Wycliffe Bible Translators Producing Muslim Friendly Bible

The topic of Bible translations had long been a hot button with many people.  Many conservatives stand firm on the King James Bible as the only ‘authoritative’ Bible version there is.  They fail to realize that there are some very accurate translations that pre-date the King James such as the Geneva Bible, which was the Bible the colonists brought with them to America.

Personally, I use a number of different versions including the KJV, ESV, NASV along with referring to the Greek and Hebrew when necessary.  Currently I have at least a dozen Old Testament and nearly thirty New Testament versions of the Bible.  I am not married to any one version and would recommend that others adopt a similar policy.  By reading a number of different versions you can often get more out of a passage than what you would by reading only one.

Others have opted for translations that are just as or perhaps even more accurate than the King James that are written in more modern English than the archaic King James such as the English Standard Version or New American Standard Version.

Then there are those that are not as interested in accuracy as they are easy reading so they opt for a transliteration as opposed to an actual translation which would include the New International Version.  These translations are not a word for word translation but rather they are a thought for thought transliteration and in some cases they fail to carry important wording or nuances that were evidently not in the thoughts of those who produced it.

There are even more liberal Bible versions on the market that are nothing more than irreverent and often blasphemous as they undermine the original texts and only convey the perverted ideas and concepts of those producing it.  This would include the homosexual friendly New Oxford Annotated Bible produced by and for gays and feminists.

Now, another new Bible version is soon to be on the market and from what I have read and seen so far, may be one of the worst Bible versions to be printed yet.  And the thing that shocks me the most is that it is being produced by what I thought were respectable groups including Wycliffe Bible Translations, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers.

This new Bible is being promoted as a Muslim friendly Bible where the translators, or should I say butchers, have removed all words and wording that might be offensive to Muslims.  They have eliminated any references to God as ‘Father’ or Jesus as the ‘Son of God’.  One example I saw was Matthew 28:19 which reads,

“Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”

And changing it to this:

“Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

In Islamic teachings, Jesus is often referred to as the Messiah of Allah, meaning he was 100% human and not God or part of the Godhead, which they also deny exists.

So I beg Wycliffe and the others to tell me how you can justify Christ’s instructions to his disciples in Mark 16:15-16 when He told them to,

“Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.  Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”

What gospel are they going to preach?  The gospel from a mere man or the gospel from the Son of God?

The idea of Jesus dying for our sins and His resurrection is offensive to Muslims, but that is the gospel in a nut shell.  How can anyone preach the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ when they deny Him being Christ or even capable of dying for all of our sins?

Islam is a works based religion where Christianity is a faith based religion.  Islam says you have to earn your reward in heaven and Christianity says that Christ paid for your reward in heaven and that all you have to do to claim it is accept Him as your Lord and Savior.  The two religions are completely incompatible with each other and to try to dumb down Christianity and remove Christ’s deity is wrong and blasphemous.

Personally I am appalled.  If John Wycliffe was alive today, he would never allow such a project to take place in an organization named for him and his effort to get the Bible translated ‘accurately’ in many languages.



  • WeeToddEdwards

    Can't wait to see the comments on this one

    • Don

      There is a big problem with this translation, it is substituting the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob with "allah", the false god of Islam. Check it out and see if I'm right!

      • Are You Serious

        You are 100% right!!!!!

      • grannys

        That's the first thing that stuck out for me.

      • xnylady

        What about the Christians, won't they be offended by ALLAH? And other changes in the Bible, What is the purpose of changing it all around, the Muslims won't read it anyway

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          We're being conditioned to accept what the muslims allow us to have.

          Bibles are outlawed by sharia, any version they want to call anything will still be the death penalty in places like Afhganistan and Saudi Arabia.

      • daves

        You have read it already?

      • For The Truth

        The word "allah" is what is used in the Arabic translations of the Bible because it is the Arabic word for "God". Just like in the Hebrew OT there is "el" and "elohim" (plural) which are used for both Yahweh and false gods. If we follow your thinking, then we should get rid of the name Jesus and Christ because the mormons and JWs use them to refer to a false god that they worship.

        This article is not giving all the details of what is actually going on. You cannot believe everything you read on these online blogs. I know for a fact the issue is far more complex than what the author has written. When he writes "So I beg Wycliffe and the others to tell me how you can justify Christ’s instructions to his disciples in Mark 16:15-16 when He told them to,
        “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.” What gospel are they going to preach? The gospel from a mere man or the gospel from the Son of God?" he is assuming that they are preaching a different gospel based on I'm not sure what. He has made some leaps in conclusions that are not based on facts. I think the better route is to go to Wycliffe's site and find out what they have there, or write to them to get more information.

        • GerryC

          If you think allah means "god" then you have almost no knowledge of Arabic history, and don't know much about the history or structure of the Hebrew language.

          Are you aware that Hebrew was wiped out several times in the past and restored each time by people who had no knowledge of what the words actually meant and that they used the local Semetic laguages to piece together meanings. So of course they used "al" the then Arabic word for "god", to translate the Aleph Lamech references ('L) to mean god. EL was actually the Cannanite "father god" whose son was "Baal". So you cannot even infer that the 2 words are actually the same. (Allah was actually the moon goddess consort to the sun god at the time Mohammed confiscated the term to refer to his "one god"). This is especially true since these laguages are consonant root based where vowels are not written but determine the whole meaning and context of the word. This is why every seven years the whole of the Hebrew text was read out loud publicly every 7 years, so that people would know what the vowels were and thus the meanings. With the language dead for generations at a time the men who restored the language has to guess at what the words meant. This is why now subscripts are used to indicate vowels. And this is why scribes and rabbis in Jesus's time spent so much time arguing over the context, meaning, denotaion and connotation of the scriptures meant. "el" the now common used translation for aleph lamech is likely as any other al, el, il, ol, ul, yl, eel, ehl, ayl, eyel, youl, ohl, etc. each of which could mean something completely different. We also have no idea what the idioms of the day were either. Plus some terms have so many various meanings that people pick based on their own preconceived notion of what they think it should have meant. For example 'erets which means earth, land, the whole planet, a handful of dirt, the area you live, the visible world, your back yard, etc. Shamayim meaning heaven, Heaven, what is beyond the atmosphere, etc. Thowm meaning the deep, abyss, the sea, the ocean, the ocean floor, a big giant hole in the ground, the depths, underwater, etc. Yowm meaning day, time, hour, a days journey, a week, any completed cycle etc. Layil meaning night, gloom, shadow, evening, the beginning of a project to be completed, the start of a cycle, etc. So in Genesis the mistranslation "day" most realistly should be understood not as "and that was the third 24 hour day" but as "and that was the completion of the third phase of creation".

        • americanadvocate


        • Dntmkmecmoverther

          @GerryC: your assessment on language is intriguing; but I can tell you have studied it but do not 'know' Hebrew. I think you meant to reference the consonants Alef and Lamed (not Lamech) and as to the work Yom (Yowm) as 'day' you are correct that based on the words that surround its use, one can hear 'day' as in 24hr period, or eon, or 'in his day'. But there is one glaring defect in your proposition of 'phase of creation'...and that is, when Hebrew scribes intend to state a day (Yom) as a 24hr period, they bracket the ending of the sentence with words that indicate 'morning and evening'.

          The Genesis account of creation contains these references for each 'day' of creation; indicating that the author intended for the hearer to comprehend a 24hr period. ie; 'there was morning and evening, the 1st day'...

        • Reader

          The first day, one day. The language in the passage is extremely clear, for Hebrew, and cannot mean anything but a standard 24 hour period. You can try to say it means something else, but that is trying to muddy up a clear passage. People doing that usually have a reason for not wanting to accept or believe what it says.

        • GerryC

          Dntmkmecmoverther et al,

          Yes your assessment is fundamentally correct. I do not speak Hebrew nor know Hebrew, but then again no one knows, which is my point, ancient Hebrew. The 70 Rabbis who translated the Hebrew into Greek were is the same boat. They just translated as best they could at the time. As far as your "corrections" to my spelling: I was just cutting and pasting from a Bible software program I have and that is how they denote the vowels. (Living Word Bible Collection. It has a Hebrew to Greek, English and several traslations. It also uses the Strong's numbering system for words. Examples are :
          God: 430
          'elohiym (el-o-heem'); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 430

          rulers, judges
          divine ones
          (plural intensive - singular meaning)
          god, goddess
          godlike one
          works or special possessions of God
          the (true) God

          'owr (ore); Noun Feminine, Strong #: 216

          light of day
          light of heavenly luminaries (moon, sun, stars)
          day-break, dawn, morning light
          light of lamp
          light of life
          light of prosperity
          light of instruction
          light of face (fig.)
          Jehovah as Israel's light
          KJV Word Usage and Count
          light(s) 114
          day 2
          bright 1
          clear 1
          flood 1
          herbs 1
          lightning 1
          morning 1
          sun 1

          Yowm (yome); Noun Masculine, Strong #: 3117

          day, time, year
          day (as opposed to night)
          day (24 hour period)
          as defined by evening and morning in Genesis 1
          as a division of time 1b
          a working day, a day's journey
          days, lifetime (pl.)
          time, period (general)
          temporal references
          KJV Word Usage and Count
          day 2008
          time 64
          chronicles 37
          daily 44
          ever 18
          year 14
          continually 10
          when 10
          as 10
          while 8
          full 8 always 4
          whole 4
          alway 4
          miscellaneous 44

          But I have studied languages (don't speak any though) - My brain is geared towards logic, analysis, and math, not language. But I do have an interest in ancient languages. For example most semitic laguage groups in the ancient past only had 3 tenses Imperfect, Perfect and Future Perfect. Imperfect - by convention is translated as "was doing something" but in reality it covered any incompleted task. Perfect refers to tasks completed in the past, and future perfect things that will be completed in the future. (there was no "present" tense, for example.) So you just can't directly translate these into modern tenses because they are conceptual in nature. Which is my point that the nouns have multiple meanings because we have more words with more technical variation. That is why there is a long standing disagreement over "day" in the book of Genesis. Unless you first understand that day means a cycle of time passage, as well as the general concept of time, and likewise a temporal event, and understand that God had said that time as measured by man is irrelevant as applied to God "a day is as a thousand years and a thousand year is like a day" ("Adam on that day you shall surely die", but he lives on almost another thousand years ... although there is the metaphorical death of being removed from God's presence thus spiritual death).

          One more quick point, sorry to write so much at once, I have somewhere in my house 2 different books by 2 different authors (originally published in the late 1800's and early 1900's then later updated.) they both deal to some extent Sumeria, Babylonian, and Assyrian language. (I also have one on Egyptian Heiroglypics). These Hemito-Semitic laguages have may things in common. But the two authors, both experts in the field argue differing and opposing points of view. ie. One argues that Tohuw in Genesis is the same word as Tehom in the Sumerian and they come from the same root, the other argues that the Hebrew is masculine and the Sumerian is femine and therefore cannot come from the same root. So if 2 experts cannot agree on some basic liguistic ideas then who are we to judge whose translation is correct when there is no unbroken line of use and no ancient translation prior to the periods of non use.

          I simple state that common usage today is not the equivalent of the meanings of those words in the past. And you must recognize that the notion of "words" that we use today is the same as those in the past. Remember that the word Logos meaning "word" gets translated as "word" but to the ancient Greeks "Logos" implied that words had a physical existence of their own. A word physically existed in reality as your desk physically exists. The Hebrew words represent concepts, ideas beyond what simple translation infers.

          Again back to the day/time concept, while it is predicated on "there was an evening and a morning and that was the" ... first day, second day etc. The words translated as evening and morning, may imply due to modern common usage a 24 hr period, but that is not what the concept of these word was intended to mean, since God exists in a state of time unmeasureable he cannot be referring to 24 hrs since that measure is non-existant to him.

    • http://www.BornAgainHeathens.com Tim BAH

      Revelation 22:18 &19, "For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book; If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." (NKJV)

      This curse has kept Christian translators on the "straight and narrow" for the most part over the past 2000 years. Similar such warnings kept the Jewish Levi Priest and scribes on track. Which the Dead Sea Scrolls have proven. As for those that disregard God, they will disregard His word. Which is nothing new because they have no god other than self; which is the oldest lie in the Book. "...and you shall be like god."

    • 10491207

      Wycliffe must not read what thay print.
      Revelation 22:18 reads---For I testify to everyone who hears the words of prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book:
      19-- and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

      The people at Wycliffe better start reading what they are printing.

    • Ron

      Just think people, all of this "change" has been permitted since Obummer has come into office, and if he were to get re-elected for four more years, the word Christianity, would be completely done away with.

      • RGH

        Ron, we already can't say/write Jesus or say "God bless you" when someone sneeses in our schools.
        My grandsons in Public Elementary School are not allowed any Christian references.
        I do not know for how long this is going on but I know it is getting worse day by day.
        What is going on in our country? Are we becoming anti-christians and/or muslims?
        We need to fight for our faith and if necessary we'll have to die for it too.

    • Sama

      So now that anyone can write a Bible, can anyone re-write the Quran? hmmm?

      Balderdash to it all.

    • americanadvocate


      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger


    • Linda

      Do we always believe everything that we read as gospel truth, or do we investigate and find out the truth? I decided to contact Wycliffe and see if what was printed above was true. It is not and so I would suggest that the author check with their sources before publishing wrong information. It might be a good idea for us to do the same before we condemn .

    • Mark

      I cannot believe that biblically knowledgeable Christians are arguing about the Wycliff translations. Looking at the commentary, they ignore the fact that Western Scripture is a translation of Greek and Hebrew. The terms Father & Son are used to represent to western people the meaning of the Greek text. The Greek text is far more nuanced than our translations. The terms that are opposed to are used extensively in Scripture to describe Christ. In a middle eastern context, the word “proxy” or “representative” can have stronger connotations than son because the “proxy” carries the full presence and authority of the one who sends him.

      Frankly, the “controversy” clearly demonstrates the biblical illiteracy of the complaining party.

      As long as the translation clearly establishes Christ as the incarnate second person of the Trinity sent for our redemption and salvation, let Wycliff do its job. Wycliff is certainly more biblically astute.

    • Robert Brengel

      No good deed goes unpunished. Wycliffe is part of a monumental work. Some false 'bad press' comes along, support is deminished and the work is hampered.

    • Nathanael and Darla Gregoriev
    • Shari Branson

      We have supported JAARs (jungle, aviation, and radio) for 30 years. They are the communication and transportation side of Wycliffe/SIL . We wrote them and said we would not support them if they were not translating the Bible truthfully. Here was the reply:

      Dear Friend of Bible translation.

      I am coming to you with an urgent request for prayer.

      We are receiving calls and e-mails from friends with questions about rumors they have heard that say Wycliffe/SIL have been adjusting their translations of Scriptures to make them less offensive to Muslims. I don’t know who first made this false accusation, but it is spreading over the Internet like wildfire. It is entirely untrue. Wycliffe/SIL are committed to the eternal divine sonship of Jesus and determined that every translation reflect this truth and convey exactly the message of the original Greek and Hebrew Scriptures. Please join us in prayer that the Holy Spirit will cause the truth to put this false rumor to rest and comfort all the folks who have been disturbed by it.

      If you hear this rumor, please tell whoever repeats it, that it is not true.

      JAARS is devoting two days next week to fasting and prayer for this issue. Please pray with us and encourage others to pray as well. The Lord will turn this into a victory for his kingdom and prosper the translation of his word to the remaining Bibleless people of the world.

      Thank you very much,


      Grove Armstrong


      Partner Relations Representative

      O. 704-843-6581

      H. 704-843-8027

      C. 704-249-9448

  • http://www.obozosamerica.com Bowie J

    I'm surprised you are not using the Concordant Translation. It matches the original Hebrew and Greek more precisely than any other translation. The Greek-English Keyword Concordance in the back of the Concordant Literal New Testament (CLNT) is a scholar's and a layman's treasure. For example, you can look up the word "soul" (Gk = psuche) in it and find all 103 NT instances of its use, and learn that it is mistranslated twice in the KJV as "heart," 40 times as "life," and 3 times as "mind." That means if you are using you KJV to study all references to soul in the NT, you would miss 45 of them, and have no way of realizing you had.
    Also the Greek AION is transliterated as eon, opening for us an understanding of God's "purpose of the eons" (Ephesians 3:11). Every mistranslation simultaneously adds to and takes away from the word of God. Please see: http://www.concordant.org and http://www.atruergod.com

    • WeeToddEdwards

      With Repsects to David Cross:
      ": "Back when the Bible was written...then edited...then rewritten, then rewritten, then re-edited, then translated from dead languages, then re-translated, then edited, then rewritten, then given to kings for them to take their favorite parts, then rewritten, then re-rewritten, then translated again, then given to the pope for him to approve, then rewritten, then edited again, the re-re-re-re-rewritten again...all based on stories that were told orally...30 to 90 years AFTER they happened...to people who didn't know how to write...so...."

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        And the dead sea scrolls show that it hasn't been changed over the years.

        You just hate Christianity, and from comments you posted this morning you appear to be anti-Israel too. At least where Iran is concerned.

        So, how are those two muslim guys in Iowa doing?

        • Shoboski

          Good for you for standing up for Christianity. The world is full of Idiots and I don't know how you reach them. The shame is that some of these 'idiots about God' are really smart people in other things. I suppose that is what the Bible meant when it said in Matthew 11:25, "At that time Jesus said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.

        • Myrtlelinder

          Roger Little WeeTodd, is what you call an anti-GOD, anti-American resident in America sponging of of America.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          And if he didn't advocate violence against Christians I wouldn't be bothered by that.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Sponging of America? ?
          Yeah I should not be allowed to express my views. I guess freedoms means nothing to you

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Freedoms is not excuse for saying things like you think a church deserves to be burned down full of people.

          It's just a sign that sick things wander around inside your mind, that the hatred and bigotry has defined your values.

      • Seedyore

        @"WeeToddEdwards": Clearly, you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Clearly I do. Why have so many books been banned from the bible?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          What is missing from the Bible that would allow it to make sense for you?

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Careful Todd, most Christians don't understand the history of the bible nor do they understand how it came to be. It is a great book, but much has been lost as you correctly point out.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Do you have any examples?

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Sure, how can it be perfect if one person reads it and believes we are saved Only by accepting Christ, but another person reads it and believes more is required, while a third believes works save us?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I'm confused, how is that an example of how it has lost something over the years?

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Because the doctrine is not clearly spelled out

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          John 3:3 is clear.
          Revelations 3:20 is clear.

          Once that happens, then all sorts of other things happen.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          I know and I find that shameful

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You find a lot of strange things shameful.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Like your life

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Poor little tiny little tiny wee wee.Reduced to cheap insults now you little thing you?

        • Myrtlelinder

          Wee, you know so much about the Bible which is GOD'S HOLY WORD, to know nothing at all about it. You have not a clue!! Stop, fooling yourself!!!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          There are three 'supposed' Christians that always work together. They pat themselves on the back for their 'intelligence' and don't have a clue.

          I've been trying to explain that at every turn here.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          You Westbro folks are all the same and think you know it all

        • Ricky Michael

          Stupid is as stupid does.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          You got that right. I wonder if he feels good after a day of protesting our fallen warriors funerals?

        • Ricky Michael

          All I can say is that real christians wouldn't do that to our fallen Heros.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The two/one of you sure have the strangest pretend conversations.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I wouldn't know. Why do you think I'm a homophobe?

          You just are so full of hatred and bigotry you lash out with any straw man you can grab.

      • Supertad108

        All of those re-re-re-writes were controlled by one-one-one Holy Spirit, so... FLAWLESS!

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Why did he ban some of them then? Did he contact these people in person and say "oh I don't like the Book of Tobit, Book of Judith,Gospel of Mary, Gospel of Judas or Book of Susanna anymore take them out please"

          Or was it the fault of man?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          What is missing from the Bible that keeps it from speaking to your heart?
          There is enough, and extra things not necessary would just be picked over and mocked by folks such as yourself.

          You pretend it's supposed to be more than it is. It's a guide to finding God and how God values our redemption. It has history along the way, but telling the world's history is a side effect, not the goal.

        • Ricky Michael

          these are the gnostic writings. not inspired.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          According to whom?

        • Ricky Michael

          the vulgate, the greek codexes, the dead sea scrolls, the fragments. None of them have any word for word matching to these writings. You on blowing smoke.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Then these books magically appeared? Their is probably a good reason
          the vulgate, the greek codexes, the dead sea scrolls, the fragments don't have them.

          They were never released beacuse it would destroy Christianity as we know it

        • Ricky Michael

          best guesses date them to have been written almost 200 to 300 years after John wrote down the last book, revelation on the island of Papmos.

          If they had been contemporary with the real new testament books, they would/should have been included in the codexes about 100 years after the codexes.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Have any independent organizations been able to date them?

        • Ricky Michael

          That will require research for me to be able to tell you where you can look. I do recall that they have been studied extensively. I have read them too. very interesting.

          the underlying factor here is that we as christians, believe that the Holy spirit oversaw the completion of the word. no power in heaven or on earth could undermine his work. We have the real deal in our hands right now.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          I bet Christian organizations have studied them extensively.

