 14:6 is altered to help support the Catholic teaching that Sunday is a holy day and must be regarded as such:
Romans 14:6
“He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)


“He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord.” (NIV)
Since Rome teaches that to miss mass is a mortal sin and unless repented of before death leads to hell, she would have to get rid of the proof that a man may “NOT regard a day”.
Being a former Catholic, I am also aware of terms used that trigger certain ideas, such as the term “consecrated bread”. As a Catholic, I would immediately connect that with the priest having to say words over a piece of bread to turn it into God (transubstantiation).


When a person is brain-washed into believing one concept, the right wording can help to support that biased slant. A good example is the word “shewbread”. In the King James Bible we read:
“And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn. And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the SHEWBREAD, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?


And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.” (Mr.2:23-28) (Emphasis mine)
For a Christian, the emphasis is grace! In both situations, God’s people were hungry, but the law forbid them to eat. Grace is greater than the law, because God in His mercy fed them anyway! It is a great illustration for those of us who hunger and thirst for righteousness. Even though we have broken the law and deserve death, grace entered in and Jesus had mercy on us and fed us and gave us life.

Jesus could do this because He was the Lord of the Sabbath. But the NIV changed “shewbread” to “consecrated bread” and the average Catholic, being preconditioned, will connect this verse with the Roman Catholic wafer used in their mass. The fact that it is “consecrated” means to them that a Roman priest is necessary. The true message is blurred to make way for RCC doctrine. (Compare Matt.12:4; 6:4)


The NIV also helps to promote the idea that we need priests to minister. In Romans 15:16 we read:
“That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, MINISTERING THE GOSPEL OF GOD, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.” (KJB) (Emphasis mine)


But the NIV reads slightly different:
“...to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the PRIESTLY DUTY OF PROCLAIMING THE GOSPEL OF GOD, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.” (Emphasis mine)


The change makes “proclaiming the gospel” a “priestly duty”, instead of the responsibility of all believers in Jesus.
One area that I personally noticed the twisting of scriptures to support RCC doctrine is Hebrews 1:3. It is well known that Roman Catholicism pictures Mary as a sinless Co-Redemptress and Co-Mediatrix, and according to Dr. Mark Miravalle, author of Mary, Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate, (which has the approval of Luigi Cardinal Ciappi, O.P., Papal Theologian Emeritus for Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, and John Paul II), the next dogma that will be pronounced “ex-cathedra” will be on the role of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Co-Mediatrix and Advocate. Does the NIV support this claim by blurring the one verse that bluntly exposes this lie?


Let’s take a look at the KJB reading of Hebrews 1:3:
“Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had BY HIMSELF PURGED OUR SINS, sat down ON the right hand of the Majesty on high.”(Emphasis mine)
When witnessing to a Catholic, this verse is essential in making clear the redemptive work was done by Christ alone “by himself”, and disproving the need for a co-redemptress. But alas, if all I had to use was the watered-down NIV, I could no longer make such a proclamation, for it reads:


“The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had PROVIDED PURIFICATION FOR SINS, he sat down AT the right hand of the Majesty.”(Emphasis mine)
Rome also teaches the perpetual virginity of Mary, claiming that Mary had no other children. The NIV helps to support their doctrine by omitting “firstborn” from Matthew 1:25. Matthew 13:55 clearly says that Jesus had brothers and sisters:
“Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things?”


Another verse, often overlooked, proves that Mary had other children. Psalms 69:8 is a prophecy concerning Jesus. It reads:
“I am become a stranger unto my brethren, and an alien unto my mother's children.”


If Mary would have defrauded her husband Joseph of his conjugal rights, not only was the marriage never consummated, but Mary had disobeyed I Cor. 7:5.


The NIV’s rendering of James 5:16 is another misrepresentation of God’s Word in order to justify the Roman Catholic’s Confessional. They have replaced “confess your faults” with “confess your sins”.


The NIV’s rendering of the Lord’s prayer omits “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.”(Matt.6:9-13) Why would the NIV leave that out? Could it be to support Roman thinking she is the “kingdom” and the “power”?


In Revelation 2:15, the Lord rebukes the doctrine of the Nicolatians (a term that means “to conquer the laity”):
“So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolatians, WHICH THING I HATE.” (Emphasis mine)
But the NIV omits this very important phrase “which thing I hate”. This validates the priesthood, which rules over the people, in such a way that the doctrines of the RCC won’t be in question.


