Wrongly Translated Verses - Church of God and Christ

Transcription

Wrongly Translated Verses
You can repeat a lie so often that you finally believe it yourself
The New Pact
kainos diatheke
The Church of God and Christ
ekklesia theos christos
NB! The translation of THE PACT tries to keep unnecessary capitalization of substantives to a minimum. Substantives such as pharisee and
sadducee are not capitalized. — Why should they be?
You can repeat a lie so often that you finally believe it yourself
Reference bibles:
NIV = The Holy Bible, New International Version
KJ-1611 = The Holy Bible, the King James Version
NWT = The Holy Scriptures, New World Translation
SH/G = Strong’s Hebrew / Greek, the Greek text
Cover, front page: A biblical handwriting more that a thousand years old
The Church of God and Christ
ekklesia theos christos
Distribution:
www.jordly.com
ISBN: Softcover 978-82-8310-056-3
Ebook
978-82-8310-057-0
New, revised edition
Copyright © Arne Jordly, 2014
All rights reserved
3
Wrongly Translated Verses in the New Pact
Even if the message of the Bible is relatively simple and factual, the Bible is not an
easy book to get to grips with. That is partly because it is being presented after the
same principle as a game of puzzle, and not as a chronologically told novel.
Therefore it is of decisive importance that you place each of the pieces of the
puzzle in its right place. And from this you also understand why there are so many
different interpretations of the contents of the Bible — the pieces have been placed
in the wrong spots.
But remember: You cannot interpret the Bible! You must understand it.
Another reason why so few Christians understand the Bible, is all the unbiblical
preaching that takes place in many churches. But I am not getting into that here. Yet,
such strange teachings takes away a correct understanding of the Bible, for most who
read the Bible, read their own mind instead of the text. And then I must mention that
this is also reflected in the various translations. Many have texts that are directly at
strife with the word of God, but usually not so gravely that people notice it. No, it is
done subtly and nuanced, often because the translators themselves have not understood the contents of the Bible. That may be excused. But what is worse, and which
ought to be punishable, is when the translators adjust the Bible to agree with heir
own convictions. You will find clear examples that the Bible is being translated in
a gender neutral way by writing children instead of sons and Israelites instead of the
sons of Israel. And in that way they make the Bible so gender neutral that they with
Bible in hand may defend the inauguration of female priests and ministers. In that
way they hide the fact that the Bible to a great extent is about the establishment of
a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish. (Leviticus 21:16-24)
It is also so that the different churches and organizations a little by little adust the
word of God to agree with the preaching of the group they themselves belong to.
The Pope has his Catholic translation, Lutherans their Lutheran translation and
Jehovah’s Witnesses their New World Translation, etc.
The Mormons even have their own book, the book of Mormon, which they place
above the Bible. They say: ‘We believe in the Bible, but where the Bible does not
agree with the book of Mormon, it is of course that book of Mormon that is correct
because that came last.’
The translation of THE PACT has broken with all such traditions. And that it can
do because it is totally independent of any church, congregation or organization. It
adheres to the original text the way it is presented by Strong’s Hebrew / Greek.
On the following pages THE PACT presents many biblical verses that the translators have either misunderstood or knowingly adjusted. If you study these verses
carefully, you will experience how much easier it will be to understand the Bible’s
seemingly complex message. You will also be pleasantly surprised to find out how
factual the message of the Bible really is.
Arne Jordly
4
A little about the ancient Greek language Koiné:
The 27 books of the New Pact are originally been presented in the ancient Geek
language Koiné, today a nearly extinct language not being used on a daily basis. The
language has some special features compared to English which must continually be
taken into consideration to give a correct understanding in English translations.
THE PACT builds its translation on Strong’s Hebrew / Greek, the Quick Verse edition. There you are not only presented with the Hebrew and Greek texts verse by
verse, but by clicking on each single verse in the original text, you also get a detailed
explanation of the original meaning of each word. Toward the end of each explanation follows an overview of how the word is being used in the many different translations.
THE PACT then builds directly on the original meaning of the word without consideration of how many modern translations will use the words. One example is the
Greek word aggelos which is consistently translated angel, but which without exception means messenger. And that is its meaning to this day even if most translations use the constructed word angel. But angel is not a correct translation of aggelos. It is only a periphrase! In all such instances THE PACT follows the original correct meaning of the word in Greek.
Then to the ancient Greek grammar with an overview of areas where it differs considerably from English grammar. And then it may be of interest knowing that the
Quick Verse version of Strong’s Hebrew / Greek is the most primitive of all original
texts by going far back in time before the original text was modernized and rewritten
with a more up to date Greek grammar. This gives greater confidence, because it is
thereby clear that the text to a much lesser degree has been influenced by people who
have not always had the most honest intentions.
T01. Auxiliaries
The ancient Greek language Koiné only has a limited use of the auxiliaries be, can,
will, shall, etc. In order to translate to a readable English they have to be added. It is
hardly a readable English writing ‘I sick,’ for instance, the way it is in Koiné. We
must add the auxiliary be, ‘I am sick,’ etc. But such nuances we will only have if we
translate correctly based on English grammar.