          I would like to see an independent study, but even then that does not mean the Christian places have removed what they did not want found

        • Eyes_Open

          But weren't they all "gnostic" writings, before certain ones were chosen by a group of men to be canonized?

        • Ricky Michael

          the group was using the vulgate and known greek codex to choose which were correct. they were not picking them becuse they just liked them.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          How do you know for 100% fact though

        • Ricky Michael

          nothing that old can be judged as 100% fact. we do the best we can studing the history of way back then.

          Also, I take the bible on faith and need no other proof. Only the atheist needs 100% proof. I can't prove G exists either. And you can't prove he does not. We base our opinions and beliefs on what we read and learn.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          You are correct I can't prove he does not exist. Since I don't have faith I have to take it on what I read and learn

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You could just look at the natural world and see the intelligent design.
          Then look back based on that for the intelligent designer.

        • Brama

          Actually, Ricky, the first chapter of Romans argues that the existence of God is irrefutable. Basically, all you have to do is look at creation, and realize you can't have creation without a creator. It's the pagan, unregenerated mind that denies God's existence and asks for proof, while the proof is staring at them in their faces. Their conscience bears witness of the truth of God's existence, but man would rather deny the truth in exchange for a lie. Evidence for people such as WeeTodd, will never be enough. Why? Because they reject God, and thus will always reject any evidence as being enough. But evidence doesn't alter the reality that God is. And the sad reality for WeeTodd and others like him is that all men have sinned, therefore all men die. And man will be held accountable for their lawlessness, unless they flee to the savior.

        • Ricky Michael

          Totally agree with you sir. I have used that exact verse with him before. all you have to do is look at nature and you see the creator thru his creation. Todd can't see it.

          I have been discussing this with him for months.

        • Shoboski

          Very Well said, Brama. Thank you for standing up for Christianity.

        • Eyes_Open

          All pagan religions believe in creation, that is just a silly statement. Only atheist deny the existence of any creator. Just because you believe in one god doesn't mean that others must all believe in nothing. If you want to take the existence of nature as evidence of a higher power, then with it's inherent duality, one single god makes much less since than two gods working in unison.

          However, the mere existence of nature isn't enough, to the analytical mind, to prove a higher power. It still requires either faith, or a personal experience that transcends faith. Simply because it is written that it is enough,doesn't make it enough.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Have you shown a single pagan culture that doesn't have some sort of creation or beginnings story?

          That was the issue, you just wanted any excuse to rip on Christianity.

          Silly pagans.

        • FlameCCT

          Perhaps a different example: How do you know that Aristotle wrote the "books" accredited to him? Is that 100% fact?

          Scripture has more verification as to authenticity than any other "book" in the world, precisely because people keep trying to prove it is made up.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Perhaps Aristotle while interesting never had anything of importance riding on the accuracy of his works?

        • Eyes_Open

          Many of his work were written by his pupils, that is a known fact. Doesn't help the argument, IMHO.

        • FlameCCT

          I understand the point however the NT was also written by followers and there is more documentation that these books were written than the books written by the followers of Aristotle, not to mention any other writing from history.

          Basically my point is simple, one should not ask for 100% fact when one accepts many other things on less documentation than that found for Scripture.

        • Eyes_Open

          I understand your point as well, but with scripture, from any religion, it is even more difficult to expect a non-believer to accept it as fact because first you must show beyond REASONABLE doubt that the writings are as originally written, second that nothing has been left out to change the meaning (similar to the first but not quite), and third that the events really happened and weren't just stories passed down as myths.

          The bible passes on point one, but doesn't pass on point two, and only partially passes on point three. That is where faith must take over for the believer, but for the non-believer it will never be enough.

        • FlameCCT

          I would contend that point two is partially passed too based on point one. As more texts become available (found ala Dead Sea Scrolls), then one confirms the original meaning (principles) of the previous translations from the Greek and Hebrew. However, as you said, it will never be enough for a non-believer and requires the "leap of faith" to bridge the gap. There will never be 100% proof for the supernatural if one only looks to the natural for proof. That is the difference between belief (mind) and faith (heart).

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The reasonable doubt has been met over and over.
          The dead sea scrolls were huge in proving the accuracy of the compared texts.

          But you don't even want to consider the ones that were verified to not have been changed over time.

          The Bible passes on your 'made up' tests, even as you make them.

        • Eyes_Open

          But even in your own bible, your god speaks to other gods in the beginning. Then there is the denial of the story of Lilith, most believe because it would allow women a voice in the Church, but no other explanation of where all the other people outside the garden came from. Facts, contrary to scripture, but expected to be accepted blindly by believers. This is the basis for doubt in the accuracy of the bible from the beginning. And if the beginning isn't accurate, then you can't accept the rest as fact without creating a total separation of the two.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Oh eyes, you Don't understand my Bible enough to make intelligent comments on it.

          Lillith is not in the cannon. It may be in Jewish traditions, but not in the Bible.

          And the people outside the garden? If you live 900 years you have a chance to reproduce a lot!
          Since you haven't shown that the beginnings weren't accurate you're just doing a Christian bashing rant simply because you are hostile to it.

        • Myrtlelinder

          No Lilith or other legal gods in my Bible. There is one legal GOD, the one who created the universe an everything in it. The GOD who sent HIS SON JESUS CHRIST here around the year of 02 AD that the period of AD began

        • Eyes_Open

          Lilith was intentionally left out of the modern bible.

          As for Jehovah speaking to other gods,
          Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

          In every version I have ever read, the quotes are always in the plural, "Let US make man""after OUR likeness". Never I will make man after My likeness. In the beginning there were more gods, a clue to the polytheistic origins of the monotheist religions.


        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Oh come now. Us, did that refer to the trinity?

          You just hate Christianity and look for any excuse to badmouth it.

          There has always been just the "Almighty".

        • FlameCCT

          From the NET Bible Genesis 1:26, study note on the usage of the plural "US" or "OUR" in the translation: 47sn The plural form of the verb has been the subject of much discussion through the years, and not surprisingly several suggestions have been put forward. Many Christian theologians interpret it as an early hint of plurality within the Godhead, but this view imposes later trinitarian concepts on the ancient text. Some have suggested the plural verb indicates majesty, but the plural of majesty is not used with verbs. C. Westermann (Genesis, 1:145) argues for a plural of “deliberation” here, but his proposed examples of this use (2 Sam 24:14; Isa 6:8) do not actually support his theory. In 2 Sam 24:14 David uses the plural as representative of all Israel, and in Isa 6:8 the Lord speaks on behalf of his heavenly court. In its ancient Israelite context the plural is most naturally understood as referring to God and his heavenly court (see 1 Kgs 22:19-22; Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; Isa 6:1-8). (The most well-known members of this court are God’s messengers, or angels. In Gen 3:5 the serpent may refer to this group as “gods/divine beings.” See the note on the word “evil” in 3:5.) If this is the case, God invites the heavenly court to participate in the creation of humankind (perhaps in the role of offering praise, see Job 38:7), but he himself is the one who does the actual creative work (v. 27). Of course, this view does assume that the members of the heavenly court possess the divine “image” in some way. Since the image is closely associated with rulership, perhaps they share the divine image in that they, together with God and under his royal authority, are the executive authority over the world.

        • Eyes_Open

          The last explanation is the best, that he was speaking to others. The "host" of Heaven. But the context and phrasing imply that he was suggesting that they work together on this, not that he do it alone, and was just informing them of his decision, which would imply that they also had the ability to "create" life. As "Angel" is a direct translation of messenger, this doesn't seem quite as likely, as messengers wouldn't be creators.

          This would explain why if all men were created in the gods' image, there are so many different varieties. Whether it be angels or other gods, there would have to be more images to "copy".

          I am glad you didn't try to take the easy way out and claim it was the "trinity", which is a concept that wasn't invented until the new testament. Some would look to such even though the old testament never mentions any thing along those lines.

        • FlameCCT

          It is an interesting point of discussion and should not be addressed by "hiding" behind a particular doctrine. It is also worth noting that the "OUR" image may be related to the supernatural (spirit) not the natural (physical) image that is being used with the related issue being that everything was created by G-D, both natural and supernatural, yet humankind is the only being that has combined both of all his creations unlike the other kinds of creations in the natural and supernatural realms.

        • Eyes_Open

          SIDE NOTE: I take that as, you don't believe that animals have souls. (or spirits or whatever) ??

        • http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2012-02-08colorlowres.jpg Cognitive Dissident

          interesting response to his comment.

        • Eyes_Open

          Which is why I stated that it was a side note, possibly not directly inline with the conversation but it does shed light to the belief system and therefore the interpretation of the original biblical quote.

        • http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2012-02-08colorlowres.jpg Cognitive Dissident

          well its actually very in line, in a way.

          Flame CCT prompts it by saying: "yet humankind is the only being that has combined both of all his creations unlike the other kinds of creations in the natural and supernatural realms."

          I appreciate that this is a basic and simple Christian Judeo Christian Abrahamic belief. (Humans have souls. Animals don't, and they don't have feelings, etc.)

          But like most religious beliefs... these guys create a more and more tricky high wire act of rationale.

          IMHO, they are better off avoiding too much explanation and instead say- heck I dunno. the Lord works in mysterious ways and just leave it at that!

          I mean seriously... what are all of these "humankind is the only being..." etc etc. types going to do with themselves when we finally encounter E.T.?? hahaha.

        • Eyes_Open

          Deny! Just as many of them have denied that evolution is possible.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Weren't you anti-Christian and going to find fault with anything said here?

        • FlameCCT

          They set some basic parameters for the choosing. They also did not accept the writings of the early Church Fathers. However they did say, like the Apocrypha books that they were good to read. Others like the Gospel of Judas were outright removed. I mean seriously, how can a guy who died around the same time as Jesus write a book after his death, not to mention that it was written 200+ years after the death and resurrection of the Messiah.

        • Ricky Michael

          Good point Mr. Flame, I had forgotten about the Apocrypha (dumb me) which were books of history, written between the time of the Old and New Testament, the Macabean period. The Catholic bible has those books included.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The three marching in lock step.

          So, are you going to pretend between the 'three' of you that the two can decide what's a legit part of Christianity?

          You don't even think you have to invite Christ into your heart and think that the Cross wasn't the beginning of the new covenant.

        • FlameCCT

          The Catholic Bible does have those books and the original King James Bible (KJV) had them too. My 1722 printing of the KJV has them in it. The Apocrypha (Deuterocanonical or Anagignoskomena) have been a point of discussion amongst both the Jews and Christians since the beginning. The Jews used the Hebrew TaNaK and the Christians used the Greek Septuagint since Greek was the lingua franca at the start of Christianity. The canon was a slow process over time from the beginning and pretty much agreed upon over the centuries. Once the Latin Vulgate was commissioned using the then accepted canon of books, that pretty much set the list.

        • Ricky Michael

          Yes to all you mentioned. I can't spell half those words, hahaha. but I do know about everything you said and know that you are correct. roger will say something cute like how you need to stick to that King James Bible, if it was good enough for that Apostle James, it's good enough me.

          My stalker just checked my profile so he will be here any minute. Been chasing me a lot today, very funny. He needs some new schitck really badly.

        • Ricky Michael

          To everyone here reading this You All should join in the LET'S ALL STALK RICKY MICHAEL FAN CLUB. The number one fan and president of the Ricky Michael Stalkers is none other than our own Sir Roger of Westboro Baptist.

          Yes folks, Sir Roger spends every waking moment wasting his time following my every move, every comment, in fact, I can't even go to the restroom without checking to see if anyone is in there with me. You too can be a member. Send your $25 membership fee to Ricky Michael c/o Intense Debate.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          I want a fan club.. Well...... Maybe not

        • Ricky Michael

          Just disagree and bam...........................................you are there.

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming Cognitive Dissident

          word of warning about Roger... I've noticed him trying to employ the "Report" button.

          If you say anything that might be vaguely offensive, he will try to report you as a ploy to get you frustrated. Don't fall for it.

        • Ricky Michael

          Grossly underestimates me....................................................................Constantly.
          Very funny.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Do I?
          I do expose you constantly.
          And that 'cant' call someone on being evil thing, have you read Matt 23?

        • Eyes_Open

          If you believe that Jesus rose and walked after his death, then why couldn't Judas have sat and written after his?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          At least he didn't have his heart ripped out the way pagans often sacrificed humans at the time.

        • FlameCCT

          Primarily because 100s of people saw and reported that Jesus rose after his death with no refutation from the authorities. On the other hand we only have reports of Judas' ignominious death. If I were to venture a guess, I would say that the Book of Judas was written by the followers of a more overt opposition to Roman rule and similar to several books that were written over two hundred years after the death of the Christ in name of someone that was close to Him to lend credence to their version.

        • Eyes_Open

          Sry, that was sarcasm, I didn't make my mood clear.

          But on the subject, wording is very important here. 500 people didn't report seeing him after he rose, it was reported that 500 people saw him after he rose. That does make a big difference. Most of the people that did report seeing him had a vested interest in saying that he rose, but a few like Paul stand out from the crowd.

          Fortunately, my religion believes that you rise shortly after death so we have some common ground on this one, we just don't see it in the same light.

        • FlameCCT

          No problem, I thought it might be however I am more than happy to respond to questions even when sarcasm has entered the issue. :-)

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You really do stretch to make up a point.

          The Roman guard that stood at his tomb would have had a death sentence for saying what they said. But they were paid off by the ones who wanted Jesus to stay dead.

          There was a huge risk to claim to see someone the Romans had executed. There was no law about the death penalty only being good for one execution, in theory someone could be put to death over and over until the execution was complete.

        • Chuck

          You are right, Ricky Michael. But since WeeToddEdwards isn't saved, then he isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit to recognize the inspired Word of God. And so he wants us to add books written a hundred or more years later to the Bible. And a book supposedly written by Judas, who killed himself right after betraying Jesus? What he doesn't know is there is more proof for the accuracy of the Bible we have, more complete or partial manuscripts verifying the truth, than there is for any other book in the world written prior to the printing press.

        • Ricky Michael

          yep. i have been working on him a while now. thank you sir.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          No, no, no, I have been working on you

        • Ricky Michael

          well you have been as successful on me as I have on you.


        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You two are so cute.
          You know he keeps you from defending your faith whenever it suits the two of you.
          You both go on and on trying to set the debate here on what's true and what's not true about this.

          The fact is you're like both sides of a coin and it's not fooling just everyone.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          You are free to leave anytime. Don't let the door hit you

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Sure wee wee, you tiny, tiny little man you.

          Do you want to know what Church I'll be in so you know where to lock the doors?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Quit burning people's houses down and beating them up and you won't have to <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I don't know that Christians ever did do any of that.

          Have you asked the Christians involved?

        • Eyes_Open

          The FBI did, and 20+ members of two churches confessed.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Wow, did you just make that up?

          Why not say it was 3 battalions of military investigators and three counties had evidence and buried bodies?

          No links? No sources? Just blind hatred and coolaid.

        • Eyes_Open

          Oh yeah, I forgot, the FBI keeps all it's ongoing cases right here on the internet, just so roger can give them his extremely noteworthy advice on how to proceed, being the omnipotent one that he is and all.

        • FlameCCT

          LOL At least it is intelligent discussion unlike some we know.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          So, as you're joined at the hips with these two, are you in the front or the back as they 'swing' into action?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          How very christian of you Roger Russel

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          How very hate filled bigot of you.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          He isn't saved? Do you believe salvation comes from ONLY accepting Christ?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I know what Christ said in John 3:3.

        • evad3429

          Did he say Roger was a fcking chickenhawk?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I'm sure you will do your best to make up something.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          In John 5:14. Jesus tells a healed man to sin no more, less " a worse thing come unto thee"

          If he is to only believe, why would the Savior say that to him?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Jesus understood the consequences of sin, and doesn't want that for any of us.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Then clearly repentance is necessary for salvation, or do you believe not following Gods will- as laid out in the commandments, is not necessary?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          True repentances, not a half hearted attempt on our own power.

          With His spirit in our born again heart then it's His power that changes our hearts and leads us to repentance. It makes Him the active part of the equation. That takes the burden off of us, and places Him in charge. That's when things get interesting.

          Then the commandments aren't a list of does and don'ts, they are a way of life. His spirit can guide us into following the commandments in ways we could never think of on our own.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          But you aren't answering the question: is repentance necessary for salvation?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Of course I'm answering the question.

          When someone is born again the Holy Spirit guides us to repentance,

          It a necessary stop? Yes. Can we do it on our own power without divine influence? Nope.

          You may want to read the parable of the robes. Matt 22:1-14. Without Christ's perfection covering us our location and attendance at all the right things doesn't do us any good.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          You beliefs are not in accordance with most born again believers then. Most I know say that only belief is required for salvation. I commend you for having a better understanding of the scriptures than them.

          Next question, to be saved, is following the commandments required?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Yes they are. If you believe on the Lord Jesus Christ then you believe what He said. You can't say you believe on Him then reject what He laid out.

          That question isn't done yet. You are trying to say Christ didn't know enough to lay down that requirement. Christians, in accordance with that text have a clear understanding of it.

          I don't why you and RIcky and flame have a problem with it. You seem to have the muslim view that you work your way and believe your way to paradise. That's not the case with Christianity.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          So to you, belief IS the only requirement for salvation

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Of course not, even the devils believe.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          But above you said you cannot work your way there

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I also said this above.

          John 3:3 is clear.
          Revelations 3:20 is clear.

          Once that happens, then all sorts of other things happen.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          I mean no disrespect because religion is a very personal issue, but your beliefs in the bible are very confusing. Is there a website that better articulates the religion that you belong to?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The beliefs I hold that I have shared here are not confusing. I have simply explained the most commonly accepted Christian basics.

          Any basic Christian website that is a Bible based view will hold them as well. You could try any number of major church websites. Baptist, is one example.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Let me explain: Chuck started this thread by stating the following:

          "But since WeeToddEdwards isn't saved, then he isn't inspired by the Holy Spirit to recognize the inspired Word of God"

          His comment infers that because of Todd's non-belief, he isn't saved yet, which is why I started this thread. It also implies that once someone accepts Christ, they are instantly saved and the manner in which they live the rest of their lives doesn't matter. Make sense?

        • Myrtlelinder

          Who is Chuck?? I'll answer that one! IF you are saved you will strive to live according of the WORD OF GOD. If you only pretend to be saved you are not interested in living according to GOD'S WORD. There is also, such a thing as backsliding when a person gets so enamored in things of the world they no long interested in living for GOD, which is unlikely but happens sometimes. That person is no longer saved, that person is LOST!!!!

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          So you believe that by accepting Christ, you are instantly saved?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          it worked for the thief on the Cross.

          Once you accept Christ's sacrifice for your sins and invite him into your heart you are saved and God accepts you as perfect, due to Christ's perfection.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          You see. this is why your beliefs are so confusing. In this instance, you admit that by accepting Christ - you are instantly saved.

          But in other comments, you admit that belief is not enough and must be accompanied by repentance and keeping the commandments.

          So which is it?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          It's not confusing.

          We are saved when we invite Christ into our hearts and accept His sacrifice, the 'born again' conversion happens.

          The fun starts at that point as He changes us from the inside, at His guiding. Those results will show if the first part is sincere.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          and here we start again with the circles.

          Let me try a different approach.
          If today I become "born again", invite Christ into my heart, accept his sacrifice, is my salvation 100% guaranteed from here on out?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The assurance of salvation is from that moment.

          The changes start at that point due to the change in the heart.

          The wonder of being born again is that we aren't saved in our sins, but God works with us to help us past them. Sin is a bad thing, we're better off without it.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          So you are assurred salavation at that point, regardless of your future behavior and sins. Ok... you are a typical born again believer.

          Why were you telling me that repentance is necessary for salvation then? Why were you telling me that we had to keep the commandments? If salvation is assurred at that point, nothing else we do really matters because salvation is alread "assurred".

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You are trying to put words in my mouth.I said what I said, not what you're trying to put on me.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          So you are not assurred salvation at that point then?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I've answered that question 4 or 5 times now, in a consistent way. I even remember someone else answering it too.

          Why are you being obtuse?

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          I am being serious when I say that your beliefs don't make sense to me. I am not trying to be "obtuse" or make you mad. I don't understand how Born Again Christians can honestly believe that they are saved the instant they accept Christ. I am being open about it, because that seems to contradict about 50% of the teachings in the NT.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          I think another problem is that you don't understand the reason God sent us here, because if you did, belief only would NEVER do.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Not at all. Salvation is a gift. That gift is ours from the moment we accept it. When we accept it, we accept Christ and take him into our hearts, it's that easy.

          The change that brings in our lives is the rest of the story. You try to keep this a lot harder than it is.

        • Ricky Michael

          Replying to your "Obtuse" comment here.

          That's just "His" particular brand, very militant, and very much not interested in keeping all that is commended because doing so would not be in within their agenda.

          Down south (Texas) there are some of these folks, but by far there are much more who think like we do. My brother is a Baptist and will tell you word for word the same thing I would about how to be saved.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Nope, it's not just my brand.
          It's that way across the evangelical spectrum.