The issue of salvation is as obscure in the NIV as it is in Catholicism. Rome teaches that to be “born- again” is to be baptized as a baby (who can neither repent, or believe). When the eunuch asked Philip, “...See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” (Acts 8:36) (Emphasis mine), Philip answered, “If thou BELIEVEST with all thine heart, thou mayest.”(Emphasis mine) In the NIV you do not get an answer because verse 37 is omitted. (NIV jumps from verse 36 to 38) Without faith, it is impossible to please God. Heb.4:6 uses the Israelites as an example of those who did not enter into the “rest” of God:
“...they to whom it was first preached entered not in BECAUSE OF UNBELIEF.” (Heb.4:6) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
The NIV changes “unbelief” to “disobedience”. We have all been disobedient, but we have not all had faith. They are not the same thing!


In the following example, we have one verse claiming we “are saved” and another claiming we “are being saved”. Rome teaches that one can never know for sure if they “are saved”. If they do, they have committed the “sin of presumption” and are damned. Catholic apologists have a hard enough time trying to squirm their way out of I John 5:13 (“...that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life”)


(Emphasis mine), let alone have to deal with all those verses claiming we “are saved”. The NIV helps to support Rome’s doctrine, but the KJB stands firm that we are saved, not “in the process” of being saved.
“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which ARE SAVED it is the power of God.” (1Cor.1:18) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)



“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who ARE BEING SAVED it is the power of God.” (1Cor.1:18) (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
Out of curiosity, I typed into my computer Bible the term “are saved” and there were 6 verses, six occurrences. I looked up each one of them in the NIV and found they had all been tampered with, except one. They are as follows:
“For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that ARE SAVED, and in them that perish.” (2 Cor.2:15) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)



“For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who ARE BEING SAVED and those who are perishing.” (2 Cor.2:15) (NIV) (Emphasis mine) “For we ARE SAVED by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?” (Rom.8:24) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“For in this hope we WERE SAVED.” (Rom.8:24) (NIV) (Emphasis mine)


“... (by grace ye ARE SAVED)...For by grace ARE YE SAVED through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.... ” (Eph.2:5 and 8) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“...it is by grace ye HAVE BEEN SAVED...For it is by grace you HAVE BEEN SAVED.” (Eph.2:5 and 8) (NIV) (Emphasis mine)
“And the nations of them which ARE SAVED shall walk in the light of it....” (Rev.21:24) (KJB) (Emphasis mine)
“The nations will walk by its light....” (Rev.21:24) (NIV)
Because the Catholic church obscures salvation, many of her subjects, in an attempt to please God and make reparation for sins, will beat themselves. Religious orders such as Dominicans, Jesuits, Augustinians, and many “saints” such as “St” Anthony of Padua, “St.” Vincent Ferrer, and even pope Clement VI are known for flagellating themselves. If they read the NIV, they can find support for this behavior, but not so in the KJB.


“But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection.” (1Cor.9:27) (KJB)
“No, I beat my body and make it my slave....” (I Cor.9:27) (NIV)
I cannot pretend that this article even remotely touches the doctrinal problems of the NIV, but hopefully it has alerted those who truly love God’s word to the dangers that using the NIV can produce. If you read the NIV, I implore you, to please compare everything with the KJB and pray. You’ll notice the word “begotten” has been removed. There are verses missing such as:
“But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.” (Mk.11:26)


And again, Mark 15:28:

“And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”
The KJB has never been copyrighted, but the NIV is. If God wrote the Bible, then who are these men to copyright God’s word? Why should they profit on His word, or as the NIV would say, “peddle the word of God for profit”? I have to wonder if I could get into trouble for not asking permission to quote the NIV. These men will answer to God for what they’ve done, but if the blind lead the blind...both fall into the pit. (Matt.15: 14) Follow the words of men, and you may find yourself in the same pit with them!

“The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?” (Jer.8:9)
by Rebecca A. Sexton




_________________________



Top
#321964 - 01/15/10 03:43 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Steve Billiter]
RLH Offline
Mr. Murphy's daddy


Registered: 07/07/09
Posts: 22239
Loc: North Carolina
Good post. I have no use for the NIV.

Top
#321967 - 01/15/10 03:53 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: RLH]
rudywoofs Offline
exwitch, researcher, Dash's Mom


Registered: 07/15/05
Posts: 9388
I like the NIV. I can understand it better than most versions.
_________________________
Pam

Meddle Not In the Affairs of Dragons; for You Are Crunchy and Taste Good with Ketchup.

Mr. Watson, come here. I need marshmallows, chocolate and a heat source. - Alexander Graham Cracker

If we all sang the same note in the choir, there'd never be any harmony.