One good example of this is Matthew 28:18 where NIV writes: ‘All authority in
heaven and on earth has been given to me.’ This is definitely not correct, because
if the world today with all its evil, is ruled by Christ, then Jesus died in vain. THE
PACT writes: ‘I will be given all authority in the heavens and on the earth,’ which
is both correct use of auxiliary and a correct understanding of the text. This situation
a translator must keep in mind at all times unless he or she uses a Greek text where
5
A little about the ancient Greek language Koiné
this has been added beforehand. And then you also understand how important it is
for a correct translation that one also have a correct understanding of the text. And
this is especially important when translating such a detailed text s that of the Bible.
T02. Prepositions
In the same way Koiné also makes a limited use of prepositions. When in Koiné it
says rule earth, we must add both the correct auxiliary and the correct preposition
in addition to the correct personal pronoun in English. In Revelation 05:10, for
instance, NIV writes: ‘— and they will reign on the earth.’ THE PACT writes: —
And we shall rule over the earth.’ John is included as one of them.
T03. Personal pronouns
These are also seldom being used in ancient Greek, and if a translator then does not
have a correct understanding of the text, this may result in many strange translations
with reference to the wrong persons. A good example is Luke 02:35. There NIV
writes with reference to Mary: ‘And a sword will piece your own soul too.’ THE
PACT writes with reference to when the soldier pierced Jesus: ‘But a long sword
shall pierce his soul, and he (Jesus) will be spoken of by many so that what is in their
hearts, shall be revealed.’
And then it is important to understand the text, because Mary was never pieced by
a long sword, a spear. Jesus on the other hand was pierced when the Roman soldier
put his spear into his side just before he died. Wrongly use of pronouns may lead to
grave misunderstandings. The same applies to reflective pronouns. They are difficult
to relate to in English even it they are included in the text. And a correct use of them
becomes even more difficult if they are only being used to a limited extent. In Acts
20:20 NIV writes: ‘Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his
own blood.’ ‘His own’ here reflects on God. But God is of spirit and has no blood.
Therefore this reflects on Jesus, not God. THE PACT writes: ‘— and be shepherds
of the church of the Lord* which he himself has bought free with his own blood.’
Here he himself and his own reflects on the Lord Jesus, not God.
T04. Copulas
Neither words as and and but are being used in ancient Greek. The Church of God
and Crist is called ekklesia theos christos, And as you see the copula and, as well as
the proposition of, have to be added based on a correct English grammar.
T05. Capital letters and marks
Koiné makes no use of capital letters and marks. And therefore there is neither any
separation between sentences . Capital letters and marks must constantly be added
based on a correct English spelling. A good example of the use of comma or period
you find in Luke 23:43. There most translations write: ‘This truth I tell you. On this
day you shall be with be in paradise.’ The Pact writes: This truth I tell you on this
A little about the ancient Greek language Koiné
6
day. You shall be with me in paradise. The correct use of comma and period may
also be a matter of life and death. There is a big difference between: ‘Kill him! Wait
not until I come.’ And: ‘Kill him not, wait until I come.’
In verse Luke 23:43 NIV writes: ‘Jesus answered him: “Today you will be with me
in paradise.’” THE PACT writes: ‘And Jesus said: “This truth I tell you on this day:
You shall be with me in paradise.”’ Again it is important to understand the text.
When Jesus through all the Bible is being referred to as a heavenly Firstfruit, is it
then reasonable to believe that God suddenly changed his mind and made this robber
the firstfruit? Remember: Jesus stayed in the grave for three days and three nights
after his death before he was resurrected! Could then this robber have come to the
heavens three days ahead of him? By the way, is this robber ‘in heaven’ today?
T06. The word not
Ancient Greek often uses the denial ou = none, no one. But the denial not is never
used in Koiné. That will have to be added based on a translator’s own understanding
of the text. And as you will see from a few examples in this book, it often happens
that the word not is added in the wrong place of the sentence and in that way giving
the text an opposite meaning. And even if they find out, they are unwilling to correct
it, because they have claimed that their translation is of the Holy Spirit. One such
example you will find in Matthew 25:24, NIV: ‘— I knew that you were a hard man
harvesting where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered
seed.’ This translation proves that they have not understood the text. THE PACT
writes: ‘— Lord, I know that you are a hard man who will not harvest what you have
sown (the Levite priests had been sown, but were not harvested by Jesus), but gathers in of what you have not spread out. (the disciples who had not been chosen beforehand, but whom Jesus chose one by one. Unlike the priests they had not been
spread out.) Revelation 09:06 is another prime example. NIV writes: ‘During those
days man will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to die, but death will
elude them.’ THE PACT writes: ‘At that time man shall seek death, and they shall
find it. They shall wish to die, and death shall not flee from them.’ This is also
confirmed in Jeremiah 08:03.
It is not a biblical teaching that man cannot die. On the contrary! If you cannot swim,
all you have to do is jump in the ocean! Or as the Americans would have it: ‘The gun
is a clean tool!’ Yes, you just point and pull, and you are gone!
By the way, this verse is part of God’s prophecy of the growth of the Muslim mentality and refers directly to their suicide bombers. When you base your translation on
the most ancient, original Greek text, and in addition understand the grammar, you
will see this. — It has taken a lot of time and effort, but all you need, is to read it!
These were only a few examples, the tip of the iceberg.
7
Words and expressions that do not have a biblical origin:
Here you will find an overview of words and expressions that do not exist in the
Bible, that is in the original Hebrew and Greek languages, but which are being
used in various translations in such a way that they create a wrong picture of
the word of God:
T01. TRINITY
The word trinity does not exist in any of the original biblical texts. The word covers
the philosophy that God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are one and the same person, a
Godhead consisting of three equal parties, but at the same time they are three different persons.