          Why are you still pretending to be a Christian when you have so little in common with them?

          Is it your job to be the Neville Chamberlain in any serious debate and then switch to a legalist miss mash to make Christianity look uninviting? Then perhaps a third part of your job is to put down all other christians while telling them not to be judgmental?

        • FlameCCT

          It's funny how he keeps trying to claim the mantle of authority for the "evangelical spectrum" yet has no problem with denigrating one of the top theological seminaries. I am amazed at the shallowness of his circular logic.

        • Ricky Michael

          The Imperial Potentate of the Intense Debate. That makes him the IP of the ID.

          the boy has no shame, and no brain.

        • FlameCCT

          So his signature line has become:

          Sir Roger of Westboro, IP of ID
          BS, MS, PHD Heresy/Apostasy

        • Ricky Michael


          you need to stop that.


        • Eyes_Open

          Got it. Won't make that mistake again. LOL

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Eyes and Ricky - have you guys followed the threats above and below this one? I honestly do not understand Roger's brand of Christainity. Do you guys? His beliefs seem to be all over the place and very contradictory.

        • Ricky Michael

          I understand his "version" all too well. It is the same millitant vision of religion that gave us Westboro Baptist with thier protesting soldiers funnerals with signs regarding gays. Nothing they do resembles anything in line with Biblical teachings. He has stalked and harassed me for months.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          You have questioned his beliefs on multiple occasions and he seems determined to attack you whenever he can. It is pretty strange.

        • Eyes_Open

          His beliefs are based on whatever it takes to keep the argument going. He will double back on his own statements, and refuse to answer simple questions if he knows that the answer will end the argument.

          He is a troll, plain and simple. We have all tried to have straight forward, logical, adult debates with him, but he refuses, often resorting to name calling when he finds himself backed into a corner.

          I wish I could give you a better answer, more like what you are looking for, but I don't think there is one. You will not get him to explain himself any better, because it might interfere with his next attempt at an argument. But I have found that once you accept his whole veil of faith is just to forward his agenda of conflict, his beliefs start to become apparent.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          It is interesting because I feel like I am fairly versed in different versions of Christainity, but his version seems to be a combo of multile versions. The part that is strange, is that when I offer even a tad bit of criticism, he jumps into attack mode and questions my Christanity. He seems to be someone that is eager to share his views, but is too insecure to fully express those views. Personally, I think he has been spoon fed some talking points from a pastor, not realizing that most of those views contradict basic bible teachings.

        • Ricky Michael

          Both you and Eyes understand him pretty well. Best to try and avoid him if possible. I can't he hunts me down everywhere I go.

        • Eyes_Open

          He will not fully explain his views because then you could find the flaws in his faith. What he doesn't understand is that the flaws are already exposed by his hiding and attacking tactics.

        • FlameCCT

          It is similar to what Westboro Baptists and Liberation Theology does with Scripture. It cherry picks some passages to support their premise while hiding their agenda. When anyone calls him out on his inappropriate behavior, he then hides behind the circular logic of the cherry picked passages. I tried pointing out 2 Peter 1:4-9 and the call for us to grow however he got upset because it didn't fit his militant circular logic. He has gone so far as to say that Liberty Theological Seminary is not a place that one should go to study as a Christian because their teachings do not fit within his circular logic.

          BTW: Welcome to the Sir Roger stalkers list. :-)

        • Ricky Michael

          Yes, Mr. Flame, the list grows ever longer.

        • http://images1.dailykos.com/i/user/2722/TMW2012-02-08colorlowres.jpg Cognitive Dissident

          I am curious, so have you concluded that Roger is truly part of that group?

          Or simply that, he might as well be?

        • FlameCCT

          Might as well be since his behavior is similar to Westboro or a Liberation Theology church.

          I suspect that he has fallen for the preaching of a specific church that holds to the heretical beliefs that do not hold up when compared with the Scriptures themselves which is why he keeps falling back on his circular logic.

        • Myrtlelinder

          100% Roger, but you are wasting your time trying to lead an idiot to CHRIST who has no intention of accepting!!

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          "wasting your time trying to lead an idiot to CHRIST"??? That is pretty Christian of you to talk like that.

          I am just trying to figure out how Roger believes someone is "saved" and what that person has to do to receive such. I have not tried to be mean or ask condescending questions. I am just trying to understand what he believes and I still don't get what he is saying. He is bouncing around all over the place.

          By the way, I am a Christian and I believe Christ is my Savior. I follow his commandments, pray in his name, and do everything I can to follow him.

          Sounds like you are butting into something you know nothing about.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I keep giving you texts and support for how to be 'born again'.

          And you keep going in circles.
          All that you say about "I am a Christian"..."I believe Christ is my savior", that is not in keeping with the spirit of a born again Christian. We are to have the 'assurance' of salvation.

          We can't be a 'Chistian' unless Christ is in the heart and He is the one guiding us daily. On our power in our wildest imagination we don't know what is good enough to please God. We have to rely on His Spirit to guide us into what is acceptable. That's how we can do the works James talks about.

          And it sounds like you're thrashing around on a subject you don't know enough about.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          You are correct that I don't know a lot about YOUR personal beliefs which is why I am asking so many questions. I keep asking these questions because you appear to contradict yourself later on. For example, I asked you whether repentance was necessary for salvation. Most people would answer yes or no and then expain why or why not. You don't answer that way which makes me believe you don't understand why repentance is or isn't necessary. But then, you also give a response about the "thief" that makes it sound like you don't believe repentance is necessary after all. It is almost as if you don't want people to fully understand your own beliefs so they can't pin you down on something.

          By the way, I am not thrashing "around on a subject [I] don't know enough about". If you would notice, you have not asked my opinion about hardly any of it yet.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You asked flawed questions with a trap in mind for each.

          I'm giving you good answers that don't lend themselves to your set up.
          You don't like it. But I haven't been confusing at all.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Repentance necessary for salvation? Yes
          Repentance necessary for salvation? No
          Belief only is required for Salvation? Yes
          Belief only is required for salvation? No - we need to repent
          Follow the commandments? Yes
          Follow the commandments? No, not necessary for salvation

          My head is spinning for all of those contradictions!!!!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          If you were a Christian you'd understand.You aren't what you portray yourself to be. And I didn't take all these positions. I've been clear and consistent. Why do you not want to understand something you pretend to already hold?

        • Myrtlelinder

          IF there is any fault, it is certainly that of man!!!!!

        • Ricky Michael

          correct, throughout the centuries, the message taught has never changed. the corrections were made in later translations to be more acurate of the very earliest manuscripts. the atheist, Mr. Edwards, can't bring himself to admit anything that would lead one to the truth found in its pages.

          a word or two corrected, doesn't invalidate the intent of the message taught, ever. Never has, never will.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          So, do you stand by that even if it will offend him?

          Are you finally starting to accept the spiritual warfare going on?

      • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

        The books of the Bible were not rewritten, then rewritten as you say WeeToddEdwards. They were copied meticulously by the Hebrews for Old Testament books with many tests to verify accuracy of a copy. It was also translated into Greek and copied by various communities from that point from the 2nd Century B.C. or later forward. The New Testament was not copied by one ethnic community, but was copied by numerous communities in four areas of the world which were isolated from one another, for the most part, communication wise in Christianity over the centuries. We have over 5,800 cataloged manuscripts of the New Testament ranging from the early second century (125 AD, and earlier into the first century for disputed manuscripts including Matthew, Mark, and Timothy written before 60 AD) ranging all the way past the printing press in the late 1400's AD. These manuscripts are compared, along with early translations into other languages, which show they have no material changes.

        The earliest uncontested manuscript being a fragment of John's Gospel (P52) dated to about 100-125 AD, no more than about 25 years after the apostle John's death (about 100 AD 3). There are about 5,800 Greek (the language the New Testament was primarily written in) manuscript copies and fragments of the New Testament that are cataloged, and over 50,000 un-cataloged fragments just in the discovery of 1975 in St. George's Tower in Sinai. And yet when all these manuscripts are compared, they are consistent within themselves and offer no major changes. Bruce Metzger, one of the foremost experts on textual criticism of New Testament manuscripts, points out that if you were to take all the material differences in the comparison of manuscripts of the New Testament over the centuries, they would reduce to a half page of hand written text, and none of it would deal with Jesus' claims, life, death, or resurrection, or any major doctrine of Christianity. Cont Below..

        • Ricky Michael

          Your explaination is very well stated and well done. Elegant.

      • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

        To put this in context, the history of Thucydides was written somewhere around 460-400 BC, we have 9 copies of it, and the earliest copy is dated about 900 AD. Caesar’s Gallic Wars were written around 58-50 BC, we have no more than 10 copies of it, and the earliest copy dates a thousand years after his life. The next best candidate of an ancient historical document in terms of strength of its authority is the Iliad. It has 643 manuscript copies. It was composed about 800 BC, and the earliest copies we have are from the second to third centuries AD and beyond. As Metzger puts it “The quantity of New Testament material is almost embarrassing in comparison with other works of antiquity.” Benjamin Warfield, who also dealt with textual criticism of the New Testament, said "If we compare the present state of the New Testament text with that of any other ancient writing, we must... declare it to be marvelously correct. Such has been the care with which the New Testament has been copied - a care which has doubtless grown out of true reverence for its holy words.... The New Testament [is] unrivaled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use." Frederic Kenyon, the former director of the British Museum and a foremost expert in Paleography of Greek Papyri, said "in no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament." Kenyon later concluded "The last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."

        On the question of "other" books, these books are not recent discoveries. They were known to early Christians who rejected them because they were written not by those inspired by God, who confirming his word by performing miracles or super natural feats through those who stated to be giving his word, which are confirmed by other historical sources. Eusebius (260 A.D. to 340 A.D.) an early Church Historian looked to other earlier writers and Christian Communities to determine which books were used as scriptures and which were not, and which were heretical. He sums it up by saying "But we have nevertheless been obliged to make a list of them, distinguishing between those writings which, according to the tradition of the Church, are true, genuine, and recognized, and those which differ from them in that they are not canonical but disputed, yet nevertheless are known to most of the writers of the Church, in order that we might know them and the writings which are put forward by heretics under the name of the apostles containing gospels such as those of Peter, and Thomas, and Matthias, and some others besides, or Acts such as those of Andrew and John and the other apostles. To none of these has any who belonged to the succession of the orthodox ever thought it right to refer in his writings. Moreover, the type of phraseology differs from apostolic style, and the opinion and tendency of their contents is widely dissonant from true orthodoxy and clearly shows that they are the forgeries of heretics. They ought, therefore, to be reckoned not even among spurious books but shunned as altogether wicked and impious." Book III, Chapter XXVI. Cont. Below...

      • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

        In terms of writing, there is no intimation that they could not write, and instead the historical record shows they did, and some for convience sake may have used scribes. Paul, in contrast to the others would have had a strict education in Old Testament Law. In regards to the liberal theologian dates of late first to late second century, those arguments and assumptions have been shown false and furthered not only by history but by the dates of the manuscripts themselves.

        If you want a good book on this topic:
        Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, first, second or third editions. The fourth edition with contributions by Bart Ehrman cannot be suggested.

        If you would like to read more about early manuscript copies, their importance, and translations go here: http://www.bcsig.org/Bible-Information.html

        I would point out that History bears out much differently than your statements above. You may want to inform yourself better before making such statements.

        • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

          by furthered not only by history but by the dates of the manuscripts themselves I mean that liberal theologians in the 1800 and 1900's arguments relied on assumptions that history and archeology as well as the early manuscripts dates themselves have shown the liberal arguments and assumptions about late dates for the New Testament books WAY after the lives of the apostles themselves to be false. The New Testament books were written by Jewish writers, with the possible exception of Luke and Acts which could have been written by Luke a gentile but possibly a Jewish writer as well, mostly before 60 AD, possibly 40 AD, with the exception of the later writings of the Apostle of John who lived to 100 AD.

        • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

          On Luke, History shows that Luke the physician wrote the book. What I mean is that some point out that he was a gentile, but he may have been a Jewish writer living in an area that would be predominately gentile. It is only a possibility, Biblical scholars place him as a gentile rather than Jewish.

      • GQ4U

        "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" 2 Peter 1:20-21 NASB

        The Word is alive. It is a living Word. The scripture is the written Word as revealed to man coupled with the historical interactions between man and his Creator. The Word is God speaking not man writing. If you seek out the living Word you will get your accurate translation if that is truly what you are trying to acquire. Spiritually blind & deaf individuals may never hear or see the Word of God because they prefer not to see the truth or hear the condemnation (conscience) and change their life as needed.

        The living Word has never been re-written, it is the same today as it has always been. Covenants have changed because man failed, but the Word remains constant and predates the so called beginning.

        Did you know that surveys reveal that +/- 25% of Of Americans do not believe that man has gone to the Moon?
        Are they correct in their disbelief? I don't think so, but I only have the fallible word of man to rely on so that may change.
        However, when the truth of God is told to me by the infallible living Word, that truth will never change, especially not by hearing fallible disputations from man, any man, theologian or... WeeToddEdwards.

      • Gaijin01

        Do not waste time replying to this guy he has made up his opinion, and we seem to be giving him the audience he desired. But alas Proverbs 26:4 compels me to answer; WeToddEdwards, Please do not treat the bible as one book, it is not. There is not an "Author" of the bible. It is written by many authors over hundreds of years. The scrolls were separate for most of their lives. You are free to think all 66 of them are fake and corrupted, that is your right. I would however like you to tell me exactly what times these were written and edited? I count 21 instances of rewrites in your message above. If your words are true that would be something indeed. I would also like to know, what "dead languages" was "the bible" translated from? The bible was written in hebrew, aramaic, greek and some chaldee. If you have knowledge of some other language they were written in I would love to hear your sources, however I think your information may be as corrupt as what you claim the Bible is.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Exactly. He's so bigoted and hate filled he has said this in the past.

          24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv - Soldier Found Guilty i... · 1 reply · +1 points
          "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

          And the two pretend Christians Ricky and flame here told me I was wrong to call him on it. They actually defended a guy who is so determined to think bad of Christ that he would even think that, let alone make a comment on his desire to do such a thing. I guess they didn't read Matt 23 and how Christ called people out for evil.

        • Gaijin01

          Liberal plant? Smells like it, here we are scrambling all over him. We should know better. People are not saved in forum posts, he is just doing his job.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Sorry not a liberal, just don't believe in man made gods. You do say something Rioger Russel shoudl listen to though.
          here we are scrambling all over him. We should know better."

          He does not. He also likes to watch church's burn. Don't fall into his trap

          7 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com - Romney wins Iowa in fi... • 1 reply • 0 points
          Almost as pretty as a burning church

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Oh come now wee wee.
          You overlook all of the essence of islam to attack only Christians unless called on it, then you make only a token protest in the proud tradition of Al Taqiyya.

        • Ricky Michael

          One of the "pretend" christians here responding. I have never defended the atheism of WTE. Mr. R. didn't like me apologizing to WTE for misunderstanding something WTE said to me. He has been attacking me ever since then for "being weak."

          I have chastized Mr. R. upon several occsions for being rude and un-civil to WTE and he does not like me for that either. I happen to believe that you can totally disagree with someone but be civil at the same time. Flame has done the same thing. made comments to R. about being rude. Now Flame and I are pretend Christains.

          Believe what you will. R is a liar.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You have defended and tried to say it wasn't really that bad of him and tried to explain away his comment.

          24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv - Soldier Found Guilty i... · 1 reply · +1 points
          The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO"

          And you never said you invited Christ into your heart as in Rev 3:20 and said that the Billy Graham prayer wasn't Biblical in spite of John 3:3. Believe what you will, if there is a liar it's not me.

        • Ricky Michael

          One more time, now read everything I'm saying this time.

          I accepted the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart at age nineteen when I prayed a prayer asking for his forgiveness and for him to rule my heart forever. Not only did I do that but, I went forward in front of 200 people and told them out loud that I believed that Jesus christ is the son of God(confession Rom 10:10.) Then I was baptized into Christ for the forgiveness of my sins, see Act 2:38. I repented (Acts 2:38.)

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Why are you changing your story?Did I just not make it possible for you to pretend to be a Christian with the first several ways you tried to describe it?

        • Ricky Michael

          And I am trying to live faithfully, keeping all the teachings and commandments of Christ. (Jo 14:21).

          People were being saved before Mr. Graham was born. There are more prayers than just the Billy Graham prayer. Only praying a prayer, without any of the other things I just listed will not save you by itself. Being Militant against people is a direct violation of several scriptures, whether it's against an Atheist or other Christians. You can fall from grace with deeds that violate scripture. It shows a lack of repentance from worldly behavior.

          This is all I will say to you today. You are a very annoying person.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          But that's not what you said. You attacked it and said the Billy Graham prayer wasn't Bible.It is.And Christ still knew what He was talking about in John 3:3.

        • Ricky Michael

          It's not. People were not told to pray a prayer to be saved. I have provided every example of conversion written in the Bible, there was no case where they were told to pray the Billy Graham prayer. If there is a prayer to be prayed it is implied only, when a person repents. I said that before. That's exactly what I did. You are again taking things out of context in an effort to mislead people.

          You cannot stand being wrong about anything. Please quote the Billy Graham prayer that is written in the Bible.

          Jo 3:3 is not an example of a prayer.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You don't seem to be very familiar with the Billy Graham ministries or what they taught.I have been giving you the two texts that make it Biblical over and over.You are the one that can't stand being wrong. You said Christ was at your hear and you listen to him. You never said He was in your heart.That's why I kept giving you the Rev 3:20 text. Simply because you have changed your version now to meet the text after I had held to a Biblical standard isn't making you look reliable.And your lack of knowledge on this doesn't attest to a familiarity with the born again experience, something Christ said was necessary.Here is the wikipedia version of the Billy Graham style prayer you just now admit too finally, and frankly unconvincingly.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinner%27s_prayer

        • Ricky Michael

          You really didn't even read that link, hahaha. Thanks for backing me up. I will use that link for now on.

          It is not in the Bible. I will give this, a prayer should be and is a necessary part of repentance. It would be very simular to the Blly G in meaning expressed, but not necessarily the same word for word prayer. It is implied, but never stated as necessary. I am very glad that you were Baptised, that was required in every example of conversion. The problem I have been staing for months is that a simple prayer (ONLY) by itself will not save you.

          I want to bury the hatch on this, please.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          It may not be found word for word in the Bible, but is exactly in keeping with Rev 3:20 that you refuse to admit to. It's in keeping with John 3:3 that you refuse to admit to.It's consistent with what I have been saying since our conversations first started, which you refuse to admit to.And for you to pretend I'm not in harmony with protestant Christian mainstream thinking on this is not accurate.

        • Ricky Michael

          I have had enough of your antics today, so I'm going home. I would just say we can or could agree to disagree if I thought that would stop you from your constant annoying conduct. It probably just will not happen.

          Thank you for remain civli for once. Have a good evening.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You ran out of time and want to come back for more tomorrow?

          Will be be defending evil tomorrow? Will you do it and blame your Christian walk for defending it tomorrow?

          If you are, then you can expect me to be consistent.

        • FlameCCT

          Yup. There is no specific prayer and is basically the initial action, repentance, when becoming a Christian. Amazing what one can learn when one reads material in context.

        • Ricky Michael

          " Will be be defending evil tomorrow? Will you do it and blame your Christian walk for defending it tomorrow? " Huh????

          He just can't help himself. Mean and nasty is in his nature. He hasn't changed, he is dead in his sins with no repentance.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          And willfully ignoring the obvious is yours.

          There are specific things in the Bible along the road to Christ in our walk with him.
          The 'sinner's prayer' in it's many guises has important first steps that get us started on the way. Pointing that out isn't nasty in nature. Do you think being born again is nasty?

          You both have views and make comments not compatible with your own texts at times, and certainly not compatible with almost all of Christianity.

        • Ricky Michael

          1 Peter 2:11-12
          New King James Version (NKJV)

          11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          And you can't show that in my life there aren't works. You can't show in my life I don't act with honor.

          How can you defend someone who advocates burning a town full of Christians in a locked church as honorable?

          When wee wee smears me and you and his other voices sing in lock step how can you say I do evil? What evil?

          You're like Peter in the courtyard that night only worse, you don't just deny Christ in that defense of evil you encourage evil and give it strength. How do you pretend that isn't losing the spiritual warfare?

        • Ricky Michael

          All anyone has to do is read what you write to see exactly what evil you do.

          I will not be answering you any more today. You will just have to continue your attacks on me and all the others all by yourself with no more of my replies today.

          Or, you can go pound sand if you like.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I defend Christian values.

          You think that's evil?

          I love sand, God was good to us when He created it.

        • FlameCCT

          It appears our friend has a myopic view of Christianity and an inability to read for comprehension especially in context. It's almost like watching a child when you warn them about something and yet they continue on in blissful ignorance until the natural consequence occurs. Then they either learn from their error and correct it or they continue to make the same error over and over expecting a different result. It is quite sad when someone decides that the way to defend Christianity is by acting like those who oppose Christianity.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          It appears you attack and then think you have the sole right to the tactic.