Top
#321968 - 01/15/10 04:00 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Steve Billiter]
SivartM Offline
*nods emphatically*


Registered: 12/20/08
Posts: 3421
Loc: Here, there, everywhere
I'm an NIV-only Christian. The KJV is just a tool of the devil. Look at all the verses that are different in the KJV compared to the NIV. They changed the word of God.
_________________________
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde

�Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets." - Jesus

Top
#322075 - 01/15/10 07:50 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: SivartM]
Woody Offline
Swiss n Swedish American


Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 32152
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
Yes. I agree with you SivartM. I prefer the NIV. Perhaps one reason is that I have become used to it by watching Hope Channel and Dwight Nelson. When he preaches ... he almost exclusively uses the NIV.
_________________________
May we be one so that the world may be won.
Christian from the cradle to the grave
I believe in Hematology.

Top
#324771 - 01/20/10 10:40 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: Woody]
pkrause Offline


Registered: 03/24/00
Posts: 57970
Loc: Deltona, FL
Originally Posted By: Redwood
Yes. I agree with you SivartM. I prefer the NIV. Perhaps one reason is that I have become used to it by watching Hope Channel and Dwight Nelson. When he preaches ... he almost exclusively uses the NIV.


Well than that does it for me Redwood. If Dwight Nelson has no problem with the NIV than I don't either. Dwight is a terrific Christian and would not lead anyone astray.

pk
_________________________
phkrause

Romans 5:8: But God demonstrates his own love for us in that the Messiah died on our behalf while we were still sinners.

Top
#324789 - 01/20/10 11:33 PM Re: 19. Seventh-day Adventists have their own version of the Bible [Re: pkrause]
Woody Offline
Swiss n Swedish American


Registered: 12/09/06
Posts: 32152
Loc: A citizen of Heaven
Originally Posted By: pkrause
Originally Posted By: Redwood
Yes. I agree with you SivartM. I prefer the NIV. Perhaps one reason is that I have become used to it by watching Hope Channel and Dwight Nelson. When he preaches ... he almost exclusively uses the NIV.


Well than that does it for me Redwood. If Dwight Nelson has no problem with the NIV than I don't either. Dwight is a terrific Christian and would not lead anyone astray.

pk


TU
_________________________
May we be one so that the world may be won.
Christian from the cradle to the grave
I believe in Hematology.

Top

If you purchase from Amazon, please purchase here.


Shout Box

Featured Member
Registered: 08/19/01
Posts: 1096
Random visitors over the past few minutes
Amazon Store
Top Posters
pkrause 57970
dgrimm60 55120
John317 33718
Woody 32152
Gail 29759
Shane 26567
Robert 23638
RLH 22239
Amelia 20635
Neil D 18264
Bravus 15527
Gerry Cabalo 15425
bonnie 12665
Naomi 11785
olger 11618
LifeHiscost 10869
Gregory Matthews 9915
rudywoofs 9388
news 8614
teresaq(sda) 8421
Nan 8272
skyblue888 7452
CoAspen 7077
Tom Wetmore 6931
BobRyan 6678
Please help out with the expenses. Only takes a minute.
Amazon Gift Cards
Newest Members
VT Otieno, what3david, Mark Andrews, ladysda, ThomasW
5474 Registered Users
Forum Stats
5474 Members
96 Forums
52313 Topics
630335 Posts

Max Online: 4163 @ 03/31/12 01:09 PM
INTERnational Christian Education & Relief Society
(Views)Popular Topics
The Law 10264922
Weekly Bible trivia quiz! 7376516
Word of the Day 5072067
2012-13 NBA Season 4054417
Daily Bible Trivial facts 4015762
Today in Jewish History 3985165
Daily Lift by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin 3901135
Today's Bible Reading 3789944
WHAT IS RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH? 3665944
Lily Pads, by John 317 3447874
Top Posters (30 Days)
pkrause 638
dgrimm60 420
Gregory Matthews 148
Gail 132
bonnie 115
rudywoofs 109
LifeHiscost 107
JoeMo 83
debbym 66
Sojourner 64
CoAspen 57
Samie 53
Naomi 53
8thdaypriest 42
Suzanne Sutton 40
Aliensanctuary 39
Kevin H 38
hch 36
Bravus 31
lazarus 29
genesis7 27
M. T. Cross 27
Tom Wetmore 27
Stan Jensen 26
joeb 26
Adventist Dating
More sponsors
Today's Birthdays
Geoff, Stan Jensen, StanJensen

ClubAdventist, is a division of the Kingdom of Adventistan,
and is not part of, or affiliated with, or endorsed by The General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists headquartered in Silver Spring, Maryland or any of its subsidiaries.
Copyright © 1999 - 2014 ClubAdventist