This blasphemous teaching does not have a biblical origin, but was introduced in the
year 321 when Emperor Constantin introduced Christianity as the state religion of
the Roman Empire. It was originally confirmed at the synod in Nicosea in the year
325 and has been a ruling Christian regime through the Catholic and Protestant churches, but has during the later decades, the last century, also been strengthen through
charismatic movements until it today has become the ruling doctrine of most churches.
THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE TRINITY teaches that God, Christ and the Holy
Spirit make up one unity of the same origin and with equal greatness. There is often
mention of the three persons of the Godhead. As mentioned this teaching was introduced by by Emperor Constantin in the year 321 and eagerly adopted by the Catholic
Church which also led to the Catholic Martin Luther accepting this teaching as part
of the Lutheran Church.
The whole philosophy you will fins in the Book of Concordance of the Lutheran
Church. Its present version was authored, modified, as late as in 1957 by the educated philosopher Olav Valen-Senstad.
THE TEACHING OF THE SOVEREIGNTY preaches that God is without beginning or end — the Creator and Sovereign Ruler of the entire universe. Everything has
been created through his power, and the first he created was his only generated son
Michael, later the Messiah. He is in the Bible presented as God’s foremost servant.
God’s and Christ’s common personality, what they totally represent, is spoken of as
the Spirit, God’s Spirit or the Holy Spirit. The Bible does not present the Holy Spirit
as person without the ability to speak, but as God’s personality and power which he
has in common with his only generated Son Jesus Christ, the firstborn of all creation.
After God had generated his Son Michael, he placed him in charge of the entire creation — through God’s power!
Words and expressions that do not have a biblical origin
8
T02. MILLENNIUM
The word millennium is not originally a biblical expression, but is often used in
relation to the thousand years that will make up most of the day of the Lord. The
thousand years are also what roughly make up the day of judgement and the day of
resurrection.
Even if the word millennium is not a biblical expression, it covers the biblical presentation of the thousand years when Jesus will rule together with his heavenly
priesthood, the one hundred and forty-four thousand holy. They are the ones who
make up the heavenly division of the Realm of God and whose purpose it is to restore the conditions on the earth that were lost through Adam’s disobedience toward
God, In spite of God’s metaphorical warning not to eat from the tree of knowledge,
Adam took to him of Satan’s spirit. Adam and Eve were originally created to live on
the earth in ages, but because of Adam’s sin against God and his belief in Satan’s
first lie, God judged that he would have to die. And as a result of God’s judgement
of Adam and Eve, all mankind became subjected to sin and sentenced to death — the
temporary death that the Bible refers to as the first death.
It is God’s plan through Christ that what the world lost through Adam’s disobedience, is to be reestablished through Jesus’s acts — his sacrifice of redemption which
is then the basis of the establishment of the Realm of God — first in the heavens,
then on the earth. After Jesus’ reign during the thousand year are over, he will again
hand over the Realm to God the Almighty, which means that God will become more
visible the way he was with Adam and Eve and during the First Pact. And then
everything that was destroyed through Adam’s disobedience has been reestablished!
No translations of the Bible use the words TRINITY or MILLENNIUM in their
translations, but the words are frequently used in Christian preaching.
T03. HELL
Neither the word hell nor the conception of hell, the invisible and immortal soul’s
everlasting torture in a constantly burning hell, have a biblical origin. It is a grave
falsification that had its origin in the Catholic Church, And the word that is translated hell, geenna, is a place name south of Jerusalem where the inhabitants of Jerusalem had their garbage dump. There everything useless were thrown on the fire and
consumed in a constantly burning fire. This is the judgement that Jesus refers to for
such who will not accept God as their ruler. But those who call on God through Jesus
will have a life in ages.
Those who at the end, first during the great tribulation and finally after the thousand
years are over and Satan is again let loose for a short time, will not accept God and
what he represents, will have to suffer an ageous, the second, death — an extermination without possibility of a resurrection.
9
King James and NIV write hell the twelve times the word geenna is being used in the
Greek text. THE PACT consistently writes Gehenna.
Verse
THE PACT
NIV
MAT 05:22
“ 05:29
“ 05:30
“ 10:28
“ 18:09
“ 23:15
“ 23:33
MAR 09:43
“ 09:45
“ 09:47
LUK 12:05
JAC 03:06
Gehenna*
Gehenna
Gehenna
Gehenna
Gehenna’s
Gehenna
Gehenna
Gehenna
Gehenna’s
Gehenna’s
Gehenna
Gehenna
hell**
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
KING JAMES
hell**
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
* the name of the garbage dump south of Jerusalem, in Gr. geenna. In Hebrew this
place was called Ben Hinnom’s Valley, the valley of the sons of Hinnom. It is so
even today that political authorities choose valleys for their garbage dumps. And
when they have been filled up, they are bing covered and cultivated. In the U.S. such
garbage dumps have been made into exclusive golf courses.