          I understand the Bible says what it says. And thinking that the new covenant starts at the death of Christ is nothing out of the mainstream.

          For you to have other views not supported by Scripture shows who has the problems with context and comprehension. It's sad when you pretend you're the example when you have things so twisted.

        • Ricky Michael

          Remember Bill Cosby's conversation with his kids?

          "What did I tell you?"

          "You told me. You told me. You told me not to drink the drink."

          "what did you do?"

          "I drank the drinkkkkk!"

        • FlameCCT


        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The two of you sound so much the same.
          You have a real routine down backing each other up in lock step.

          How long have you had these duel profiles running?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You don't have to focus on works if you're 'born again'. The Holy Spirit leads you to all truth.
          After the born again experience it's "His" battle and not yours, you just commit your life daily and trust Him to lead.

          Your edits in the wording of your comment are telling. Once again you are the active agent focusing on works as if they can earn you salvation. That's not biblical, it's koranical.

        • FlameCCT

          While I agree with your point concerning the Scriptures, he is accurate about one issue. Hebrew has been dead and "revived" as a literary language several times in the past 2000 years.

          Edit: I would suggest using caution with Roger as he has become a self appointed stalker of anyone that does not follow his militant view of Christianity. The quote he used to support his position is over 12 weeks old and taken out of context. I am a "pretend" Christian to Roger because I took him to task for posting the same thing on different thread. WTE had congratulated another poster on the upcoming birth of his first grandchild and Roger posted his comment; I told him to knock it off and Roger got upset and has been following just like he follows Ricky and WTE.

          As Ricky said, believe what you will however Roger will cherry pick any written word, whether Scripture or postings.

        • Ricky Michael


        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You both were the militants on several stories trying to shut me up so that wee we could go on saying things like Christians needed to be locked in churches.

          You both have defended evil, that was not the example Christ left for us.

        • FlameCCT

          Was that a mouse fart?

        • Ricky Michael

          I am sick and tired of being sick and tired.

          Maybe it was a fake mouse fart.

        • FlameCCT

          Perhaps it was a fake church mouse fart?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Seems to me I hear two of them right now.

        • FlameCCT

          Yup, definitely a mouse fart, probably looking for some cheese to go with the whine.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Are you going to dictate what it's allowed to say and eat since you are the all knowing approved Christian?

        • Gaijin01

          While hebrew has been "revived" (This is a whole topic by itself) I do not consider Hebrew to be a "dead" language. Latin is a dead language. Since the bible has been so preserved, I think it alone could keep it from being "dead" Just because the race was nearly wiped out and their country erased, does not mean the language itself was ever failed to be understood as he was impling. No matter either way, I personally think he was 100% blowing smoke anyways, based on what he thought the correct history of the bible was. It remains the most well preserved book in history. The dead sea scrolls can attest to that.

    • Dntmkmecmoverther

      @Bowie J: Be careful Bowie, Greek and Hebrew both contain cultural uniqueness. Here's one example: Psuche is Greek for life, soul. If a Hebrew would hear that word, and want to translate it he might use 'heart' Leb (pronounced 'lev') since it was believed that the 'heart' was the soul of the person. So you gotta be careful when you think you know so much...

  • deleted152911

    "Many conservatives stand firm on the King James Bible as the only ‘authoritative’ Bible version there is. They fail to realize that there are some very accurate translations that pre-date the King James such as the Geneva Bible, which was the Bible the colonists brought with them to America."

    I knew that the colonists brought over the Geneva Bible.

    And how do you explain away the fact that the more our Bible has changed the last one hundred years is linked with the weakening of the American church? The newer versions water down the original intent of the Greek and Hebrew.

    Personally, I'll stick to the KJV for my family. All of my home schooled kids can read it with NO difficulty It was also translated by many men who were gifted in language and took great care to how it was translated.

    And as for this new Muslim Bible, I think it's despicable. It doesn't surprise me though as we see Chrislam on the rise which I think could become part of the Anti Christ's plan for a one world religion.

    • DesertLion

      Gifted in languate and took great care...Really? Then explain the English word "baptism" as used in that translation and how it came to be there. No, the translators had to balance the original text with the procedures in the church and make up a word transliterated from the Greek since not even the people of the time would have equated sprinkling with "to dunk or plunge".

      I have nothing against the KJV, but to hold it as some unassailable standard as the only legitimate English version of G-d's Word is ignorant.

      We do agree that twisting the text to make it more acceptable to Islam is an abomination.

      • ForConstitution

        What am I ignorant about?

        You tell me what word "baptism" should be.

        You call me ignorant and yet you've done NOTHING to show where I'm ignorant. What's the matter, do you sprinkle your babies in hopes that they go to Heaven that way? I don't find baby sprinkling in the Bible. After all, John the "Baptist" immersed Jesus fully in the water! Jesus wasn't sprinkled as a baby.

        • DaveR

          Regarding "baptism" perhaps a more significant difference in scriptural translation and interpretation is whether baptism (immersion in water) or sprinkling (by casting droplets of water on people) is even necessary or not to gain salvation according to the teachings of Christ. Clearly the man being crucified with with Christ who confessed his sins to Christ just before his death was forgiven by Christ and told he would be in paradise with Christ -- and he did not have any opportunity to be baptized with water in any manner.

        • Ricky Michael

          the thief was under the old covenent.
          also, Jesus had the power to forgive sins instantly, he did so with the lame man.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          No the thief died after Christ, he was covered by Christ's blood.
          Ricky, this is where you slip up and expose how you're just pretending to be a Christian.

          The entire old covenant was pointing to the sacrifice and it's power. At the point the earth shook things were changed.

        • Reader

          Oh, the Bible is very clear that baptism is not required to gain salvation. It is more a public declaration, a sign supposed to outwardly demonstrate an internal reality. A person's salvation is not at risk if they manage to die before they can be baptized (which DOES define as immersion). A person gets baptized because they are saved, not saved because they are baptized.

    • cartoon_submarine

      Amen -- Stick with the REAL Bible, the only Bible that has no errors, the "scripture given by inspiration" -- II Tim. 3:16
      God said "my w-o-r-d-S shall never pass away" -- Mark 13:31. Where are those wordS today? It can't be the Originals -- the original autographs disintegrated, they don't exist anymore. Thin air can't be inspired.

      And as for "The Greek" and "The Hebrew". Anyone who believes that nonsense believes in the corrupt Septuagint anyway. The common reader should be made aware -- there is NO "the Greek". There are about 24 editions and collections of "the Greek" today, so who's VERSION of THE Greek is the correct one? Is is Nestle, is it Aland, etc. None of them match words, so WHICH ONE of the 24 Greek texts is THE ONE?

      And that doesn't count the manuscripts that make up Majority Text that supports the Textus Receptus, whereas there are 5 volumes and they don't match either! -- hey, Mr. Pastor, hey Ms. Bible Teacher -- which THE GREEK is it?

      Someone is pulling our legs!

      Stick with the real Bible -- the King James Bible (if you read other languages, make sure to read the Bibles that follow the Antiochian family / Syrian family / Textus Receptus. Stay away from VATICANus and SINaiticus line!)

      It should be noted: Geneva Bible was used to create the crown jewel of Bibles -- the King James Bible!

      • Dntmkmecmoverther

        ..um. Uh, where do you think the KJV came from? The NT is in Greek and Aramaic. Which translation do you think they used for the KJV? Origens? Jeromes? or did they utilize the Vulgate and put that into the KJ English?

        I know you want to believe that the KJV is 'without error' but the raw truth is that since 1611, our scholarly access to Hebrew and Greek is much wider than it was then. As an example: in the KJV: look at Numbers 11:25 where the 70 elders got a taste of the Holy Spirit and 'prophesied'. Your KJV will say that the prophesying 'continued'...but that is not a correct translation of the Hebrew particle 'Lo'...which means they did NOT continue.

        That doesn't mean the KJV is to be discarded, it simply means that 400yrs of linguistic discovery has made us much more aware of the originals.

    • Gary

      I like the KJV too, but have no problem with some other translations, as long as they follow what I call the "Tyndale tradition," meaning that it is "word for word" rather than "thought for thought". My personal favorite is still the NASB, particularly since newer updates have kept the accuracy without butchering it the way the newer update to the NIV (which is thought for thought anyway) did.

    • MrLenD

      For whatever reason, most of you people are missing the point. Muslims can be converted to Chritianity, but there are cultural things that hold them back. One of them is calling Jesus the SON OF GOD. To a Muslim (and please understand it os only a cultural issue with them) they associate SON OF GOD with God coming down and having intercourse with Mary. And this is highly sacraligious to them. By changing a few words, we could reach these Muslims and have them to understand Romans 10:9&10 and become Brothers In Christ.. So please... don't judge Wycliffe! This is a very wise move and possibly God inspired! If any of you care to check out a new accurate translation that is going on .. check out http://www.truthortradition.com and check out their translation which is still in progress. God Bless everyone!

      • shaggon

        Sorry, MrLenD: Allah and Almighty God isn't the same. We don't change anything for someone to get saved. YOU TELL THE TRUTH OF THE GOSPEL OF JESUS CHRIST. WHAT CHANGES A PERSON IS "THE HOLY SPIRIT". Without HIM there is no transformation.

    • whirlwinder

      I agree. Without Jesus there is no redemption. The gospel does not bend to every new wind, but we are seek out the lost and that includes Islam.

    • charleydan

      Weakening of the church has been lack of any Bible reading and devotion to it by the congregation and more so by tickling ear preachers that do not recognize a Pharisee in modern day clothing. Making the church just another country club. America is pagan christianity at best.

    • Harold

      Well "For" I am an extremely conservative Christian. EXTREMELY!
      You need to study the history of The Original Protestant Bible. That would be the Geneva. King James actually had the gaul to produce another Bible version to combat the Geneva.

      The KJV and Geneva agree about 90% of the time, probably because King James used many of the scholars from the publication of the Geneva.

      An important point is that for much of the remaining 10%, the Geneva is more accurate. Therefore I use BOTH the KJV and the Geneva, I have original printings from the 1800. If you want excellent scholarship, get free computer versions off the internet which have original commentaries from the scholars of the reformation. Also the new NET has 60,000 explanatory notes of modern scholarship.

      Also, better understanding comes from such versions as a good Chronological Bible [I have a NKJV and an NLT]

      Most of all study the EXACT meaning of the original words. They may surprise you.

    • Nathanael and Darla Gregoriev
    • shaggon

      I agree, deleted. Also, look out for "Interfaith" Oprah, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair are promoting this in our schools. It's the one world religion.

  • fatguy0506

    all we need it pure unadulterated truth. find it and it will be worth more than all the gold in the world. in creating this version, they are creating lies, pure and simple.

    • NoCAGal

      Isn't that the liberal way????

  • Don

    We need to bombard Wycliffe with words denouncing this organization for doing this! This will just simply cow-tow to the muslims giving them an in to our way of life, trying their best to put us under Sharia Law. Don't kid yourself, this religion is a cult, not a true religion.

    • NoCAGal

      Canada is waking up quickly after the massacre of 4 Muslim women. However, the liberals in US are so ignorant and determined to get whatever they want even if they have to force it down the good peoples throats, that they will continue to push for these"adopted" yet backward children of America until the day they vote in Sharia Law over our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Even the Aussies had politicians stand up to the Muslims, and others, and told them, basically, "to get the hell out if they don't like their laws!" I say bravo to them!

      • NoCAGal

        Furthermore, what type of reaction would you get if you went to any of these countries in the Middle East and began telling them what laws they needed to adopt! Your head would be off in a second flat!

      • xnylady

        Their money speaks for them

    • For The Truth

      Instead why don't you write to Wycliffe and find out what is really going on, instead of assuming that this author has all the facts straight. Don't you think it is better to know the facts before condemning?

    • Jose

      Perhaps we should hold bloggers to a higher standard too. This man has made very serious accusations without providing any external references to corroborate his claims. He has also not given these organizations a chance to present their point of view on these alleged actions. So, before you bombard them or denounce them, get the whole picture.

    • King David

      I agree with Don. I figure that it is Islamic-shariah in the back of this version.. They wrote it and are getting it published because it is ISLAMIZATION FROM WITHIN ,which is right -down their alley! Just don't buy it! Complain to Wycliffe and make it a BIG COMPLAINT because ISLAMISTS whine and complain ALL THE TIME. That's the Nazi-islamist way!

    • letitsnow1

      for sure, they are sneaking in as we read this, as they bin doing this since obuma got his ass in our WHITE HOUSE!

      • Patrick Henry

        we have to use kingpine to remove the stench of chimp from the White House.

    • azwayne

      Cut off the money they survive on donations, time to check who gets your money.

    • Patrick Henry

      kill all muslims and fu k allah now

  • Eli Jones

    These reckless & foolish people that are rewriting the Holy Word Of God should read the unpolitical correct Bible and see what punishment God promises for adding to or taking from his word. I suggest The King James Version.

    • For The Truth

      Which one? There are several editions since the original was first published?

    • WeeToddEdwards

      They re- write all the time.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        No they 're-translate' it.

        You muslim friendly trolls are so confused on so many things.
        How are those two muslim guys in Iowa doing? You sound so angry, did they break your heart?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          I don't know Roger Russel. They are going over your comments now

        • Myrtlelinder

          Maybe not the rest of us, at least YOU will be in their favor, I don't know if that is desirable or not!!!

    • David in MA

      They should read the next to last paragraph in revelations.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        There isn't a lot of wiggle room in it, is there?

  • Gina Nakagawa

    How about the first English translation of the *entire* Bible which beat out KJV by 2 entire years. Oops, sorry, I forgot it is the Catholic translation of the Catholic Book. Sorry.

    • Winston

      The english translation of the Bible was 12 years preceeding the KJV...it was the 1599 Geneva Bible. And the Geneva Bible which the Pilgrims brought to America...not the KJV.


      I would not feel sorry or apologize about the Catholic translation of the Bible. Without the Catholic Church there would be no Bible, period. A CATHOLIC FROM MINNESOTA.

      • Ardnas

        Not so my friend. Without God there would be no Bible. God did not use the Catholic Church to write the Bible. He used serious and sold out followers of Jesus Christ, who had nothing to do with such a church as you Catholics promote today. Peter was not the first Pope as you teach. You will turn to many places in Scripture where the Rock refers to God but never Peter. Matthew 16:18 says Thou are Peter ( Petros is Greek for stone not rock). And Paul said in 1Corinthians 3:11 that there is no other foundation that man can lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. And furthermore, to desecrate the seriousness of what Wycliffe is doing by blowing your horn in this manner is not helpful.

        • Daly

          When Christ changed Peter's name to "Rock," He was speaking Aramaic, not Greek. The word for rock (Kepha) is the same as it is for stone. Protestants seem to believe that the Church was in error for 1500 years until the "Reformers" came along and enlightened everyone. In truth, they led them into error. Since Protestants recognize no authority except the Bible, every man is his own pope, and there are thousands of Protestant religions, each teaching its own version of the "truth."

    • Mike

      You might be interested to know about the 1537 " Matthew's Bible". You can piurchase it at christianbooks.com.

    • Wendy

      The point is that the Catholic Bible was the first Bible. The one true Bible written by the power of the Holy Spirit. Anyone who translates must be guided by the power of the Holy Spirit. King James' translation removed the parts that were inconvenient to his lifestyle. It does not contain the whole truth and neither does this new translation.

      • Bagui

        Armies defended the Pope, and could be commissioned to kill those who saw a man in authority who is in total sin.
        The Greek word katholicos, has roots in purity, and later used when the monolithic church had been corrupted. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. There were many orthodox believers, who tried to live holy under that authority in Greek, Armenian, Coptic, and Ethiopian confessions. The Jewish canon supersedes the Catholic bible by thousands of years.

    • Lee J

      Sorry, but your math is off. The Geneva Bible was first completed in 1560 and the first edition of the King James Bible was completed in 1611. According to the math I was taught, that places the Geneva Bible 51 years prior to the 1611 KJV. What I find interesting is how so many people claim to stand on the 1611 KJV when in fact the one used today is actually the 17th edition completed in 1769. Very few people today can read the 1611 KJV as so many of the letters were quite different. I know because have had the privilege to look at one.

      But the Geneva Bible was far from the first English translation as the Wycliffe Bible predated 1409 and the Tyndale Bible which was never completed dated to around 1539.

      One small fact that many people seem to overlook about the King James Bible is that King James the First who authorized the translation was a flaming homosexual. I've even seen some knowledgeable people refer to him as Queen Jimmy. Has to make one think, doesn't it.

  • oldmsrebel

    NOT reading the Bible is the problem ! The printers are Greedy and some will print total nonsense so evil is good and good is evil. Any one of a dozen translations work ok, only if you intend to live a Godly life. If you are hunting another way to heaven it AIN"T happening ! JN 14-6 STILL is The Way, not ANY other way !

  • Mother of 4

    HOLD THE PHONE! This is exactly why we have a Muslim religion in the first place!!!!!!! Christians who taught ancient Arabs the scriptures, but did not have accurate manuscripts, and so corrupted the teachings of the scriptures, teachings of Christ, and the teachings of the Apostles. This is a corrupted Bible. What good is this going to do, but only give greater confirmation to Muslims that their religion is true and that, as they often assert, that "We believe in the same God." As "For Constitution" has pointed out, Chrislam, will be a new religion on the rise. SHAME on Wycliffe Bible Translators! This is not a translation, but a corruption. I think this is one Bible we can all agree to burn!

    • Stephen

      I don't know where you get your information from either. Do you know who helped put the koran together? "St" Augustine. (I use the term "Saint" very loosely) That is why they have "Bible" verses in the koran to begin with. (Bible meaning from the NIV, RSV, etc. But not the AV1611) The "super secret" writing that muslims sometime refer to that are not in the koran (Which I forget what they call them) that they claim only the "holiest" of muslims are allowed to read states nothing more of who actually helped put the koran together and show how big of a fraud the catholic church and the islamic religion is. That is why they have stated that if anyone outside of their circle was to ever read these "holy" writings they would kill them on the spot so they don't go public with the information.

      • CalPaul

        I don't know where you got the information that Augustine helped put the Koran together. The Koran was compiled from a bunch of different collections of Mohammad's supposed revelations that were written down on everything from rocks to bark on trees. Comparing the Bible to the Koran is like comparing a tasty stake to sewage. The Koran rambles and shows the schizophrenic personality of its' author, Mohammed. The Bible is orderly, and makes sense.

        When you compare the gospels in the Bible with the fake gospels written in the Middle ages, you notice that the fake ones are very wordy and build up the supernatural and mysterious. It is the same with the Koran. Mohammed takes 300 words to say something that could have said in ten or twenty. Plus, he starts out praising the Jews in one Surah, and by the end of the same paragraph, he is condeming them and calling for their destruction.

        The prophets of the Bible also followed the ten commandments. Mohammed broke every single one of them. His Allah is the Christian and Jews Satan.

        • Stephen

          Here is your first book to read: "The Prophet," by Alberto Rivera. The book is written in comic form but don't let that fool you.

    • edna

      Everything about Islam is rooted in deception. If allah was so powerful & all-wise wouldnt allah have prophetically mentioned or recognized Islam, the quran, muslims, allah or Muhammad in the bible? He didnt & why Islam is a false religion.
      1st, Islam cant prove Muhammad is a prophet biblically, yet are ardently undeterred in their opinion that he is.
      Muhammad doesnt qualify for the bibles criteria for prophethood from Gen 21:12 “God said … for in Isaac shall thy (Abrahams) seed be called” Nor does Muhammad qualify as a prophet from the quran but qualifies as its false prophet! Sahih al-Bukhari Vol 5 Book #59 Hadith #713 Proves Muhammads a false prophet b/c of Q 69:43-46(Gal 1:8-9)
      Abraham is Hebrew (Gen 14:13) not MUSLIM!
      2nd, we DO NOT share Gods b/c ours created us from His own image as proved in Gen 1:26-27 & Gen 9:6; yet all muslims admit their god, allah, HAS NO IMAGE!
      Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness
      3rd, the entire quran is [FABRICATED] b/c no muslim can prove Jesus spoke as a baby or uttered the words: allah & muslim
      We worship YHWH-Elohim(Gen 1:1), Jehovah(Mark 12:29 & Deut 6:4), I AM(Ex 3:14-15), Y’shua, etc. … not allah(god).

    • letitsnow1

      got to get one and burn the dam thing!

    • Mad in Rockport

      YES! Sounds like this new bible is a definite candidate for the furnace! But, God is still in charge! He WILL TAKE CARE of business! The people doing this shameful "translation" are candidates for the furnace, for sure!

  • Are You Serious

    Muslim Friendly is an oxymoron!!!

    • King David

      Nothing is "friendly" to ISLAMISTS! I = INHUMANE
      S= SAVAGE
      L=LAUGHABLE --
      M= MANIC ( from Jihad Watch -2011)

  • Herr Capitan Fick

    I can't believe you gutless wonder Americans are letting them mess with the bible! Any other way you people can think of to appease these people?

