- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- WAR ROOM -
STUDY - MORAL
ISSUES - KING
JAMES BIBLE - CULTS
SLACKING OF SIN--
By Will Kinney
Slackening of Sin - a modern version Subterfuge
Some words are powerful and very descriptive. Others are mushy and vague, and have little impact on our conscience. Take the word fornication. Webster's 1999 defines this word as "voluntary sexual intercourse between two unmarried persons, or two persons not married to each other." This word is found in the King James Bible forty four (44) times. Fornication is not a popular word, many do not even know it's meaning, though it is not an archaic word. The world will not name this as a sin, because they do not consider it to be a sin. Only the Bible teaches that fornication is a sin; or I should say, the Bible used to teach this. This word "fornication" is found in the KJB 44 times, in the new kjb the number is down to 21 times, the nas has it only 8 times and in the very popular and grossly corrupt niv "bible" the word is found zero (0) times.
I have personally gone out into the streets and talked to teenagers. I have asked them: "What is sin?" I ask them to give me some examples. Usually they say things like stealing, beating up on girls, murder. I then ask them if having sex before marriage is a sin. Invariably, I have been told: "No", or "Not as long as no one gets hurt." This is the world's standard. It is the morality of the natural man. The word "morality" comes from the Latin meaning "usage or custom". Morals are relative, very flexible; they vary from one person or nation to the next. Morals are not absolute and unchanging. The word fornication, on the other hand has a definite meaning describing a particular act, and this act is forbidden by God and called a sin.
nkjv, nas and niv have substituted the word "immorality" for the word
fornication. I ask you, What is immoraity? You will get many different
definitions and your morailty may not be the same as mine. See, what I mean?
The absolute standard has disappeared.
Those children who are being brought up using the niv as their bible, can say to their parents, "Bobby and I aren't doing anything immoral Mom, we love each other. The bible doesn't teach that sex outside of marriage is wrong, only if it is immoral. That is just your old fashioned standard, it is not mine."
Does this seem far fetched to you? Let's look at some actual quotes from some of todays religious "Christian" leaders. In his book called "Honest" on page 118 by Anglican Bishop John A. T. Robinson he states: "nothing can of itself always be labeled as "wrong". One cannot, for instance, start from the position "sex relations before marriage or divorce are wrong or sinful in themselves." They may be 99 cases or even in 100 cases out of 100, (?) but they are not intrinsically so, for the only intrinsic evil is lack of love."
Or lets take the book "Called to Responsible Freedom" published by the Natonal Council of Churches. On page 11 young people are counseled: " In the personal individual sense, then, what justifies and sanctifies sexuality is not the external marital status of the people before the law but rather what they feel toward each other in their hearts. Measured in such a way, holding hands can be very wrong indeed, while intimate sex play can be right and good." Guess which version of the bible these organizations use. That's right, the NIV, because it does not contradict their beliefs about what constitutes morality. If we can make a bible version that has wider appeal to apostate churches, we can sell more bibles.
used to be only one verse in the Bible that said it was not good to even touch
a woman, who is not your own wife, in a sexual manner. I've heard
of good Christian fathers even quoting the verse to young men who came to the
door to pick up their dates for the evening. The verse is found in
I Cor. 7 : 1 " It is good for a man not to touch a woman." The word
is "to touch", and in the context, it means to touch
in an inappropriate sexual way. But the niv has changed this to :
" It is good for a man not to marry." There is no possible way
the Greek can be translated this way; it teaches an error that contradicts other
Scriptures, and the admonition about not improperly touching a woman is removed
is one smooth stroke. This is the niv.
Another sin that has been grealty toned down or else eliminated is the sin of sodomy. According to Webster's 1999 dictionary, sodomy is " anal or oral copulation with a member of the same sex." The word "sodomite" is found 5 times in the King James Bible. Deut. 23 : 17 "There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." The word is also in I Kings 14 : 24; 15 : 12 ; 22 : 46 and II Kings 23 : 7. It is very interesting to see how modern bible translators gradually change the meaning of certain words. It often is done subtly and gradually. This word was translated all 5 times as sodomite by the Hebrew into English versions of 1917 and 1936 put out buy the Jewish Pub. Society and the Hebrew Pub. Company of America, by the Geneva Bible, Darby's translation and by the ASV of 1901. Then in 1972 the Nas translated this exact same word as sodomite in I Kings 22 : 46, but the other four times it changed it to " shrine prostitutes". The Niv has "shrine prostitutes" in all five verses.
Well, a sodomite may think his sin is not condemned by Scripture, because he certainly is no shrine prostitute. The nkjv has translated all five instances as "perverted person". What exactly is a perverted person? Someone who eats ketchup sandwiches? You see, how vague and undefined the term is?
The last Scripture I want us to look at that has been changed is I Cor. 6 : 9 " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind...shall inherit the kingdom of God." To "abuse" is to use in an unnatural or harmful way. " Mankind" is of course the kind or type that is a man, being used by another man. These are terms for the general two classes of sodomites. The nas begins to tone it down by saying: " effeminate nor homosexuals".
Homosexual is a neutral word. There is no sense of wrong doing with the strict definition of a homosexual. But "abusers of themselves with mankind" shows that this is an unnatural and destructive activity. The nkjv has: " homosexuals ( with a footnote saying, That is, catamites.) Do you know what a catamite is? Then the njkv continues with sodomites. But the niv is the worst of all. It has " Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders". Now a sodomite can think to himself, "Well I'm not in this list because I'm not a prostitute and a homosexual offender is someone who rapes little kids or forces himself on someone and I don't do those things".
I was once talking to a radio talk show host and pointed out this verse in the niv. He said, You know, you can even look at the niv as meaning "those who offend homosexuals". I knew this too, but was delighted when he said it first.
There are many homosexual churches springing up around our country, some with 2 or 3 thousand members. Guess which version of the bible they use. That's right, the ever popular niv. If we can make the word of God more vague, less defined and less condemning, then we can appeal to a wider audience and sell more bibles.
I hope you will prayerfully consider these examples and see how God's holy words are being perverted by the modern versions purporting to be the true words of the living God, and go back to the old ways of the King James Bible, where you will find rest for your souls and the pure words of God's absolute truth. Thank you and God bless you.