** a Sa----, eh, excuse, a product of Papal imagination! But did you know that when
you believe in the invisible and immortal soul’s torment in an everlasting burning
hell, you believe in Satan’s first lie the way also Adam and Eve did? It cost them
their lives! ‘You are definitely not going to die!’ (GEN 03:04) And for this to be true,
so-called Christian people have invented the teaching of some invisible and immortal
hocus-pocus that we carry around inside of us. But God said something totally different: ‘From dust you were taken and to dust you shall return!’ And that was all he
said. But, true, it is more pleasant believing in Satan’s first lie than God’s stone-hard
judgement. It is Satan’s lie that tickles the ear so excitingly!
Ben Hinnom’s Valley is being referred to in ten verses in the First Pact. It was in Ben
Hinnom’s Valley all the child offerings to the god Molec took place. Therefore the
valley was declared unclean and used as a garbage dump.
T04. PURGATORY (Kingdom of the dead)
Any purgatory does not exist in the Bible, and neither does the Scandinavian
‘kingdom of the dead.’ The confusion is caused by the fact that both in Hebrew and
in Greek there are two different words and two different concepts referring to the
grave:
10
01. Gr. mnemeion = grave. The very grave or tomb where the body is laid to rest
— the physical hole. The Greek word means place of memory.
02. Gr. haides = grave. This word does not refer to the very hole, but to the fact
that one has been put in a grave and in that way having a common faith with all who
have died. In Scandinavian translations this is directly translated ‘the kingdom of the
dead.’ This has led to many speculations such as this being a place where God will
put those who have not been so bad that they may not be rescued through a period
of cleansing before they are allowed into heaven. And if God’s attempt to cleanse
them, fails, then he will send them to hell. The Catholics refer to it as purgatory, but
the word is not being used in their translations.
NB! King James of 1611 translate hell also in some verses where the Greek text
writes haides. It seems that they have tried to make hell as hot as possible!
In the Greek text the word haides is being used in the following 11 verses:
Verses
MAT 11:23
“ 16:18
LUK 10:15
“ 16:23
ACT 02:27
“ 02:31
1CO 15:55
REV 01:18
“ 06:08
“ 20:13
“ 20:14
THE PACT
grave*
grave
grave
grave
grave
grave
grave
grave
grave
grave
grave
NIV
depths**
Hades
depths
hell NB!
grave
grave
death
death
Hades
Hades
Hades
King James
hell***
hell
hell
hell
hell
hell
grave
hell
Hell NB!
hell
hell
*THE PACT consistently writes grave where haides is being used in the Greek text.
**Here NIV represents a total confusion compared to the Greek text. Depths, Hades,
hell and grave are quite a mix! And jumping from the grave straight to a non-existing
hell is quite a leap!
*** King James almost consistently write hell also where the Greek text writes haides. And that is why the Pentecostals love this translation so dearly. There is nothing
more dear to them than a burning hell! But in First Corinthians 15:55 why do they
suddenly write grave? And in Revelation 06:08 why do they write Hell with a capital
letter? Is there something special about this hell as compared to their other hells? In
reference to King James and NIV is it any strange that so many poor souls get confused?
11
T05. PERDITION
The word perdition or the expression go into perdition do not have a biblical origin,
but they have been thoroughly worked into the sourdough of Christianity.
Most Christians reject the message of the Bible about a heavenly priesthood of one
hundred and forty-four thousand elect. But these are the little flock that Luke refers
to in LUK 12:23, THE PACT: ‘Do not worry, you little flock, because it is your
Father’s wish to give you the Realm.’ But Jesus also has a great flock, the great white
flock in Revelation 07:09-17. Who are they?
All of the Bible is basically about this little flock, and it is they, those who are chosen as members of God’s heavenly priesthood, that the Bible refers to as rescued.
They are the holy, the elect, God’s adopted Sons, Jesus’ heavenly brothers, the bride,
the sealed, etc., but when some of these lose the election the correct phrase is that
they are lost, not gone to perdition, ref. Judas.
Also the rich, young man was lost because he did not want to follow Jesus’ recommendation. He was lost, but he did not go into perdition, because in Christian terminology the perdition refers to the invisible and immortal soul’s torment in hell in ages.
Not so. The teaching of the burning hell is nothing but free imagination compared
to the message of the Bible. There is no burning hell. There is no torment in ages.
There is no invisible soul and there is no immortal soul. There is no purgatory. And
there is no perdition!
Those who are chosen as Jesus’ heavenly brothers, will take part in the first, the
spiritual resurrection. They are the little flock. The other group that the Bible tells
about, are the great, white flock — the great multitude of peoples, men and women,
from all nations. These are the ones who will enter into the thousand years without
having to die first!
In addition come those who will get a resurrection on the earth. These earthly groups
are the ones that will make up the church, the members, of God heavenly priests. But
many of the others, the ungodly, will become destroyed in this process. The wording
of the Bible also refers to these as being lost, or being destroyed. They will experience a decay in ages without a resurrection, but they will not go into perdition, because the alternative to a life in ages is a death in ages.
It is the translation of three Greek words that has led to this confusion in relation to
a correct understanding of the Bible. These three words are:
T01. Gr. apollumi = lose, be lost. May also in some instances be translated destroy.
This is the word that refers to losing, being lost, and it specifically refers to such who
lose the election to the Melchizedec priesthood.
12
T02. Gr. olethros = destruction, go, fall into decay. It is usually this word that is
being used about such who lose a life in ages on the earth. They are destroyed in the
manner that they go into decay without being resurrected. They will remain dead in
ages, which means that they have returned to the position they were in before they
were born — a position of non-existence. There was no pain then.