    • Lee

      Please don't lump us all into this message. This article is full of deceit.

      • Lamykin

        Then please write a rebuttal so we can make an informed decision.

    • Kevin B

      As a Christian I will follow the apostles and believe that Jesus Christ is my savior and that nothing else will get you into heaven. As a U.S. citizen I live under laws that I must follow. We have freedoms - fortunately or unfortunately one being freedom of speech. In the end those who have perverted the bible - God's Word will be judged by God.

      • sandra

        Thank you Kevin, well done, good and faithful servant of Jesus Christ.

  • Stephen_Brady

    If I worked for Wycliffe, even as a printer or a bookbinder, I would quit my job. If I worked in a bookstore, I would refuse to stock one of these abominations. If any minister uses this mistranslation in my presence, I will walk out of the church. Those who conceived of this idea, and put it into motion, have placed themselves in danger of hellfire. It's just that simple ...

    • Leber

      I agree with all you said except the part....."If any minister uses this mistranslation in my presence, I will walk out of the church" That's a problem we have today... DON'T walk out , instead throw the minister out and insist that the next one only preach the truth or the church will throw him out also. Too many churches are being taken over by liberal revisionists that try to update God to fit their agenda and we're allowing it to happen.

      • Stephen_Brady

        I agree with you, of course, about leaving the church. But I would demonstrate my complete disdain for such a translation by walking out of the service. But leave the church? Not on your life. The church belongs to Christ, and we have a duty to make it all that He wants it to be.

    • Leber

      Amen to that..... but sadly, I'm afraid we're a dying breed today...[BTW.....thanks for your service.]

      • Stephen_Brady

        Thank you!

    • letitsnow1


    • Harlon Hensley

      This article is a lie......Check it out at http://www.wycliffe.org...........

      • Stephen_Brady

        If you will read the article at wycliffe.org closely and slowly, you will note that they choose their words most carefully. They neither deny nor confirm that the "translation" is Muslim-friendly. What I would have preferred from them is a categorical, "We would never include the word 'Allah' in a Bible." You don't get that from them, do you?

    • Havanagila

      My friend there are many publishers you need to check before you buy anything.
      Bibles are no different. See what else they print first

      • Stephen_Brady

        This is true, but a "Bible" that uses the word 'Allah' and states that Jesus is his "messiah" is a deal-breaker, in my estimation. John Wycliffe must be turning in his grave, at this moment.

  • Pudbert_Savannah GA

    Muzlims worship satan, and mohammad is satans version of Jesus Christ.

    It's pretty simple to know that satan is always trying to mimic God... which is why the Quran is supposed to mimic the Bible, etc.

    Liberals will be the end of our world as we know it.

    • MARYP912

      I'm right there with you neighbor. This is blasphemy.....and another push by the the liberals for their One World Order and One World Religion......Chrislam. The end must be coming sooner than we think, because of all the SHAME that is being brought upon our country! Just another slap in the face of our beautiful Lord Jesus Christ.

  • Lee

    As for me and my house - we will stick with the King James Version Bible. Claims like this one is a trick of the devil and sadly some people will fall for it. This is just like the serpent talking to Eve with his conniving message. Lies in the Garden of Eden and lies now.

    • Librarian

      The Holman study is nice. have you read it chock full of study

  • Carolyn

    This is Blasphemy

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002906677684 Robert Bob

      You are so right, but these people who discredit the the Holy King James Bible do so to make a name for themselves.
      They even go so far as to say Joseph was the father of Jesus (Luke 2:33) in the NIV. There is a new religion coming called Christlam. Watch Jack Van Impy if you can http://www.kjbible.net

  • GMA215
    • MR Joseph

      The people making wild remarks need to check out the link you posted before going off the edge. Thank you for posting the link. The rest of you check it out!


    Try and mess with the Koran see what happens...You'll find your head placed under your arm. Muslim friendly what a bloody joke...except that it isn't, the joke part that is.

    • http://www.eatfree.us David Starr

      Blessed it be that Mohummeriod sat down and ate unto a pig dinner and did beseech his followers to partake in kind. For the blood of the pig is the blood of Allah and should be taken in the highest at all the days. For it is the blood of the pig that assures a person's position in paradise of Allah and his demons.

      **I sure hope I pissed off a muslim with my new passage!!**

      • VirgoVince

        Love it... especially the 'Mohummeroid' name, so befitting!! Sure you pissed them off, that's great!!

  • Trust only Jesus

    According to Wycliffe's website this is bogus. Do your own homework. I have respected this news source in the past, but now I will be careful not to share anything till I have checked it out. There's enough truly bad things to report without creating false ones.

  • jb80538

    I personally don't think too many muslims will be rushing out to purchase this one. They are stuck on the rants of mohammad in their koran.

    • Wyatt


  • john b. kalb

    And the Chuch of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, the Mormans, also don't confess Jesus Christ as anything but a prophet also - they preach that he is NOT God. What Bible do they read - Why, it's the words of a "latter day saint", isn't it?

    • MikeC711

      It seems neither Mormons nor Jehovas Witness accept the diety of Christ. Throw that out, and you've got nothing. When Christ said, "Before Abraham was, I Am". That says that Christ told us he was diety. One step further, when Thomas saw Christ after the crucifiction ... 5 words is all he could say "My Lord and my God." If Christ were not part of a triune God ... he would have corrected Thomas (or been a liar). He never did. Thus believing that Christ is anything but God does not make him a wise man or a good teacher ... it makes him a liar or a lunatic. Personally, I am going with Christ being God ... as I don't want to face Him on judgement day having denied who He was or what He did, or why He had to do it.

      • Fran

        The Binle specifically calls the head of the woman is the man, the head of the congregation is Jesus and the head of Jesis is God. How could they be equal in that case? In addition Jesus said he was going his way to the Father, and the Father was greater than him, again not being equal. When they are mentioned as "one", that reflects they are one in purpose and unity, not one person. Jesus was with his Father before the earth was even created as the Bible says, but in all the gospel accounts, he always gave glory to his Father, Almighty God, and never to himself.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Are you saying women aren't equal to men?


      To the Mormans the Bood of Mormans supersedes the Bible.
      Minnesota Catholic.

      • CalPaul

        The Bible and the Book of Mormon go hand in hand as two testimonies to the divinity of Christ. Read Ezekiel 37 about the stick of Judah and the stick of Joseph. Some people try and say this refers to nations. You do not hold a nation in your hand and write on it.

        The Book of Mormon talks about 3 groups of people that left the middle east region and came to America. You are a Catholic. Catholic historians during the Spanish exploration and conquest of sourthern and central America compiled histories of the MesoAmerican Indians, from their legends and writings. They all agree with the Book of Mormon as to 3 groups, the dates fo the 3 groups, and the movements of the groups. None of these histories were available to Joseph Smith. They were not discovered until many years later. Some of these are the writings of Fernando de Alva de Ixtlilxochitl, the writings of Friar Bernardo de Sahagan, the writings of Bishop Torquemada, and the Quiche Mayan history titled "the Title of the Lords of Totonocapan". Then there is also the Popul Vue.

        • Harold

          "None of these histories were available to Joseph Smith."

          But someone who is demon possessed has access to information that you and I still do not have today. They would know [because their demon may have placed the stuff there hundreds of years ago, through another someone possessed] about things we have not yet discovered.

          If you add to or diminish the ONLY accepted Scriptures, OR if having all the information you need you leave Him [John 6:66] you are an "anti-Christ." [John 6:66 Hmmmm funny group of numbers 6 6 6 wonder what they mean?

          Mor[m]ons and muslims are classic portraits of those who have all the information they need, in The Bible, and yet refuse to accept it as the ONLY word of God.

          Speed on brother Hell ain't half full yet.

      • CalPaul

        By the way, have you ever read a history of the Popes? One Pope was so corrupt and evil that the people were going to rise up and remove him. Seeing the writing on the wall, he sold the Papacy to the highest bidder. I would have to go back and re-read the history to see if he was the one that made a donkey a bishop. When the Popes lived in the Lacern Palace, they turned it into a brothel. Do you really think God would allow such debauched people to head his church?

    • CalPaul

      You ought to know something about a subject before you try and post about it. Read the title of the church. It reads "THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST". How many other so-called Christian churches can you name that have the Lord's name in their name? We do believe that Jesus is a God. He is not Elohim, the Father. Jesus gets his power and authority through his Father, by virture of his perfect obedience. Jesus has promised us that we can share in this power and glory also, through him, if we obey his commandments and endure to the end.

    • CalPaul

      As for the Bible, the one that we "Mormons" officaaly use is the KJV. It is the most widely used in the English language. Have you yourself read the Bible? Explain Revelations 14:6-7 if you can. Why would an angel be flying in the midst of heaven with the everlasting gospel to preach to men in the latter days if the gospel already existed on earth? Do you know what the word apostasy means? It means a falling away from the truth. Jesus and his apostles all spoke of a coming apostasy. You might want to look up Amos 8:11-12, Acts 20:29-30, Timothy 4:3, 2 Thessalonians 2:1-3, and Acts 3:19-21 for references.

      Do your remember the revelation of Daniel with the statue? The stone that rolled down the hill and crushed the statue did not come during the time of the Romans. It came during the period of strong and weak kings that made up the feet. These were the kings of Europe. Since the apostasy was complete, as predicted by Jesus and his apostles, and the priesthood authoirty to act in the name of God was lost; it could only be restored from heaven. The orthodox view of God does not come from the Bible. It originated with Aristotle.

      • http://godfatherpolitics.com Tracie

        I will give you a commentary to Revelation 14:6-7 from the KJV, but first the scriptures--And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people, saying with a loud voice, Fear God, and give glory to Him; for the hour of His judgment is come: and worship Him that made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and the fountains of waters.

        (Commentary): Some believe this a final, worldwide appeal to all people to recognize the one true God. No one will have the excuse of never having heard God's truth. Others, however, see this as an announcement of judgment rather than an appeal.The people of the world have had their chance to proclaim their allegiance to God, and now God's great judgment is about to begin.
        The commentary goes on to say this; If you are reading this, you have already heard God's truth. You know that God's final judgment will not be put off forever. Have you joyfully received the everlasting Good News? Have you confessed you sins, and trusted in Christ to save you? If so, you have nothing to fear from God's judgment. The judge of all the earth is your Savior!

        I believe this is in reference to the Gospel being preached to the four corners of the earth, until ALL people have heard the Good News of Jesus Christ. After THAT, Jesus can return to claim HIS people, dead and living. God wants EVERYBODY on this entire earth to have the chance to know Him, and give them a choice to accept or deny Him.

        • Yah Coyote

          Yes GOD wishes all people would accept HIS solution of the sin problem. The GODPEL is the Truth of GOD being willing to die to pay the penalty of all of humanitity's sin. We were lost in EDEN and reclaimed at Calvary. Unfortunately we the Church have done a very poor job of broadcasting the GOSPEL. That is why HE is going to step into human history again and empower 144,000 prophet/evengelists to preach the three angel's messages of Revelation 14 to every nation, people, group, and language. Then each of us can claim we believe Yeshuah (Jesus) was GOD, died to pay the penalty of my sins, and rose from the dead after three days in a stone tomb.

    • http://godfatherpolitics.com Traciee

      They have a Book of Mormon, which looks much like a Bible. It is supposed to be a 'Bible' that Joseph '?' wrote to 'add' to the existing Bible, I think. I used to babysit for a couple that were part of the Reorganized Church of the Latter Day Saints, they had one of these books in their home. Out of curiosity, I opened it, read a couple of sentences, and closed it very quickly. I was only 16 at the time. I am 50 now. I was raised in church, and my husband and I raised our kids in church, using the KJV. If you stay in God's Word daily, what EVER comes, you WILL be under God's protection.

  • Jerry F.

    I wish people or writters or what ever you call yourself,don't use the good name of Bible on something that ain't anything like the Bible,it's more like a bad novel.

  • http://MSN.COM Dick

    Well you can always hang it in the BACK HOUSE for emergencies like the corn cob was!!!

  • SweetOlBob

    The administrator. as proven by the past actions of WordPress is a muslim coddling wimp/

  • Southern Man

    Satan is very deceptive. He will use even the most respected sources to mislead those who are not saved or are very new Christians. That is why Bible study is so important to the new Christian and why it is so important for those who are more mature in the Lord to support and mentor those who are not. There is no reason for any so-called Christian organization to dilute the Word of God in order to appease a satanic cult. That is not loving people; that is leading people to the gates of hell. Christ has much to say about that in Luke 17:2.

    • MICKEY

      Amen Southern Man we must stand up for the Word of God as presented in the Bible and one of the the most accurate translation is the King James.

    • Listen up

      Well all this brouhaha over the Bible when we have bigger issues of
      45 million innocent dead. Not a peep from a pulpit but once a year about life and death?
      We have the country being torn because mega church are first and foremost

  • Eve

    This is scary stuff indeed. If you get a chance check out Walid Shoebat and it will begin to make sense..


      "Ignorance of Schripture is Ignorance of Christ." Saint Jerome

    • Wesley Bell

      The main criticism is that we (Wycliffe, TSC and SIL) are removing the term "Son of God "from our translations but this is just NOT true, and it is hurtful to hear some very well-meaning people accept this as fact without doing some checking. We have NOT changed our commitment to Biblically accurate, culturally relevant Bible translation in 80 years.

      I think that what you can tell those who ask you is:
      1. Wycliffe is NOT removing the Son of God from our translations.
      2. There is still a very rigorous process in place for checking translations to ensure quality.
      3. The communities impacted are almost exclusively dominated by Islam, and there are probably only 20-30 out of 2000 remaining translation needs that are affected. It is not an issue for the other communities.
      4. You can also tell them that we are hearing their voices as they express their concerns and are working with our partners to find common ground.

  • http://FaithwayBaptistChurch.com patrick.zandi

    Bottom line is simple: use the KJV... because the TEXT is from the RECEIVED text.. others use the Critical text - which was rejected... so I would recommend you use the real word of God not the rejected word of God... Your Choice: just remember 1 thing::: If you cause someone to Stumble due to your using the Wrong Text -- will affect the reward and loss at the Judgement seat of Christ... and It is... at fearful thing to fall in the hands of the Living God!

  • NoCAGal


  • Pastor Carmen

    Wycliffe is turning over in his Grave Islam is Murderess Liar's from Hell made up Religion by a Rapist Murderer Mohammed. Allah is a moon god. You can say is a Religion but is not friendly.

  • Winston

    Wycliffe Bible Translators has obviously denied the pre-eminence of Jesus as God's ONLY begotten Son and is calling God a liar by placing Allah on the same level of almighty God. It is a Satanic/demonic think which Wycliffe Bible Translators has done in this translation, a precurser to the prophetic one-world religion under the anti-Christ.

  • Daniel from TN

    I also have several translations for study use. When I'm working with younger groups I prefer the Modern English Version: it is easier reading for them. Ex. The eighth commandment says "Thou shalt not steal" in KJV. MEV reads "You shall not steal."

    As for the Wycliffe translators, I really feel sorry for them. Revelations 22:18 warns "Anyone who adds to the scriptures will have all the plagues in the Bible added to them" (paraphrase). Trust me! There's a lot of plagues mentioned in the Bible. The Wycliffe translators should start repenting ASAP, if they want to avoid them.


      I AGREE 100%.

  • daves

    I thought the New Testament has always been friendly to all of God's children.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

      Of course it is.
      But that doesn't stop some people from reacting violently to it.

      • Sama

        That's true. All are children of God. BUT children of God do not support the changing of His Word. Pray for the muslims to see the light. Don't support them and what they want Christians to do.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Of course not!

          Paul was clear on this in Ephesians 6. We are to stand, not surrender.

        • Myrtlelinder

          Amen and Amen. Our greatest problem, we refuse to stand, we had rather cower, it seems.

    • WeeToddEdwards

      Everyone is supposly gods children even musliums right?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        God's children have a choice.

        any religion that blows up suicide vests as part of their established code of conduct isn't part of God's family.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          But any religion that uses F-16's to bomb school children are?

        • HolyGhostPowuh!!

          That was stupid. Oh well, any hyperbole justifies the end, right?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Coming from the guy who said he wanted to do this, you have to consider the source.

          24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv - Soldier Found Guilty i... · 1 reply · +1 points
          "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO "

          That's why I find his entire debate with Ricky funny, they do this charade over and over from story to story and make it look like the Bible is a little less than inspired and it's sophisticated to pick at it and that Christians have to leave it to the few experts at handling those that are against it.

          I don't see it that way.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Can you expalin the context of that comment I made 12 weeks ago Roger Russel?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          I just did and you said I was wrong.

          Why don't you show what context would justify the painful murder of every Christian in any town?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Oh so when Israel uses an F-16 a "accidnetally" drops a bomb on a school you are ok with it......here's a clue try thinking for yourself for once <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          So, do you hate all Jews or just the ones that defend themselves?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          I don't hate Jews and never once said that. I have a dislike for the Israeli government.

          Dp you hate all black people because you don't like Obama?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You just said something that shows hate for Jews.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Roger Russel likes to watch them burn:

          7 minutes ago @ Breitbart.com - Romney wins Iowa in fi... • 1 reply • 0 points
          Almost as pretty as a burning church

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Yes, you said this.

          24 minutes ago @ Breitbart.tv - Soldier Found Guilty i... · 1 reply · +1 points
          "The whole town needs locked in the church and the church set on fire. IMO "

          And when you went on an additional rant I asked if the violence of the second act was as pretty for you as the burning church comment. And you of course having no integrity cut off the question mark.

    • Myrtlelinder

      Right but there is a problem: To be GOD'S children we have to accept HIS SON JESUS CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOR. This is great the entire universe and everything in it were created by GOD and his SON so it is HIS right to choose those who are obedient. HE loves HIS own. I can't figure our why but HE takes care of every one of us, anyway weather we can be called HIS children or not.

  • James

    What Jesus said in the Book of Revelation about those who add to or subtract from the Word of God definitely applies to the "translators" of this new "Bible."

    In the meantime, I'm waiting for a Jewish- and Christian-friendly Quran, which cuts out all the wording about "smiting infidels."

  • ForConstitution

    I notice the author of this article didn't mention how many words and/or phrases the NIV actually leaves out AND changes. Words like blood and phrases that affect and detract from the Deity of Christ.

    • patrick.zandi

      Thousands.. friend

  • Frank D Harrisson

    I like the Jerusalem Bible, I find it to be the most accurate of all of them. For those that are interested King James was born Catholic. His mother a devout catholic was Queen Ann of Scotland. Her sister was Queen Elizabeth I. Their father was King Henry VIII. Queen Elizabeth the royal head of the Church of England was very afraid of her sister Queen Ann and eventually had her beheaded. Queen Ann's court however hid Prince James among their relatives until the death of Queen Elizabeth I and on came HRH King James to claim the thrown. During these years James took it upon himself to translate the bible from Latin to Elizabethan English as he wished that all persons should learn to read and have a bible. In those days all books had to be scripted by hand with pen and ink and very expensive indeed. King James never pressed the issue that he was catholic but was able to mend some fences wherein the persecutions came to an end.

  • Capt

    Totally Bull Crap ! ! ! This stuff has gone way far enough. Lord Jesus please come soon ! ! ! You promised to shorten the days for the elect.

  • http://americanmoralliberty.blogspot.com/ Richard

    KJV is still a decent translation among the many which stand on original languages to which the KJV lacks in many of its words but however the Geneva 1570 and 1599 is where the KJV stole most of its language to honor Kings and not Peasants. King James wanted his own Bible and to make sure it was Roman Catholic based which the original was written with the Aprocrapha as literal Gods word that was added too the text which it is not Holy Writ but a mask of what the Gnostics and the Roman Catholics added like the Hadiths of the Koran. Technically there is no differences. IF one wants to know, Mohammed's clerics and translators since Mohammy could not read, His first older rich Wife's Brother in law who could read, read out of these apocraphetic Texts to this beginning movement that technically claimed JESUS is the Human of GOD but not truly GOD and that the confusion of the Jews waiting for Elijah still to this day remains BUT Mohammed thought and claimed he was that Elijah just like many others like Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russel, Reverend Moon, and some Rabbi's and false proclaimers in times past and present onto the future who were nominated and I can go on and on. Many refuse to accept this 100% fact of the KJV as well but KJV is still a good reference just a lacking greatly one, that is why we must as Christian's use all translations together to make sure we get true emphasis of each word, verse, and passage. For instance, when Christ's Propitiation was to end sin, other translations just use redemption but that is only part of what JESUS did. Propitiation is the full meaning of what Christ not broken down as other translations lack.

    Anyway enough of that lesson, one can study more about these facts...but for using Allah as God's name, that is blasphemy plain and simple. WYCLIFF translators ought to know better becuase it is RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM...ALLAH means also IDOL, GOD IS NOT AN IDOL. His name is LORD JESUS THE MESSIAH period and in the OLD TESTAMENT even in Arabic is ...“I AM (hayah ).....The word for was comes from the verb hayah, and it holds the key meaning of “I am” or “Yah” in the name of Yahweh.