T03. It is not supposed to be easy, but the third word, apoleia, is the substantive of
both there two previously mentioned verbs. It means condemnation, destruction,
ruin, decay, etc. This is the word that is usually wrongly translated perdition. But it
is far from consistent, and if you want to have a full overview of how these three
words are being translated, you will find the translations complex and confusing. But
here follows an overview of all verses where these three words are being used based
on the translations of THE PACT, NIV and King James: Study them carefully and
you will see that none of them refers to perdition.
The first of the three Greek words that are being wrongly translated in relation
to the perdition:
T01. Gr. olethros = destruction
Here is Strong’s Hebrew / Greek’s full explanation of the word olethros in English:
3693 (each word has its own number), ol’eth-ros; from a prim. ollumi (to destroy; a
prol. form); ruin, i. e. death, punishment: --destruction.
The word is being used in the following verses in the New Pact: 1TH 05:03, 2TH
01:09, 1CO 05:05, 1TI 06:09, HEB 13:19.
In translations that follow the understanding of the Pope and Luther, the word is
sometimes translated perdition, and according to both the Pope and Luther that is
tantamount to the immortal soul’s burning in hell throughout eternity! Not so.
In translations that follow the original text of the Bible, the word is correctly translated destruction. And the destruction then refers to the decaying of the flesh in the
grave until there will be a resurrection, the second resurrection, of both the righteous
and the unrighteous. (ACT 24:15)
But it also refers to those who will not get a resurrection, but suffer the second death.
The process is the same, only they will not be resurrected to the possibility of a life
in ages on the earth.
Their fate will be the same as the faith of those who have blasphemed the Holy
Spirit. For them there will be no resurrection, but no burning in hell either!
13
Here follows an overview of how THE PACT, NIV and King James translate the
word olethros in the five verses where it is used — in the order Paul wrote them.
Verse
THE PACT
NIV
King James
1TH 05:03
2TH 01:09
1CO 05:05
HEB 13:09
1TI 06:09
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destroyed
of no value
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
not profited
destruction
The translation of the word olethros seem to be fairly consistent in all three translations. And it is a positive fact that there is a lot less confusion about this in English
translations than in Scandinavian translations.
Destruction is a totally different concept in biblical relations than perdition. Yet in
Western culture destruction is mostly considered in relation to material matters and
not the decaying of the flesh.
All three, THE PACT, NIV and King James have a fairly correct translation her. But
when I claim that THE PACT has a more correct translation, it is in reference to their
extensive reference to the non-existent hell. There the confusion seemed to be complete.
Here follows the second of the three Greek words that are often wrongly translated in relation to perdition, the burning in hell.
T02. Gr. apollumi = lose, destroy, kill
And here is Strong’s explanation of the meaning of the word apollumi in English:
622 (each word has its own number), ap-ol’-loo-mi; from G575 and the base of G
3639: to destroy fully (reflex. to perish, or lose), lit. or fig.:--destroy, die, lose, mar
This word is usually translated perdition or being lost, referring to hell. It is being
used as many as 92 times in 86 verses in the ancient Greek text of the New Pact.
Therefore comparing these verses with THE PACT, NIV and King James becomes
a greater task, but the question is so important to a correct understanding that I include every single verse.
Luckily there is a growing number of people who want to learn what the Bible really
says, and this will be useful to them in their search of the biblical truth.
14
Here follows an overview of how THE PACT, NIV and King James translate the
word apollumi in the 92 verses it is being used.
Verse
THE PACT
NIV
King James
MAT 02:13
“ 05:29
“ 05:30
“ 08:25
“ 09:17
“ 10:06
“ 10:28
“ 10:39
“ 10:42
“ 12:14
“ 15:24
“ 16:25
“ 18:11
“ 18:14
“ 21:41
“ 22:07
“ 26:52
“ 27:20
MAR 01:24
“ 02:22
“ 03:06
“ 04:38
“ 08:35
“ 09:22
“ 09:41
“ 11:18
“ 12:09
LUK 04:34
“ 05:37
“ 06:09
“ 08:24
“ 09:24
“ 09:25
“ 09:56
“ 11:50
“ 13:03
“ 13:05
“ 13:33
kill
lose
lose
perish
destroy
lose
destroy
lose*
lose
take life
lose
lose*
destroy
go astray
exterminate
exterminate
die
take life
destroy
destroy
take life
go under
lose*
perish
lose
take life
beat to death
destroy
destroy
destroy
go under
lose*
lose
destroy
kill
perish
perish
kill
kill
lose
lose
drown
ruin
lose
destroy
lose*
lose
kill
lose
lose*
(no text)
lose
bring to an end
destroy
die
execute
destroy
ruin
kill
drown
lose*
kill
lose
kill
kill
destroy
ruin
destroy
drown
lose*
lose
destroy
kill
perish
perish
die
destroy
perish
perish
perish
perish
lose
destroy
lose*
lose
destroy
lose
lose*
lose
perish
destroy
destroy
perish
destroy
destroy
mar
destroy
perish
lose*
destroy
lose
destroy
destroy
destroy
perish
destroy
perish
lose*
lose
destroy
perish
perish
perish
perish
15
LUK 15:04
“ 15:06
“ 15:08
“ 15:09
“ 15:17
“ 15:24
“ 15:32
“ 17:27
“ 17:29
“ 17:33
“ 19:10
“ 19:47
“ 20:16
“ 21:18
JOH 03:15
“ 03:16
“ 06:12
“ 06:27
“ 06:39
“ 10:10
“ 10:28
“ 11:50
“ 12:25
“ 17:12
“ 18:09
“ 18:14
ACT 05:37
missing
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
starve
starve
perish
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
destroy
destroy
destroy
exterminate
destroy
destroy
lose*
lose*
lose*
lose
lose
lose
take life
kill
destroy
destroy
kill
destroy
lose
perish
perish
[lose]**
(not included)**
[perish]**
**the word apollumi is not included in the oldest texts of this verse
lose
perish
perish
go to waste
waste
lose
devour
spoil
perish
lose
lose
lose
destroy
destroy
destroy
lose
perish
perish
destroy
die
perish
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
lose
die
die
die
perish
kill
perish
NB! THE PACT presents Paul’s letters in the order he wrote them:
2TH 02:10
1CO 01:18
“ 01:19
“ 05:05
1CO 10:09
“ 10:10
“ 15:18
2CO 02:15
“ 04:03
“ 04:09
ROM 02:12
ROM 14:15
exterminate
lose
destroy
destruction
kill
kill
lose
lose
lose
defeat
lose
lose
perish*
perish
destroy
destroy
kill
kill
lose
perish
perish
destroy
perish
destroy
perish
perish
destroy
destruction
destroy
destroy
perish
perish
lose
destroy
perish
destroy
HEB 01:11
JAC 01:11
“ 04:12
1PE 01:07
2PE 03:06
“ 03:09
2JO 01:08
JUD 01:05
“ 01:11
perish
fade
lose
lose
destroy
destroy
lose
exterminate
destruction
perish
destroy
destroy
perish
destroy
perish
lose
destroy
destroy
16
perish
perish
destroy
perish
perish
perish
lose
destroy
perish
*used twice in the same verse
COMMENT: When you see the many ways the word apollumi is being translated
into English, it is understandable that a poor reader gets confused. But do not in this
case, because all of these verses are correctly translated, because they all have an
element of apollumi, an element of loss, in them. If you perish, you lose your life.
The same if you are destroyed or drowned or killed. And truly, there is nothing
negative about varying the language with different words and expressions, but the
condition must always be that the translation covers the original concept. And often
it does not. In these examples the translations into English are pretty correct, but the
same verses are in most Norwegian translations not only terrible, but abominable!
This is not only caused by wrong teachings, but also the construction of the language. In Norwegian there is a special word, or expression, that without exception is
connected to the immortal soul’s never ending torment in a burning hell! The word
does not exist in English, but is commonly used in Norwegian. The word is fortapt,
and the closest I can get to a understandable translation is writing forelost. It means
nothing to an American or Englishman, but when a Christian Norwegian sees or
hears this word, he will automatically think of the immortal soul’s torment in hell!
And it is being frequently used in all translations — especially in the translation of
the word apollumi!
But if these English translations as so excellent compared to Norwegian translations,
why are they then included here under Wrongly Translated Verses? That is simple.
These books in English are not meant for Americans and Brits only. Many Scandinavians prefer reading the English version to the Norwegian version, especially Danes and Swedes. And also Danish and Swedish translation include the same confusions. I may mention that in the first week of October 2014 about 11.000 Danes
have been reading from these books on jordly.com, and that did not happen until
after the books were presented in English. Therefore!
So what does the expression be forelost, actually mean? This concept has become so
deeply entrenched in a deceived Christianity that most who hear it, will automatically
imagine the immortal soul’s torment in a burning hell! It is not a biblical concept. Is
says nothing about a hell in the original texts, only in the translations.
17
Be aware of, and this is difficult to accept for many even if it is totally logical and
crystal clear in relation to the original texts, that the whole Bible basically is about
the election of this heavenly, the Melchizedec, priesthood, the one hundred and fortyfour thousand.
These are also the holy, the elect, the chosen, those whom God has set his seal on,
the bride, those who receive the sonship by being adopted as God’s heavenly sons
and Jesus’ heavenly brothers, etc. And it is such who lose this election that the Greek
text refers to being lost, but it has nothing to do with burning in hell!
Jesus came to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And that in a biblical relation
refers to such who have lost the election, ref. the rich, young man who went away
disappointed. He was lost, but in no way ‘forelost,’ because he will take part in the
second resurrection on the earth with a possibility of a life in ages here. (ACT 24:15)
In John 17:12, THE PACT: ‘When I was with them, I reserved them in your name,
the name that you have given me. (the name is identical to the very acts) I watched
them and none of them were lost (in Norwegian translations: forelost), except the one
who is the son of destruction,* so that the Scripture would be fulfilled.’
*Judas
What Jesus says is that none of them has been lost, lost the election to the first, the
spiritual, resurrection, naturally, because no one has died yet. Except Judas who went
and hanged himself. Through his betrayal he did not only lose the election, but also
the possibility of taking part in the second resurrection on the earth. Through his betrayal he blasphemed the Holy Spirit.
And here we have come to the third word which is wrongly translated perdition, or
forelost, the word apoleia, the substantive to the verb apollumi.
The last of the tree words that is wrongly translated in relation to the perdition,
going ‘forelost.’