    NO ALLAH here whatsoever.....Allah is an idol created by idolatry.....why cannot these people look this fact up?
    PROPHECY CODE-ll..The *Hidden* name of Lucifer.....Here is an example of what ALAH really means by my friend and author JEFF MANTY's BOOK Prophecy CODE II.. ...it is a hidden name of Lucifer....meaning to be lifted up or exalting but in this verb it is an action, one who wants to be lifted up...so ALAH is satan......Remember Lucifer wanted to be like the most High....Elyon which who GOD is and Alah is the verb.....HERE IS THE LINK http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_athr_dp_sr_1?_enc...

    HOW dare anyone who claims to be a Christian disobey SCRIPTURE, anyone who tries to make and terribly water down truth in order to PLEASE MEN ......Gal 1:9-10As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant [fn] of Christ.

    • VirgoVince

      Are these sites really the place you want to learn the history of the bible or the world??
      Don't you folks know what KISS means?? 'Keep It Simple, Stupid!!'
      Make your point, briefly, don't bore us to death and move out of the way!!

  • Russ

    The Bible is the Word of God and it is the inspired Word of God, which means God-breathed. It is the infallible Word of God and the inerrant Word of God. When men begin to make the Word of God more palatable or more comfortable to any group you can be assured that it will be riddled with error. Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. As God was present and in fact the Creator of all creation, visible and invisible, He was certainly present and active and the author if you will of the collection of books called the Holy Bible. When you change the Word of God and teach that water washes away sin you have stepped into that great abyss and quagmire of unbelief, what a tragedy! Satan changed God's Word in the garden of Eden and he is still changing it and will continue to do so until Jesus Comes. Salvation is found in The Lord Jesus Christ and His death, burial, and resurrection. His payment was for the sin of the world, I have been washed in the blood of Jesus Christ and you cannot and will not find cleansing from sin anywhere else. I hope Wycliffe reconsiders and retracts the portions of compromised scripture.

  • Sam

    Any version of any book that does not follow the original is just somebodies opinion and they want to control you. The King James version of the bible is just that, a version. Not the original.
    It is the same with the Koran. Most of the copies you can get here in the US are watered down with a lot of the hate speak and violence to non-believers removed so that it looks like a peace loving idea. Which it is not!

  • Gmd

    This is shocking and appalling about Wycliffe I given to them this will stop.

  • Gayle

    If Wycliffe and others seek to increase understanding, they can add a note section to explain words and concepts. A translation should translate. The Word is offensive, period. It is impossible to keep the Word from its intention unless it is no longer the Word.

    That the KJV-only crowd would come out to make a case against translations should be no surprise. These miss the point, though, that the KJV is a translation, too. To my knowledge, they have never found an original manuscript of the Bible but copies, such as 5,600 early copies of the NT. Since Textus Receptus (used to translate KJV), older manuscripts were found and used in translations such as NAS.

    I believe what Wycliffe did is wrong. If you agree, please consider signing the petition: http://biblicalmissiology.org/2012/01/16/fact-che... Thank you.

  • Grace

    How about the Dpiau-Rheim Bible. It was trnaslated with scrupulous accuracy from the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome (340-420 A.D.), wich was a careful translation from the orinal Greek and Hebrew.
    A Catholic from Minnesota.

  • Grace

    How about the Douay-Rheim Bible. It was trnaslated with scrupulous accuracy from the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome (340-420 A.D.), wich was a careful translation from the orinal Greek and Hebrew.
    A Catholic from Minnesota.

  • Matt

    And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book. Rev. 22:19

  • Rooster

    I am extremely disappointed to hear that Wycliffe and/or the SIL would have anything to do with this heretical version, if for no other reason than "Allah" is not another name for God. It is the name of an ancient demonic idol and evolved from other Babylonian idols (demons). Although this may be an honest effort to reach Muslims, it is misguided and only helps to reinforce a Satanic religion/political system. I have close friends who work with Wycliffe and especially with SIL; I am anxious to contact them about this to confirm or disallow it I hope it is the latter.

    Unfortunately, there are many translations meant to make God's Word current and relevant—but do just the opposite—they soft-sell and rubber stamp sinful life styles and worldly philosophies, and dilute God's Word, which brings serious consequences.

    As for the exclusivity of the KJV, I do not believe it is. There are several very accurate translations that contribute to the whole body of scriptural understanding. The Geneva Bible (1560), the Tyndale (1530) and The Great Bible (1539) all predate the KJV and in many respects are as good as or better. The "modern" translations that have been a great benefit to me and fellow Christians are the Berkley and New American Standard versions. The one version I most highly value is the John Nelson Darby translation. As a young college student, I regularly met the Lord in my "quiet times" while reading the J.B.Phillips NT and the John B. Williams NT. For study I have found The Interlinear Greek-English NT, the Amplified Bible, and the Concordant Greek Text and Concordant Literal Genesis, Isaiah, and NT translations to be invaluable.

    The truth is that God has blest us with many Godly, inspired men who have endeavored to translate the various Hebrew and Greek texts into accurate, readable, and usable texts—through which God is able to speak to us. There is no perfect translation. I find guidance, comfort and inspiration in having a rich collection of translations for reading, studying, memorizing and praying over.

  • Georgia boy

    "In particular regard to Bible translations done for Muslim contexts we affirm that in the majority of cases a literal translation of “Son of God” will be the preferred translation. In certain circumstances, specifically where it has been demonstrated that a literal translation of “Son of God” would communicate wrong meaning, an alternative form with equivalent meaning may be used. The alternative form must maintain the concept of “sonship”. All translations for Muslim audiences should include an explanation of the meaning of the phrase “ho huios tou theou” (the Son of God) when it refers to Jesus Christ. This may be in a preface, in one or more footnotes, or as a glossary entry, as seems appropriate to the situation." So, what are they trying to say here?

  • Ann Wilson Kingsley

    Christians need to be activist in getting the Torah and the Quran changed to eliminate insults and jihad to other religions instead of changing their own Bibles. All Christian groups, businesses, and activist groups need to start carefully assessing their groups for Communist/Socialist infiltration. While it may hurt to push notable Christian leaders into secular life, that is where they belong if they are not going to uphold God's Laws and Christian tenets. What I notice in particular is a tendency of the Christian movements to push social agendas in the national debate when social agendas are handled by rolling back Socialism. Social agendas are taken care of on the national level by ending "Big Government" and Federal control. When the fight is taken to the state level, the people have more control, and social issues can be solved quickly.

  • http://rightonweekly.com Tamara

    It is clearly a diffiult goal to reach in getting republicans to adhere to conservativsm as demonstrated by Floridians voting for Romney just because he has an (r) behind his name even though his policies memic Obamas.

    There moral compas has been turned off and they will cheer Romney just because he has a has an (r) behind his name instead of a (d) as teir only qualifier.

    So let no one be confused here. Know clearly that not all Muslims believe in this exacerbated form of JIHAD, nor do they all believe in lying to get ahead, and many have come here to ESCAPE Sharia, and they are looking at Americans, (YOU AND I) and wondering what in the hell is worng with Christian Americans that we are not speaking out. This inturn completely drives them to silence. Then mainstream Americans wonder why Muslims are silent.

    The trend is turning http://www.cfns.org/ & http://livingoasis.org/ are website run by ex-Muslim, and even in the face of threat are speaking out regardless. In many cases they are far braver than Christian Americans as they have no politically correctness in their speech what so ever.

    American Christins it is time to stand to stop Sharia law, and to ensure these Muslim born inigrants that have escaped Sharia that they have a choice to believe and practice a different way of life. Onne that offers real life and not mere existance. If Christians do not rise to this occasion they too will loose their "life" and be reduced to mere existance. You only get one chance. Today is the day! Spread this blog entry and other like it to your friends and neighbors. Politics, business and faith (or lack there of) overlap, always have and always will. Do it right by setting your core valuse! http://tamaraheater.wordpress.com/

  • Minnesota Catholic

    "Ignorance of Scripture is Igonorance of Christ." Saint Jerome
    Saint Jerome was a brilliant scripture scholar and translator of the bible. He was a consultant to popes, bishops and monks. None before or after him were so well qualified or gifted to achieve the monumental task of translating into Latin all the Hebrew books of the bible. A CATHOLIC FROM MINNESOTA.

  • VirgoVince

    WHY are we wasting time on something this asinine?? Dump the garbage back into the dumpster it fell out of and ship it back to the sand-worms and sand-storms!!
    They can't read, anyway, a waste of paper and ink or electronics...unless it shocks them to death!!

  • Keith

    The way I see it if the quote above is the example of spreading the Gospel of the Death Burial and Ressurection does NOT say just that, then what's the point?


    Muslime friendly 0h translation Anti Christ

    • MICKEY

      Correction if not already noted MUS-SLIME FRIENDLY

  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming Cognitive Dissident

    However small or rare the place may be, it seems to me there should still be a place where Muslims and Christians can sit down and give one another a chance to hear out the merits of one anothers' respective stories and cases to be made for their respective religions.

    I perceive (perhaps wrongly) that Christians are willing to share the word of Christ to all those who might listen, including those who have prior been of the Muslim faith.

    Isn't the "controversial" translation here in service of such a purpose?

  • Mocha 10

    Simple solution, Boycott the company until they remove this book from their publishings.

  • NavyBugchaser

    While there are some who disclaim the KJV as being the most accurate translation, one thing I must ask. When the group got together by the edict of King James and they tried to determine what books should be included in the Holy Canon, they sought the Holy Spirit's leading on which books should and should not be included. Apparently, the Holy Spirit, who is the third Person of the Holy Trinity, lead them to include the 66 books that we call the Holy Bible-King James Version. Obviously, there were books that could have been included if left up to man, such as the Apocrypha, etc. But God the Spirit did not lead them to include those books, so apparently they were not valid to the point that they should have been included.

    • NavyBugchaser

      Whether or not the Vulgate or Geneva Bible translations are more autoritive can be debated. The problem is that until the KJV was printed, the Scriptures were mainly in the hands of the priests and the people had to rely on the fact the priests were indeed giving them the full story and not some apostate teaching. The Apostle Paul commended the Berean believers for searching the Scriptures to prove that what he said, and he was the Apostle chosen by God, jived with the Holy Word. Considering that the KJV has survived and been used by God for over 400 years (1611-2012) must mean that it is a very good translation. Personally, I use the NKJV, because I do have a hard time with all of those archaic English words, but I still stand behind it as the best translation that we have out there. .

      • NavyBugchaser

        The Message is very New Age and I have no use for it. My denomination uses the NIV, but I have found omissions in it, which I do not think is right. And as far as I am concerned, any translation that does not quote John 3:16 as "For God so loved the world that He gave His ONLY BEGOTTEN Son, that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." ain't worth the paper it's written on

  • Tom

    What is missed here is the true reason for such a new supposed translation, an actually re-writing of the bible. The so called Muslim friendly version of the bible is actually nothing of the sort. Such a claim is an outright lie and ANY supposed Christians involved in this project should be royally ashamed of their participation in such a hoax. Does not the Christian and Hebrew bibles warn against "changing even one jot or one tittle of the word?" What are they doing then? The truth is, in islam, it is an acceptable practice to update, change and modify the holy texts. In this way, followers can be led by their proverbial noses into doing what ever the imams and Ayatollas wish them to do even if it is wrong, unethical, immoral and sinful. Muhammad was a very good example of such a leader. What is going on with this new version of the bible is nothing less that further stealth jihad.

  • Grey Foxx

    Wycliffe Bible translators would not do this. Don't believe it.

    • Stephen

      Don't kidd yourself.


    The Douay-Rheims Bible is the best, safest and most accurate translation of the Bible in English. It was translated with scrupulous accuracy from the Latin Vulgate Bible of St. Jerome (340-420 A.D.) which was a careful translation from the original Greek and Hebrew. A Minnesota Catholic.

    • Stephen

      You are kidding yourself.

  • Cognitive Dissident

    yeah, but I think he means just me. He might be under the belief that I am other people, but well, that's him for ya.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

      So, where can Christians sit down with Muslims?

      It's not in any sharia code or territory.

    • Ricky Michael

      the boy stays confussed.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        And you just stay the hypocrite.

        Why don't you sit near coggy, just downwind and see how the muslim halil food from the muslim potlucks agree with him?

    • WeeToddEdwards

      I hope you get e-mail replies I posted a message to you and quickly deleted it. It had my e-mail address.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        I don't care what it is.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Then why comment?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Why do you want to lock Christians in a church and burn them to death?

        • Tom

          He doesn't.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          But he does. He defended that comment when I called him on it.And he has continued to refuse to retract or change his position on it.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          Why don't you explain why I said that 12 weeks ago Roger Russel <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          How should I know why you said it.
          I can guess, but that's all it is. You, being a muslim friendly Christian hater were probably out looking for excuses to run the religion down, and pounced on this account even though it was told from one side and the side with the strongest agenda. You didn't care that Christians may or may not have been in the townsfolk, or that the townsfolk may have been reacting to something these people did.

          You just decided it was an excuse to pretend rage and denounce Christianity yet again.
          Am I close?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          No Roger Russel you are way off. I said if they did not do it that comment was uncalled for. You like to leave out certain parts to support your hatred towards me.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You said what you said. And you have been defending that comment since.

          Even if some of the townsfolk had been involved for no other reason than they were as led to rage as you seem to be, then they didn't they deserve a trial and only the guilty punished? And punished by what? Where is the punishment for arson the death penalty?

    • Ricky Michael

      Coggy, I am a real new testament christian unlike our friend. I maintain a civil tongue too. Please feel free to discuss anything you like with me, if you can stand the constant childish attacks that we must endure during our conversations.

      I am really here for dsicussion and not an pusuing an obsessive/replusive heretical agenda.

      • Cognitive Dissident

        I can tell RM. I've been plussing you because a) you are countering you-know-who, and b) because your comments are constructive.

        I'm a secular humanist (gasp!) but from a Christian (Catholic) cultural background that I remain very fond of.

        • Ricky Michael

          fascinating, listening to our friend it's hard to tell when you is making things up again or just lying. I thought you were muslim by all his rude comments.

        • Cognitive Dissident

          I fear that a lot of people bought into his lies. The worst thing about that is: This false labeling was his goal.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          I think they have. His exposer has come almost full circle. If you look he is getting TD's left and right.
          He bullied many people for so long it is time to get rid of him. I suppose we all be labeled muslium now.


        • Cognitive Dissident

          only in his warped little mind.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          The three of you are so happy together.
          Well coggy, you going to host a muslim friendly halil potluck for them?

          And of course I'll wonder what bridge you have it under.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

    You just figured that out? Coggy has been one of my first special projects for almost two years now.

    • Cognitive Dissident

      Roger - your tireless effort is bearing fruit.

      Check this out: http://www.manta.com/g/mt4qnlv/roger-russell

      So do you really own this place? I guess that explains all the free time you are able to spend here?

      • WeeToddEdwards

        He honselty believes stalking people is a project? I have noticed his hatred for you has been going on for a long time. What drives a person to do that except some sort of chemical imbalance in the brain.

        What an idiot

        • Cognitive Dissident

          I wonder what he thinks he's gained for his efforts?

          One thing he's accomplished: Demonstrated for us all to see what a troll from the the right side of the spectrum looks and acts like.

          I always wondered why people didn't speak up and discourage him. You know, since he's such an embarrassment. I give credit to all of the Anti-Rogers that are on the right - bravo for standing up for decency!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Coggy, you are just the gift that keeps on giving.

          Remember saying this?

          84 weeks ago @ Big Hollywood - Democrats -- Why so Un... · 1 reply · 0 points
          I don't post over at Kos and I never did. I am easily bored by "mutual agreement societies". If I felt the way you guys do about issues... my interest in these discussions would go for about 5 seconds.

          clearly, I'm argumentative and take pleasure in being the ants at somebody's picknick / rain on someone's parade. maybe there IS something wrong with me, in that, but I don't care. The way I see it- its a free country. Moreover, I value the "Socratic method". That may sound pretentious - implying that I'm here to offer "constructive" criticism. If I manage to do that then that's great, but I don't expect to be acknowledged."

          Making sure you're not taken seriously is all the reward I need.

    • WeeToddEdwards

      Pretty proud of your stalking efforts huh Roger Russel.

      Did I see your name on the rooster list from the Westbro site?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        I'm sure you checked and were hoping.

        Did I see your name on a mosque site?
        So, did you have a 'no the wagon' kind of day today?

        • WeeToddEdwards

          I saw it there. Right next to Fred Phelp's name <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SIZE: 12pt"> <DIV dir=ltr> <DIV style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px"></DIV>

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          And you being as bigoted as Phelps got upset that he was stealing your thunder?

          Poor little, little tiny wee wee. So bitter and frustrated.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          So you admit your preacher is bigot?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Phelps isn't my pastor.

          I don't know him and It's not my style to condemn out of hatred.

        • CDROM

          WTE- I believe I've figured something out. I've had squabbles with Roger where I'm finding a recent and generally benign comment is in moderation for some reason. This is what gave me the impression that he had some in with the moderators.

          Actually, I think he is routinely flagging something for moderation just on the hope that he can frustrate the person.

        • WeeToddEdwards

          No doubt he is paid Breitabrt

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          No, I'm not paid by anyone.

          And I get comments into moderation if I use certain key words and phrases just like everyone else.

      • Kevin Stowell

        "rooster list?"

        Roger's too humble for that.

  • Rod

    Last time I checked, most of the modern versions are taken from either the KJV or the NIV, which are both translations (or transliterations) of the Greek and Latin texts (primarily the Septuagint and Latin Vulgate), neither one is the "original" Bible. The KJV was commissioned by a non-believer in hopes of stopping the bickering amongst different Christian sects, we don't know much for sure about those who actually did the translation. The NIV was translated by a large group of scholars, some Christian, some not. The bottom line is either learn Greek and Hebrew or accept someone else's translation.

  • Todd

    having faith is not just believing in Jesus but bye livng like christ(turing from a sinfull life) after you have accepted him as your savior. So, it is through your works that you have faith. Just dont lose your focus on Jesus because through HIM is how you can get to Heaven.He is the Messiah and it is HIS blood that cleanse you.

  • bill

    Can someone please tell me what prescription grug contains the word social. ism? Must be what all the liberals are prescribed! You can't use that word on this site! what a load!

  • DavidMGus

    Why this outcry over the modifications that make these writings better able to relate to a segment of the human family? What makes anyone so confident that what we've used as scripture during our life-time is a totally accurate rendition of the original writings? How old is the oldest of our manuscripts? How many re-writings of that work occurred since the original? How do we know it wasn't altered in a way that didn't anger others during that time? When one considers that as written, those writings were intended to communicate concepts to people of that era. Is it possible there are perhaps even more relevant ways of communicating those same truths to us now in the light of what we've learned about the universe through quantum physics? Is it possible that what we've considered to be totally inerrant, is in fact confusing us, so much so that it requires a highly trained theologian to understand it?...and even then they don't even agree with each other. Or perhaps the simplicity of hearing the inner voice of our Source will provide guidance to our lives in the same way Jesus received communication from On High.

  • Thomas E Pryor

    Matthew 28;19 is a spurious vesre. So I do not see the problem, as all Christians should be well aware that it is not a correct renedring of the verse to beging with. But an addition by a triune scribe. As are 1 John 5; 7-8, (the three witnesses). I would advise all Christians to researcha and learn... and not be led along by their nose. God tells you to see the truth.

    Mt 28:19 "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in My name." ie; the name of Christ Y'Shua. The words"in the name of the father son and holy ghost" were added by an industrious triune scribe.

    Of course as the Apostle John wrote in his revelations... AV Re 17:2 "With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication."

    And we all are aware of who the great whore is, the Chaldean Catholic Church.

    • chummali

      You would "advise Christians to researcha ( sic) and learn" ??? I would advise you to go back to school and take spelling and grammar lessons, then get on your knees and pray that God's Spirit will "lead you into all truth." No, wait ! Maybe you should do that first!

  • Canadien goose

    The Bible is by definition a compilation of scriptures composed of the Tora , the introduction of monotheism and the worship of RA by toutom - Amon , most stories are littered with vices and talored to keep people mystyfied . Bible is latin for library , there were at least six differant authors and many partitions added including one that justifies slavery !

  • jaxum

    Regardless of the version of the real, Christian version of the Bible you go by,it sounds to me as though these dim wits are praying five times a day facing Mecca. Either that or they are a bunch of lily livered cowards, who will knuckle under to the first complaint received from any off the wall group; the heck with the majority of the people in this country, or how they look as a result.

  • pcsrocky

    A novel idea, let EVERYONE you know that this bible (it does not deserve a capital letter) is not worth the paper on which it is printed. Enforce the lack of credibility of a bible which is more concerned about offending Muslim feelings than being correct! A real Bible translates, as close as possible, the original wording. So far, the Catholic Bible is the closest to the original writing.

    Again, make sure EVERYONE you know has the information that this bible is not worth the paper on which it is printed!!!!