T03. Gr. apoleia = condemnation, destruction, die, perdition, decay
Here is Strong’s full explanation of the meaning of the word apoleia in English:
684 (each word has its own number) apoleia, ap-o’-li-a; from a presumed der. of
G622; ruin or loss (phys., spiritual or eternal) :--damnable (-nation), destruction, die,
perdition, X perish, pernicious ways, waste.
622 (each word has its own number), apollumi, ap-ol’-loo-mi; from G575 and the
base of G 3639: to destroy fully (reflex. to perish, or lose), lit. or fig.:--destroy, die,
lose
18
As you see the word apoleia is derived from apollumi, and has basically the same
meaning, but as a substantive, and therefore it is more difficult to translate, because
neither in English nor Norwegian is it natural to use this word as a substantive.
Here follows an overview f how THE PACT, NIV and King James translate the word
apoleia.
Verse
THE PACT
NIV
King James
MAT 07:13
“ 26:08
MAR 14:04
JOH 17:12
ACT 08:20
“ 25:16
extinction
waste
waste
lose
destroy
death
destruction
waste
waste
destruction
perish
hand over
destruction
waste
waste
perdition
perish
die
NB! We have now come to Paul’s letters and THE PACT presents them in the
order Paul wrote them:
2TH 02:03
ROM 09:22
PHI 01:28
“ 03:19
HEB 10:39
1TI 06:09
2PE 02:01
“ 02:02
2PE 02:03
“ 03:07
“ 03:16
REV 17:08
“ 17:11
destruction
condemn
destroy
exterminate
destruction
go under
destruction
destruction
destruction
destroy
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destroy
destruction
destroy
destruction
destruction
disrepute
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
destruction
perdition
destruction
perdition
destruction
perdition
perdition
destruction
pernicious way
damnation
perdition
destruction
perdition
perdition
COMMENT: Seeing how consciously some translators are manipulating the word
of God to make agree with many of the wrong teachings of the Pope and Luther is
frightening. And it is all being done based on power and economically oriented interests. The expressions ‘go into perdition’ or ‘fall into perdition’ are not original biblical expressions. They are construed by the translators. The word olethros means destruction and has nothing to do with the horrible teaching of a burning in hell, which
the major Norwegian translations have put into almost all of these verse. Therefore,
praise to bot NIV and King James for not having given in to temptations in these verses. Yet hell is burning pretty strongly also in their versions, especially when in the
King James version.
19
01. The word olethros is being used 05 times in the Bible, and never in the sense
of perditon, but consistently referring to a destruction, either of material matters or
of the flesh. It never refers to a situation where somebody will burn in hell! And this
is clearly reflected in the translation of THE PACT.
02. The word apollumi is correctly translated lose or be lost, but never perdition.
It does not in any case refer to any burning in hell! Yet it is also so that THE PACT
varies the language in line with a modern English vocabulary, but never in such a
way that the language contradict the original Greek text.
03. The word apoleia, a substantive, also refer to the destruction, but there is no
substantive in English that fully covers its meaning. But unlike Norwegian translations, the English translators have to a much greater degree stuck to the original
meaning of the word. Norwegian translators, on the other hand, keep referring to the
perdition and have included a burning hell in almost all of these verses. THE PACT
consistently write to be lost or to go into decay.
An author is protected against outside manipulation, but, sadly, not the Bible.
T06. TORMENT
The word torment does not exist in the Bible. It constantly refers to pain or bother.
And this is of great importance, because bother and pain man is able to live with, but
torture is much stronger and impossible to live with during longer periods. The
Greek word that is being translated torture is basanizo, meaning bother, pain, birth
pains, buffet (by waves).
The Greek text uses the word 12 times in the following twelve verses:
Verse
THE PACT
NIV
King James
MAT 08:06
“ 08:29
“ 14:24
MAR 05:07
“ 06:48
LUK 08:28
2PE 02:08
REV 09:05
“ 11:10
“ 12:02
“ 20:10
pain
bother
struggle*
bother
strain
bother
pain
pain
plague
birth pain
plague
suffering
torture
buffet
torture
strain
torture
torment
torture
torment
pain
torment
torment
torment
toss
torment
toil
torment
wex
torment
torment
pain
torment
*En boat having the wind against is struggling against the waves.
20
T07. ETERNAL
The word eternal is well established within Christianity. It is yet a construed word,
and it is especially illogical when referring back in time. The Greek word translated
eternal is aion which simply means time or age, but implies a very long time — past
or future, but not necessarily without end.
Gr. aionios = ageous, of the time, an adjective referring to the lang time. It is difficult finding a good corresponding adjective in English, but THE PACT has chosen
another constructed word connected to the long time, ageous, of the age, because that
fully covers the concept of aionios.
Gr. aion = time, age. It is usually translated eternity when showing forward in
time, but when referring to the past, many different expressions are bing use such as
of time long ago.
Gr. aion aion = time and times, age and ages. It is usually translated eternities of
eternities and is a strengthening expression referring to the torment in hell. But neither eternity, torment or hell are of biblical origin.
THE PACT writes ageous, age and age and ages as consistently as possible. And
even if the words being used in this way may seem strange and unfamiliar, it does
cover the original meaning of aionios, aion and aion aion.
King James write eternal 47 times in 47 verses, and eternity only in 01 verse. NIV
writes eternal 81 times in 80 verses and eternity in 02 verses.