  • Terry

    Just another example of Mulsims infiltrating, penetrating and subverting another's faith and country, one small step at a time over a long period of time. Add this to the list. When if ever, will we object?
    I say we publish an illustrated Koran, much like the violent, cartoon religion that it is. We can start with the Dutch cartoons already available to us.

  • Dena

    For those who are saying this is no longer a reliable source of information, you need to do your research. This is NOT the only site reporting on Wycliff and the muslim friendly translation!

  • Eyes_Open

    Now this is just funny, producing a sacred religious text, for another religion to relate to it. When do we get the Koran for Christians. You know most Muslims would see that as a slap in the face, so how can anyone see this as anything different for Christians?

  • bill

    For those that do not know. The people who now worsip allah once had a conglomerate of gods that they worshipped. All mohamed did was to do away with all but one, allah, who for people from his culture was the moon god. No matter if he is called allah, the moon god, baal, etc..., it is all as it was, when they worshipped baal in ancient times, all pagan/devil worship!

  • David in MA

    Islam came around about 450 years after the Conferance at Necia and was delivered by a murderious pedifile and attempted to conqure the known world at that time. The Crusaders had the right idea, eridicate the muslims and almost did if it were not for Salanizar (sp).....Now, the civilized world is once again threatened by Islam....
    Other than the Geniva Bible, the "truest" word of GOD that exists today is the 1611 The King James Version of the Holy Bible, nor any other corrupted version of the bible and definately not the koran.
    NOW, for Wycliffe, who is this? I seem to remember a Wycliff in my readings who was a satanic occult leader, same people/ancestry? Or, do I have a mix-up?

  • Stephen

    "They fail to realize that there are some very accurate translations that pre-date the King James such as the Geneva Bible,"

    That's not true at all, there many of us that know about Geneva Bible 1599.

    "Now, another new Bible version is soon to be on the market and from what I have read and seen so far, may be one of the worst Bible versions to be printed yet"

    The whole idea behind these new versions has "always" been to mislead people away from God's Word. Nothing new there.

  • http://www.linkedin.com/in/GaryMallast Gary Mallast

    I always thought St. Jerome’s Vulgate pretty much standardized the Latin text of the Bible providing the foundation for subsequent translations from Latin, Greek, and Hebrew for that was what I was taught in high school in both Church History and Bible classes. Turns out things are a lot more complicated. St.Jerome himself expressed the pitfalls involved in response to the commission by Pope Damasus in 382 to revise and correct existing Latin renderings of the Bible and put them into a coherent form:

    "You urge me to revise the old Latin version, and, as it were, to sit in judgment on the copies of the Scriptures which are now scattered throughout the whole world; and, inasmuch as they differ from one another, you would have me decide which of them agree with the Greek original. The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous and presumptuous; for in judging others I must be content to be judged by all; and how can I dare to change the language of the world in its hoary old age, and carry it back to the early days of its infancy? Is there a man, learned or unlearned, who will not, when he takes the volume into his hands, and perceives that what he reads does not suit his settled tastes, break out immediately into violent language, and call me a forger and a profane person for having the audacity to add anything to the ancient books, or to make any changes or corrections therein?”

  • Rocket Man

    This is an insult and a hinderance to the faith of many, many Muslims who converted to fatih in Jesus Christ, risked their lives and even died for the truth of God's Word. This fraud bible has already been rooted in Liberation Theology (Obama's Rev. Wright's faith) that drives around with bumper stickers that say "I am a Muslim and a Christian too". Anything goes in the world of Unitarian Religions as long as Socialism is the main theme.

  • Lois

    From Wycliffe's 1395 Bible - Matthew 28:19-20 -- Therfor go ye, and teche alle folkis, baptisynge hem in the name of the Fadir, and of the Sone, and of the Hooli Goost. techynge hem to kepe alle thingis, what euer thingis Y haue comaundid to you; and lo! Y am with you in alle daies, in to the ende of the world.

    From Green's Literal Translation - Then having gone, disciple all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you. And, behold, I am with you all the days until the completion of the age. Amen.

    Amplified -- Go then and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them [b]into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Teaching them to observe everything that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with you [c]all the days ([d]perpetually, uniformly, and on every occasion), to the [very] close and consummation of the age. [e]Amen (so let it be).

    Latin Vulgate - euntes ergo docete omnes gentes baptizantes eos in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis et ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque ad consummationem saeculi

    King James - Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

    The bottom line is that, for centuries, many people have given their lives so that average individuals could have access to the bona fide Scripture record. It makes no sense whatsoever that Wycliffe Bible Translators would suddenly decide to throw all of those sacrifices away!

  • Bill

    Watch Dr. Jack Van Impe on his weekly Broadcast to learn about CHRISLAM and who is behind it.

  • bill

    Christians & Jewish martyrs say; "I will die for what I believe".
    A Muslim martyr says; "you will die for what I believe"....

  • rjh25

    Who is Wycliffe a rapper?

  • NKM

    Does anyone think there will ever be a "Christian friendly" version of the Koran?

  • djw663

    The Bible is the Bible like all works of art and literature they should not be rewritten. These yahoo's are trying to rewrite history and that will only set the world up for failure. We cannot change the past but we study it to make sure the mistakes we made do not happen again.

  • wrdalton

    It is unclear to me from your article whether Wycliffe Bible Translators has undertaken a new translation of the Bible into Arabic, the common language of the Muslim faith, a portion of which you or someone has, in turn, translated into English, or whether they have a new English translation aimed at members of the Muslim community. If the latter, I don't see much demand for this project, at least in the United States. But if the former, then I think any translation into Arabic today will have to take into account that the usage of terms, particularly theological terms, are not the same as in the days before Mohammad wrote the text of the Koran, reforming the thought and the speech of much of the world since that time. If one is going to translate God's Word in Jesus Christ to those whose theological understanding has been formed by instruction in the Koran, one is going to have to choose terms in the translation that are at least congruent with contemporary Muslim thought and not at war with it. There are enough real differences between orthodox Christian and Muslim teaching without adding misunderstanding of meaning due to different usage of common terms.

    Jesus spoke of and prayed to God, Allah in the Arabic tongue, as Father, and called himself the Son of God and the Son of Man. Any translation of the Bible into any language will have to find distinctive words to which to assign those terms and use them consistently throughout the translation. Is there any reason a contemporary Muslim would take offense at those terms being the same as those used in Arabic for "father" and "son" as they are commonly used? I don't know.

    I do know that contemporary liturgists in the English language have shied away from the traditional Trinitarian formula, "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", out of concern that those who have experienced an abusive father or for other reasons feel aggrieved by what they view as oppressive patriarchy in society, have preferred the formula, "Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer". From my standpoint, this description (not identification) of the Trinity is not only deficient, but misleading, confusing certain attributes of the Godhead (which are not even exclusive to any of the Persons of the Godhead) with the Persons of the Godhead themselves.

    But, if you are taking a contemporary American pagan, more concerned about the evils of patriarchy than the evils of sin, and wishing to explain to them the nature of God, of Jesus Christ, and of God's plan for salvation, you might wish to begin with using some terms that aren't offensive to their ears. Certainly this should not be sufficient as an end goal to bring anyone to understand and affirm the truth of the Christian faith, but it may be the wisest course for the beginning. I think a similar strategy might be best to adopt in approaching those whose basic concepts of God were formed in the Muslim faith.

    Be certain you understand the nature and purpose of what you criticize before you take to publicizing your criticisms of it.

  • hot02rod


  • WeeToddEdwards

    Yes you sent me a link to the Letters of Pilate. I read them some time ago. Still does not prove anything

    • Ricky Michael


      I suppose pilate was making up all that stuff about seeing a man he put to death walking around and talking, hunh? why would he lie?

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        You two pretending to have a discussion is so cute.

        So, what other profiles is wee wee having on this story?

        And if you were all that hot you would know ricky that Pilot went back to Egypt after being recalled to Rome and was governor there. He had converted (born again) and is a huge figure in the coptic Egpytian church.

      • Ricky Michael

        Sorry folks, my stalker has found me again. Now you guys will have to endure all the childish imature comments that go along with his discovery.

        BTW, "Legend" has it that Pilate was indeed converted. Hard not too when he talked to the Lord after he had Jesus put to death. The romans were experts in killing people. they knew for a fact that Jesus was dead.

        Pilate was recalled to Roman to give an account of his dealing with Jesus. Ceasar was very hacked off that Pilate had Jesus put to death. What happens after that gets very fuzzy. some say Ceasar put him to death and some say he lived on in Egypt. It's hard to tell.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Too bad you simply don't believe the Bible and accept what it says.

          And to think you don't believe the sacrifice on the Cross was the starting point for the New Covenant? That cheapens and calls into question everything about the sacrificial system Moses helped establish.

      • Ricky Michael

        Sorry folks, my stalker has found me again. Now you guys will have to endure all the childish imature comments that go along with his discovery.

        • FlameCCT

          Yup. He was on last night too, trolling away. Brave Sir Roger of Westboro! (h/t RM)

          He has trouble understanding that we have nothing to fear from the secular world. The more the secular world tries to "find" issues with Scripture, the more they verify the authenticity.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          And you are the 'Neville Chamberlain' of Christians.

        • Ricky Michael


          Just because I try to expand my knowledge of everything "Bible" I am constantly accused of "Just not accepting the Bible." this type of attitude is kinda like the ostrich with head in the ground approach.

          Resaonable people, not like minded, can see right through the constant lies he tells concerning both me and you. His knowledge of the scriptures is so underwhelming it is pitiful.

          I can't stop him from looking like an idiot, I've tried numerous occasions, so let him entertain us. He should add a court jester hat to his picture. That would be fun.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Yet you have things as your dogma not found in the Bible, like the old covenant being for the thief that died on the cross after Christ.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Sliding into the 'cut and paste' level of thinking?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Cut and paste much.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          No, actually.... you'll need to endure me exposing just how lacking you are in understanding of the scriptures in spite of your pretended expertise. So, why don't you explain how after Christ was dead, His blood isn't allowed to cover the thief under the new covenant again?

        • FlameCCT

          Isn't it funny how your stalker is all knowing about Scripture even to the point that he states that Liberty Theological Seminary and their professors are not a good for learning about the Bible, Theology, et.al. Makes one wonder who is answering his prayers for guidance before reading Scripture.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Not if he's an example and not if they're as hypocritical.

        • Ricky Michael

          I want peace between you and me. this is the fifth time I have offered the olive branch. Please stop your stalking and harassment of me and the others. This really isn't a kind thing to do to someone.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You want capitulation.

          You want me to ignore the hate, the lies, the misrepresentations that these use to smear my God.

          Did you read Matt 23? Did Christ allow that?

        • Ricky Michael

          Hebrews 12:14-15
          New King James Version (NKJV)

          14 Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: 15 looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled;

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Matt 23 is full of Christ trying to set evil in it's place. Why should I do any less?

          And how in the world can you take your text and make the jump to the concept you must protect evil like burning a church full of Christians as a good idea?

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Roger I have been watching the way you go after Ricky and it comes down to this: - he has his way of doing things and you have yours. Do you have the right to force your interpretation of the Bible onto him? From an outsiders perspective, that is exactly what you are trying to do and it does not come off well.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          He defends evil. That's not the act of a Christian.

          And he's free to do so anyhow. But when he says I don't have the right as a Christian to do the very things Christ did (when Christ is my example) I"m going to explain it in a detailed way why I don't agree.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          So that must include stalking

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          This is a public forum, it has the designed option of 'followers'.

          It's something they should see as an understandable risk when Wee wee advocates violence against Christians. Why do you think it's wrong for me to disagree with violence against a religion?

        • Myrtlelinder

          Roger it is better to ignore people who are ignorant of the meaning of GOD'S WORD but still try to explain it, or to twist it to what they want it to be

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          So, when are we as Christians allowed to explain the hope we have within us?

          When did we get a pass to not bother saying "God's people don't deserve to get locked in churches and burned to death"?

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          Myrtle - you are quite the "tolerant" Christian, aren't you. It must be a crime to ask questions in your world. Kind of reminds me of the Catholic church about 1,500 years ago, where the members weren't allowed to ask questions, hold a bible, read from the bible, or attend a sermon in their native tongue. Oh yea, but they could pay the Priest for forgiveness of their sins, expecially if the Priest wanted to buy a new home.

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Your anti-Christian bias is coming to the surface.
          If you want to pretend to be a Christian you need to watch for that more.

        • Obama Nobel Failure

          So let me get this straight - I am anti-Christian because I call out people that claim to be Christians, who won't allow their members to hold a bilbe, read from a bible, attend a sermon in their native tongue, or ask questions? Maybe I should support such behavior... right?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Trying to change the argument are we?

    • FlameCCT

      You could try Asimov's Guide to the Bible. He was an atheist.

      • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

        And why would you look to an unbeliever for spiritual insight? We had this discussion before. You offered nothing to counter the text and now you go on repeating your error as is you have some credibility.

        Yeah right. What evil are you going to defend today? Just an hour ago you defended wee when he said he wanted to burn a town full of Christians locked inside a church.

        That is the 'Neville Chamberlain" school of Christianity, and Paul didn't explain the armor of God so we could surrender to evil.

        • FlameCCT

          I look to experts in their field for knowledge about this world and events that have occurred throughout history. I was taught to look at many different texts so I could discuss issues with full knowledge instead of spouting male bovine excrement like you. WTE asked for a text that was written by someone that is not connected to any religion so I provided what was requested.

          Why do you insist on twisting everything that does not fit your heretical beliefs? Why do you attempt to deny G-D's creation? Why are you so afraid of gaining knowledge? Why do you cherry pick passages of Scripture, out of context, in an attempt to justify your behavior?

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          Yet you think that pentecost is the beginning of the new covenant?

          And what happened to all those morals you wanted to cram down my throat? Why aren't you keeping them now?

  • Ricky Michael

    Only real proof you will have is when you stand face to face with him, doing lots of splaining, Lucy.

    • Brama

      Exactly... more proof to WeeTodd is like "more weight" to the Puritans during the Salem Witch Trials. By the time he has enough proof, it will be too late. But it's not a lack of proof, it's a denial of it.

  • budman

    I must admit I am not versed in any bible version but I wonder if any version of the bible states if you are not of their faith, then you are an infidel and must die? I have read this, although it may not be exactly as written here is in the Koran.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

      You're spot on.

      9:29 Fight against such of those who have been given the Scripture as believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, and forbid not that which Allah hath forbidden by His messenger, and follow not the Religion of Truth, until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.

      It's not just a single text in the koran either. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/9/

      If you read the entire chapter you'll be shocked how clear it is. And while some muslims will say it's taken out of context, when you listen to the news from around the world it's exactly what they're doing.

      • budman

        They cannot deny the killing of the Coptic Christians or the killings of Christians elsewhere around the world. They kill their own calling it "honor killing" for violating their religious beliefs as happened just a few days ago here in the United States.

        I call this fanatical and not in consonance with their call for love and peace in the world.

  • deprofundisclamavi

    Syncretism run amok. Another way of getting the camels, and the camelmounters, under the tent with universal sharia as the goal.

  • joe

    There is nothing friendly about muslims.

  • http://www.rgbterrain.com/ ireAmerica

    As a student of theology for many years, I would like to offer a generic or secular observation;

    In every major spiritual tradition but one, God offers a correct path to the free will of each person. The remaining one, only spiritual to the uninformed, is Islam. Islam was invented as a tool of empire, and enforces submission. The first member of Islam was inducted through spiritually corrupt marriage to a child-relative and participation in serial murder.

    Moslems have been teaching each other hatred of all Infidels since before they provoked the Crusades, and ever since - in addition to constant and often fatal abuse of their own women and children. And commonly employ devastating violence against true innocents around the world. This is not religion.

    Islam has sought global domination since long before America existed, killing thousands of Jews, Christians, Hindus, Bhuddists and others of various faiths. This radical theocratic despotism has been executed for centuries, in the name of "holy" empire.

    Repudiate the teachings of Islam, reject their incompatible "faith" and "culture", rescue their women and children. Scrutinize this dangerous cult without compassion. Stay vigilant, informed and armed.

  • Diana

    This is a rumor gone wild. It is another attempt by Satan to ruin the good name of an exemplary Christian organization. They would not think of producing a Bible for the sake of being "Muslim friendly". Go ahead. Try to buy a copy of this so-called Muslim friendly translation. You will not find it. The translations produced (at tremendous personal cost and suffering) by Wycliffe have been used to bring many Muslims into a solid walk with Jesus.


    When the Protestants began their own religion after Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church. They decided to change the Bible and eliminate several entire books and two other books: Tobias, Judith,Wisdom,Eccleasticicus, Baruch,First and Second Macchebees,and parts of Esther (10:14 to 16:14) and Daniel (3:24-90 13-14) Books adopted by the early Catholic Chuch with the Septuagint. The Catholic Church began at the time of Christ and his Apostles. the KJV was a latecomer and as scholars believe, was inspired by man.

    • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

      Actually it was the other way around. The Catholic Church never acknowledged them as scripture, but as "profitable for reading." That was until Luther made such a point of how certain Catholics pushed points in these books as if they were scripture. The point was pressed by Luther to the point that the Church decided to include them as scripture, or with the authority of scripture. None of these extra Biblical books were understood by the early church, or the medieval church to be scripture.

  • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

    You must recognize that Allah or Alaha was used to refer to God long before Islam. It is still used in Bible Translations of the Assyrian Christians. The word refers to God the creator. I will not say that it has been filled up with meaning, within Islamic teaching, against a the picture of God revealed in the Bible. But, let me point out that earlier Bible translators had a difficult time deciding whether or not to use the pagan Germanic word "Got" in the translation of the Bible. They realized that "Got" did not have any baggage in terms of origin of the word that would conflict with the scriptures understanding. So, they used the word, and that is why God is called God in the English Bible. The Bible defined and revealed who "Got" was and how he created the world, and who is son is, and how you must trust him to be saved from eternal death, sin, and in order to have a restored relationship with God.

    In terms of idioms, or slang: It has been used in various Bible translations, including English, to keep it from being repulsive or distracting where it does not need to be. So, for instance, in 2 Sam 11:4 it says King David "slept" with Bathsheba, referring to David's adultery. The word slept there is shakab and it has a sexual reference that may even have been something akin to ravish. Translators many times are confronted with staying true to the original context and language without putting necessary offense in the way of the reader in a way that would be offensive enough to turn them away from reading in a way that may not have been as offensive to the original writers. I do agree though that the translator needs to make sure to be faithful in their translation to the context. background, and especially the text of the passage.

    • http://www.bcsig.org Aric

      Let me clarify "I will not say that it has been filled up with meaning, within Islamic teaching, against a the picture of God revealed in the Bible." What I meant to say is that I will say that the meaning of Allah has been filled up with meaning that is against a picture of God as revealed in the Bible. I will not say that the word Alaha itself as a general term for God, that most in that Arabic culture understand as referring to God the Creator, is so filled up with baggage that it must be rejected. I believe the Islamic teaching must be rejected in favor of what God reveals about himself in the Bible. I agree that embracing the Islamic teaching would be to compromise Scripture. If in back translation they determine that the reader cannot separate Islamic teaching from scriptural teaching about God, or if Allah has illicit sexual contact, or does things God does not do, then I would agree they should find a different word for God. I will say that when translators use a general term for God that is already understood in the culture, and able to be redefined by scriptures, the people read it as truth rather than fiction. Similar to the way you can make the distinction between god and God, or when a cult group that distorts the Bible's teaching refer to God you are able to distinguish it from the God of the Bible.

      Read more: Wycliffe Bible Translators Producing Muslim Friendly Bible http://godfatherpolitics.com/3484/wycliffe-bible-...

  • boomerdink

    Appalling. I am very disappointed in Wycliffe! What is happening in this world?!

  • richard holmes

    islame is the word of the devil. Those that believe it the words of the koran are demons



  • Pazuzu

    When I'm able to change the koran so that everyrtime the word allah comes up it translates as the 'devil' and mohammed translates as the 'false prophet', I'll be okay with it. But; frankly, I'm appalled that mediaeval barbarians would be allowed to touch our scriptures.

  • John W

    Every one just slow down, don't believe everything you hear or read, this is a phony story with absolutely no basis. Wycliffe is NOT making ANY kind of a translation containing the rubbish in this article. We have family in Wycliffe, and this story is a total fabrication.

  • JDB

    The idea is called "synchretism," and it is not new. This is just a new manifestation of the old 'going the wrong way.'

    I prefer the New King James Version and the Geneva 1599, myself.

  • Dee

    Revelation 22: 18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

    19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
    Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar

    Deuteronomy 4:2 ye shall not add unto the word which I commanded you , neither shall ye diminish from it>>>>>

    Deuteronomy 12:32 >>>thou shall not add thereto , nor diminish from it King James Bible

    Most new bibles are adding and taking away, people that write these new so called bibles are not led by the our God and infilled with the Holy Ghost.

  • http://www.chick.com Raymond

    Does it matter which bible we read?
    Yes it does. So-called Christian bookstores are selling
    satanic counterfeits.
    The Attack http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0031/0031_01....

  • John D. Beach

    Isn't the issue in translation the extent to which general revelation becomes special revelation or vice-versa? Special revelation can not be misappropriated to or by people for whom it was or is not intended. "The preaching of the gospel (of Christ) is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved, it is the power of God (unto salvation)." "God is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance."
    To what extent can the message of the gospel be so perverted by man, specifically in translation, that its meaning is lost to a person who is reading it? Is this any more perverse than the testimonies of the lives of people who call themselves "Christians" in and out of context?
    But since the Holy Spirit is all powerful, can't He take the translation and make it satisfy the need of the reader to understand the message of salvation?. "Neither is there salvation in any other for there is no other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved." Who is " Allah?" Who is "his messiah?" Who is "His Holy Spirit?" Is Allah the same as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? If "his Messiah" Jesus Christ, the son of God? Is "his Holy Spirit" the same comforter whom Jesus said he would send after he departed earth and went back to God, the Father? Are the answers to these questions only discerned by the Muslim reader of the translation? We are still individuals even though we may agree concerning having the "mind of Christ" or experiencing the "unity of the Spirit." What is the meaning of "salvation" and if it is not contextually possible or relevant in the everyday life of the individual, is the special revelation of it even pertinent, except as it pertains to the afterlife?

  • Blair Franconia, NH

    The Bible has been translated into many languages. Although the Catholic Church opposed it. The Koran has NEVER been translated into the languages of the countries the Muslims conquered.

  • Jack

    You should check your facts before printing something without varifying it from the source. Here is Wycliffeds answer to what people like you are twisting and claiming to be true.

    Wycliffe Bible Translators USA

    Thank you to those who have contacted Wycliffe recently asking about the validity of claims that Wycliffe is "removing the 'Son of God'" from our translations. We are not. Wycliffe remains committed to the same objectives we've held sacred for 80 years: biblically accurate and culturally relevant translations of Scripture. Wycliffe's commitment to communicating the important concept of familial relationships in the Trinity is being questioned because of a difference of opinion about the use of common language terminology in the specific instances of translating the words which, in English, are translate "Son of God" and "Father." We are listening to those who share these objectives, seeking together the best ways to accomplish accuracy and relevance with each language community in which we serve.

  • screeminmeeme

    Many people don't know that there are streams of bible manuscripts: One stream is the uncorrupted mss from Antioch, which were hidden and protected by many christians who were ultimately killed because of it. The other stream is the Alexandria, which were corrupted by the gnostics who altered the text to suit their own doctrinal views. ( ie: removing/changing those passages which support the deity of Christ). The gnostic Origen's hexapla is the translation that was used by Eusebius to make 50 new translations which were commissioned by Contantine. The Vaticanus and Siniaticus are the only 2 remaining translations of those and they disagree in over 2500 places in the gospels alone! Yet they are held up as the ones to be trusted because they are so old.

  • screeminmeeme

    The KJV is the ONLY translation today which comes from the uncorrupted mss. EVERY OTHER modern translation comes thru the Westcott/Hort translation which relied on the corrupted mss from Alexandria. It's not surprising that the publishers are once again willing to pervert the Word of God by compromising with Islamic teachings and unwilling to heed the warnings of scripture: Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. Also Rev 22: 18,19.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com Silas Longshot

    It's plainly the continued subversion of all things 'western' from our society, our laws and courts, our Constitution, to the very foundations of Christianity. I would not consider this abomination a 'Bible' in any stretch of the word.
    muslims and islam and their false 'religion' are out to dominate the planet by direct force or thru subversion and cunning deceit like this 'islam frendly' "bible".

    Click the name, learn to survive!

  • http://twitter.com/Deepizzaguy @Deepizzaguy

    Wait until this joker stands before the Lord and He tells him that he practiced lawlessness and He does not know him for watering down His Holy Word to appease another faith.

  • sharon

    go to John Ch 14 V28 This is Jesus speaking.. on this earth.... "I go unto the Father for My Father is GREATER than I" This is not to say that Jesus Christ was not of His heavenly Father.. but He is NOT God.... He is of God. Jesus Christ NEVER called us His children.. He called us His Bretheren... Yahweh God always called us His Children. .. not His bretheren.. Trinity Doctrine is nothing but that.. a Doctrine. there is no three in one hocus pocus .. three headed thingy that a child can not understand..There is God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Catholics pray to Saints and to Mary.. our heavenly Father tells us Not to do such things..

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

    I have that reaction at some of the things you say here.

    Like the fact you haven't been born again by accepting Christ into your heart, and consider the Billy Graham prayer as not biblical.

  • Doug Baker

    Perhaps we should look to the actual compilers of the Bible: Roman Catholics, for true authority. My son likes to point out that the biggest flaw in all "Protestant" theology is that they lack the Book of Wisdom, a uniquely Catholic inclusion of scripture in the One True Church established by Christ, Himself! I pray for the souls of all my dear friends caught up in the heresy that was mistakenly dubbed "The Reformation". It was not their error, any more than the errors of the clergy throughout the ages are the error of the magisterium. People confuse the frailty of men with mistaken doctrine. The doctrine has never been the source of error. It has always been the failings of humans, not of Christ's Church, that has caused suffering. Indeed, to stand an adage on its ear, I must suggest we erred in throwing out the bathwater with the babies (humans), when it wasn't the water (the Church and its doctrine) that was foul, but the babies that were flawed.

  • heylottylotty

    Certainly it is important that we "laypeople" receive the best, most accurate translation of the Holy Scripture. And, I am certain that with all the computer brainpower there is, we could easily have a Bible that reflects the most accurate (collections) of ancient manuscripts. Unfortunately, as long as man is involved, including King James, we will have versions that slant toward their views on what shoulc be in print. It is therefor, important to do as the New Testament says and search to prove these thing to be true. With that said, why will stores in the U.S. buy yet a new translation that without a doubt is falsified so a different, aggressive political religion can abuse the Christian faith. Remember, this is the group that vowed to kill people who even got their book dirty. I say we should demand a translation of the Koran that is watered down to fit how we see it should be. I still wonder about any American book seller that would carry such a vile misrepresentation of the Holy Bible.

  • bptstjd4av1611

    "If it aint King James... it aint Bible!" The Geneva is NO comparison to the King James. This is an important issue, but to say all others are okay is ludicrous....

  • Paul427

    This is a disgrace, literally!!! How dare they take the Name of the Lord our God in vain!!! And that is what many understand the meaning of this part of the Ten Commandments truly includes. My understanding of the name Allah (small "n" intentional) is that it is the name of a moon god. Our God is not Allah. Our God's Divine and only Begotten Son is the Sinless One who died for our sins. Only God is without sin. If Jesus was not without sin, He could not offer us His own Sacrificial Substitution on the Cross, something which Islam rejects. THERE IS NO SALVATION APART FROM CHRIST JESUS AND HIS SACRIFICE ON THE CROSS!!! IF YOU DO NOT ACCEPT THE GOSPEL AS IT IS OFFERED, YOU THROW OUT SALVATION FROM YOUR MIDST. WYCLIFFE IS NOT SAVING MUSLIMS WITH THIS GARBAGE. INSTEAD THEY ARE EXCHANGING THE TRUTH FOR A LIE AND GIVING THEMSELVES AND THEIR VICTIMS JOIN INVITATIONS TO HELL. I call upon the hosts of this website to print out in hard copy the article and commentary by the various responders and send it all to Wycliffe to show them their error. How dare they?!!!

  • LukeAppling

    Why have Politically correct muslim bible muslims would do no such thing for infidels.

  • John Lindstrom

    The claims about Wycliffe are false. See Wycliffe's very clear and conservative statement on how they translate in Muslim contexts at their website: http://www.wycliffe.org/TranslationStandards.aspx

    It is easy to make false claims about an organization like Wycliffe. But once those claims are made, it is not easy to put an end to them. I recall that the son of God also had false claims made against him that led to his crucifixion. So Wycliffe is in good company.

  • El Loco

    Regardless of translation, the "bible" is a book of myths, allegories, superstitions, vagueness, contradictions and falsehoods. It can be interpreted in any way the "interpreter" desires and can be used to support or condemn any ideological position. Why the astonishment and outrage when an interpretation is used to make it "friendly to Islam. The study of syllogisms shows that given a chosen false premise, one can "prove" any given proposition,

    • Are You Serious

      Your name says it all.

  • MikeB

    Wycliff seems to be denying this, and I tend to believe them, given their solid history... http://www.wycliffe.org/SonofGod.aspx

  • Pastor David Grey

    I am surprised that there are only one or two postings from anyone claiming to have contacted Wycliffe and asked them if this were true. Do you all respond without checking it out (not that I really blame you for I have never before had reason to question anything on this site). However, this accusation was so serious that I did contact Wycliffe found that they have received so many inquiries that their system immediately sends the caller to an automated message denying the allegation. I am awaiting a call back from Wycliffe so that I may speak to someone in person regarding the matter. This is such a serious accusation that if I indeed do find that it is NOT true, will hit, 'unsubscribe'. I will also watch to see if my note here even gets posted in its entirety.


      Pastor Dave...I have not called Wycliffe....for which i thank you for setting this straight....but on the other hand if this was true and since last june around 23 to 32 states had Pastor's in a numerous denominations ...Held a Chrilsim service comparing the two as one religion so this story of the production of a muslim friendly bible would not surprise me......These are definetly the end times for sure.....and since many want to combine Christianity and Islam together. to make a one world religion...to go along with the one world government......Something is surely up and all i can say Come quickly Lord Jesus.....God Bless

  • http://godfatherpolitics.com Tracie

    Revelation 22:18-19; For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him plagues that are written in this book: and if any man take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and FROM the things which are written in this book.
    Commentary to these scriptures: This warning is given to those who might purposefully distort the message in this book. Moses gave a similar warning in Deuteronomy 4:1-4. We, too, must handle the Bible with care and great respect so that we do not distort its message, even unintentionally. We should be quick to put its principles into practice in our lives. No human explanation or interpretation of God's Word should be elevated to the same authority as the text itself.

  • ron hongsermeier

    if you can't tell the difference between a paraphrase, a transliteration and the NIV, I think it might be wise for you to withhold judgement on the accuracy of any Bible translation. One of the best arguments against the authenticity of the so-called gospel of Barnabas, which is the "gospel" (ingil) of choice for some Muslims, is that it doesn't know that the greek "christos" and hebrew "messaiach" are virtually identical and says he's one but puts one under severe penalty for saying he's the other.

  • FlameCCT

    You could also look at the books from Lee Strobel, in particular The Case for Christ. When his wife became a Christian, he thought that was the end so he decided to investigate (look for proof) and show his wife she was wrong. You might find it an interesting read especially since you need proof.

    • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

      It was a moving video.

      But it still comes down to faith, after looking at all the evidence deciding God means something to you.

    • Ricky Michael

      Great book, I too suggested that one too him. I got to hear Mr. Strobel speak at a lectureship with several others at SMU. It was great.

      I can't seem to get rid of that pesky nat.

      • FlameCCT

        Wish they could create ID Raid. Just one spray makes the bugs go away!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          There is a way to make bugs go away, but they go kicking and screaming and pitching a fit as they leave.

        • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_jamming Cognitive Dissident

          do tell!

        • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

          You already have.

          88 weeks ago @ Big Hollywood - Eye on the Ball Conser... · 0 replies · -1 points
          "I got really REALLY nasty smelling gas. its no joke buddy."

          So coggy, how long does it take you to clear a room?

    • Eyes_Open

      This is an interesting counter point as well:

      As he did write this book well after his on conversion, it is bias at the very least.

      • FlameCCT

        Of course it biased, it always will be when one is speaking about faith and discussing opposing sides to an issue. I was trying to utilize someone that was not religious initially yet found the evidence which led him to faith. Because we all have different personalities, we will take different paths, doesn't matter if one is talking about driving from point A to B or about coming to faith in the Messiah.

  • Mother of 4

    HOLD THE PHONE AGAIN: I wrote to Wycliffe Bible Translators and they say they are not doing this. So the author of this article is misleading us, or someone mislead him. If this is not true, then someone needs to set the record straight for Wycliffe BT. We need to know the truth. Can anyone verify what is really going on?!


    This my fellow christians is the begining of the making of the religion of the antichrist...or should i say chrislim....Christians beware this is coming to a your church this production of this rape of the scriptures which were given by inspired men of God and by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ......No matter what man is saying Islam is not paralell with Christianity.......They are commanded by the koran to not make friends withthe children of the book.....and when they become the majority they will turn and start enslaveing Christians and killing those who will not denounce Chirst...along with the Jews......This new publication is a down and outright abomination to John 1;1-5 ....just one mans opinion

  • johnfromchicago

    I think you need to check out the Wycliffe websight before you start spreading misinformation. Sadly, Christians are among the most guilty at doing this these days on the internet. I guess the intention of those who do so is to stir people to action, incite anger and/or hatred, or do so out of willful or unwillful ignorance. In any case, careful study and less jumping to accusations would help keep the truth "the truth." Thank you.

  • Harlon Hensley

    This article is totally untrue according to Wycliff translators.
    Anyone can confirm this by going to http://www.wycliffe.org.
    The credibility of any website that would publish a lie like
    this is severely damaged in the eyes of the public.
    I have been following this site for some time, but incidents such
    as this creates an air of disbelief on any articles they publish.
    Anyone can't believe anything that appears on the internet
    without checking the valitity of the content of their articles.
    In the future I will be hesitant to believe anything they publish...

  • DaveJ

    Why would they pervert the Bible to fit Muslim thinking? They have their own satanic verses called the Koran.

  • George_S

    I prefer the NA27 translation of the NT and the BHS translation of the OT (soon to be BHQ).

  • http://home.comcast.net/~tomleem TomLeeM

    Jehova and Allah are not the same. Making Christ just a human and not the Son of God totally destroys what the Holy Bible is all about. I don't think Muslims will ever accept the Bible no matter what they do to make it more acceptable to them. It is like the Pope changing the Koran to make it more acceptable to Christians.

    I like the different translations of the Holy Bible. One can read the different ones and realize how the message is still the same. John 3:16.

  • Paul

    Has anyone actually talked to Wyckliffe to make sure this is all true? This sounds like a thread that gets a lot of people excited and believing a lot of things that are inaccurate. I know some at Wyckiffe and will run this past them in hopes that it is not true.

  • Paul

    THIS IS DIRECTLY OFF THE WYCLIFFE SITE IN RESPONSE TO THIS OBVIOUSLY ERRONEOUS STORY: Wycliffe is not omitting or removing the familial terms, translated in English as “Son of God” or “Father,” from any Scripture translation. Erroneous information and rumors on the internet have recently raised questions concerning this issue.

    Wycliffe remains committed to the same objectives we've held sacred for 80 years: accurate and clear translation of Scripture. Wycliffe never has and never will be involved in a translation which does not translate these terms. The eternal deity of Jesus Christ and the understanding of Jesus’ relationship with God the Father must be preserved in every translation.

    Wycliffe personnel are committed to working alongside language communities and other partners to translate God’s Word with great care from the original languages of Scripture into the languages of the world’s people so that all may know the redeeming love and glory of God--Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

  • Chris Brown

    Moslems would be far better served reading the "True Furqan" first as an introduction to Christianity; then work on an actual Bible. A Bible that removes all the bits that would be "offensive" to Islam rather defeats the point. Wycliff might just as well publish Korans for all that's worth. What is the true offense against Islam is Christianity itself. That's why Islam has been waging its jihad on Christian lands and people since the 7th century or so.

  • GerryC

    Nice try. There are many differing opinions (my previous statement are based on an interview I saw on TV with an ex-Muslim who had converted to Christianity and was an Arabic Historian)

    But let me give you this other view from


    "Is Allah the Name of God?

    Allah is the name of the only God in Islam. Allah is a pre-Islamic name coming from the compound Arabic word Al-ilah which means the God, which is derived from al (the) ilah (deity).

    The Arabic name for “God” is the word “Al-ilah.” It is a generic title for whatever god was considered the highest god. Different Arab tribes used “Allah” to refer to its personal high god. “Allah” was being worshipped at the Kaa’ba in Mecca by Arabs prior to the time of Mohammed. It was formerly the name of the chief god among the numerous idols (360) in the Kaaba in Mecca before Mohammed made them into monotheists."

    Abd = servant, Allah = was the general term for whatever local pagan god was worshipped, bin = house of / decendant of / son of, Mutalib = that was his father's first name.

    Allah was not a "family name" but was quite common first name in usage among Arabs at the time, Servant of god and son Mutalib or another variation Abdullah son of Mutalib.

    And thus had nothing to do with Mohamed picking that name. Note that there were many variations of pagan religions that the Arabs worshipped and in Mecca alone there were 360 different idols, for their 360 different gods. Every city, family, village had its own myths and traditions.

    americanadvocate says:

  • Andrew

    You say it is important to consider different translations so that you can get a better understanding of God's word. With this mind set you open the doors for the great deciver to walk right in ( the devil). We need to fight the devil by taking a stand on the mesoretic hebrew text of the old testament and the T.R. Greek text of the New Testament. These are the sacred text that the King James Bible was translated from. God is Soverign and has preserved His word before the foundation of the world. His word is everlasting, heaven and earth shall pass away but His word shall never pass away. God is amazing, all powerful, all knowing, but for some reason people think God is not big enough to preserve His word and give the English speaking people a perfect translation. This is were they are wrong, He did and its the King James Bible! I believe it all started with the RSV, then many more verions came out like the ESV,NIV,NESV,ect.This then opened the doors for these even more wicked so called "Bible Translations" as the pro- sodomite bible and the muslum bible. Wow!! Come even now Lord Jesus!! There is a great falling away from gosple truth! Stick with The King James Bible! It is the true word of God!

  • Ricky Michael

    Yup, tha's all I got to say about that.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpgiYe6LToc Roger

    You are just not the brightest bulb in the landfill, are you?

  • Ex-USAttorney

    To paraphrase, a lie circles the globe before the truth gets its boots on. I appreciate your concern for the accurate spread of God's Word. But please do a modicum of research before defaming this or any Christian (or other) organization.
    see http://www.wycliffe.org/TranslationStandards.aspx

  • Jean

    My comment was deleted, No one dare speak of reality. Thanks alot. Leave your readers in the dark.

  • William H. Dewyea .

    Anything for a buck. America is being sold out from under us by people who buy elections, our Christian bible is being taken down by cults. A sad day.

  • Janet

    My husband and I have contributed regularly to Wycliffe over the 35 years we've been married. As our income has increased, so have our donations to them, and for some years they have received at least $5,000 a year from us. Unfortunately this Muslim-friendly Bible will be the end of our support to them.

    • Robert

      Janet, you are not alone as my wife and I have support Wycliffe and Seed Company and several supporting organizations to the end that everyone might have the Good News of Jesus in their own native tongue. I have read Wycliffe's response and it has not returned o me the confidence I once had in them. I wish their was a new group formed from those Wycliffe Translators that stood up against this liberalization of translation which we could support without concern. I believe God will take care of this. If you know of an alternate group please share it.

  • David

    Wycliffe responds to this accusation: http://www.wycliffe.org/SonofGod.aspx

    Hear both sides of an argument before condemning the innocent.

  • Dick Smith


  • http://mpj.us Michael

    Interested in the truth? Really? Then please read http://www.sil.org/sil/news/2012/SIL-Son-of-God-t...

  • Dennis

    When will the Homosexual friendly bible come out?

  • Itisichackett

    What people 
    don't realize, is because this nation was founded by & fought for by
    Christians & the Christians were big hearted enough to let other religions
    come to this Christian country that is run by a Christian goverment that EVERY
    religion can practice their own belief & not be PERSECUTED for it!!!! AND

    500 years later we have a bunch of sniveling LIL' CRY BABIES that don't
    appreciate what our Founding Fathers or JESUS CHRIST did for them!!!!! I think
    it's time to make The United States of AMERICA 100% GOD fearing

    We gave them a chance for freedom of religion & look what they did
    with it!!

    So as the old saying goes AMERICA LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT!!!

    So if your not a Christian & you can't accept our way of life you
    need to leave this Great CHRISTAIN NATION!!!!

    Your Brother in Christ
    & Spirit led

    G. Hackett

    Psalm 139:23 Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my
    thoughts: 24 And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the
    way everlasting.

  • David Mowen

    David E Mowen
    I was like most horrified at the suggestion we were making Muslim friendly Bibles, Especially since it involved Wycliffe know to be the best in the translation industry, and Frontiers, With which I was greatly involved in it's formation and early years of formation. SO I did what the Bible encourages, I checked into it with The founder and former International Director, Who is still involved with Frontiers though I believe in more of a coaching role these days.

    Here is what He had to say:

    "It isn't true as it is so bluntly and simplistically stated by my disciple, and long time friend. What is true is that a few Frontiers people use a Malay, Turkish, and Arabic translation that is more of a commentary ("the meaning of" (compare THE MESSAGE, or Living Bible) in an effort to remove stumbling blocks that have included words like "Prince of God" inter-changably with Son, and experimented with synonyms for 'father'; which I agree had good motives...