T08. THRALL
The Norse word thrall is not used neither in the Hebrew not the Greek text, naturally. But
it is being used extensively in Scandinavian translations and in that way trying to Scandinavianize the Bible. The Bible consistently write slave as does also THE PACT. But, is not thrall
and slave the same? No, they cover two different concepts from two totally different cultures.
A Norse thrall was a thrall for life, and only in few instances would he get his freedom, for
instance if he saved the life of his owner. As a thrall he was forced to wear an iron ring around
his neck to make it difficult for him to escape. But if he did get his this freedom, this ring was
chiseled away, and he god a free neck, in Norwegian ‘fri hals,’ and from this the verb ‘frelse,’
which in Scandinavian countries is being used instead of rescue, salvation.
The word slave is based on a totally different situation. I slave under the First Pact
had the right to his freedom after seven years of service. He could then choose to
leave his master, or on a voluntary basis chose to remain for seven more years, ref.
Jacob’s service with Laban. Jacob became Laban’s slave for seven more years until
he received Rachel as his woman. He had already served seven years for Leah. And
from this situation the expression ‘a slave contract’ has its origin.
21
Gr. doulos = slave is being used in 119 verses in the Greek text, Any word for
thrall does not exist in a biblical relation.
The Norwegian King James version writes thrall in 13 verses and slave in 06 verses.
DNB, the so called ‘church bible, writes thrall in 06 verses and slave in 06 verses.
They both have a limited use of the concept of slavery and instead write servant.
THE PACT consistently writes slave where the Greek text writes doulos. Why DNB
and NKJ have chosen to juggle the words thrall, slave and servant I do not now, but
it most certainly does not help make the Bible more easy to follow, even if it does
make a more varies language. But then the choice of words must not lead to a confusion of concepts.
T09. HEATHEN
A heathen, or pagan, is a person who is not part of the Christian culture or have
never heard of God. Or it may refer to a person who has consciously rejected God’s
existence and what he represents and joined the so-called pagan society, the humanethesists. In Scandinavian translations a heathen is one who is not a Jew, ref. Peter
as the apostle of the Jews and Paul as the apostle of the heathens. In English translations, on the other hand, a none-Jew is referred to as a Gentile. I have often wonder
where that word comes from, because it is not in the Bible. The Bible writes ethnos,
those of the peoples.
The Greek word that is being translated Gentile, heathen or pagan is ethnos, and
today it has become common to use this word in its original meaning, ethnic, being
of ethnic origin.
THE PACT has consciously shied away from the words heathen, pagan or Gentile
except in references to other translations and in comments, but not as part of the text
unless where the text a couple of times refers to a pagan in its original meaning.
Otherwise THE PACT writes the peoples or those of the peoples. But also the Jews
are an ethnic group, and the word ethnic is also being used about them. So, the separation between the Jews and those of the peoples is not as distinct in the Greek text
as it is in most translations. By the way, the word Jew is never being used in the
Greek text. It always refers to the Judeans, those from Judea. By this time the separation between the twelve tribes had been next to eviscerated.
The Greek text writes ethnos as many as 164 times in 152 verses. The Norwegian
Bible Society, DNB, writes heathen or the heathens in 49 of these verses. In comparison NIV writes Gentile or Gentiles as many as 104 times throughout the Bible.
THE PACT consistently refers to the peoples or those of the peoples in all of the 164
times the word ethnos is being used in the original text.
22
T16. MARRY
The expression to be married is not of biblical origin. The biblical expression is give
(the woman) in marriage and take (the man) in marriage. The expression to marry is
based an a modern attitude to church weddings and not on the original wording of
the Bible. The word that is usually being translated to get married, is gameo. It says
in Strong’s explanation that the word is neutral in relation to man or woman. The
word gameo actually meas to play, ref. the English word game. It directly refers to
the sexual act of taking and giving in marriage, but this is no longer part of our daily
language.
In the Greek text gameo is being used 29 times in the following 25 verses: MAT 05:
32, 19:09, 22:25, 22:30, 24:38. MAR 06:17 (THE PACT 06:18), 10:11, 10:12, 12:25.
LUK 20:34, 20:35. 1CO 07:09, 07:28, 07:33, 07:34, 07:36, 07:39. 1TI 04:03, 05:11
and 05:14.
T17. WIFE
The word wife does not exist in the original text of the Bible. Both in Hebrew and
Greek there is only talk about woman.
Hebr. ishshah = woman (sheman)
Gr. gune = woman (cow, queen)
Eng. woman also means sheman. Did you ever think about that?
The Greek word gune is also the basis of the words cow and queen. They have the
same origin. The word woman has been replaced with wife to built up under the western world’s tradition of church marriages. Anything like that you do not find neither
in the First nor in the New Pact.
The word gune is being used 204 times in 188 verses in the Greek text. THE PACT
consistently writes woman where the Greek text writes gune. King James writes wife
84 times in 72 verses in their translation of the New Pact and NIV 63 times in 59
verses. The Greek text writes gune 204 times and THE PACT follows this slavishly.
It is not the most serious question, but if you juggle the words woman and wife as
you see fit, the tradition of the Bible is being set aside.
T18. ANGEL
Translators write angel when the think aggelos refers to a heavenly being, but they
write messenger when aggelos refers an earthly being such as John the Baptist. This
has led to many confusing translations, ref. Hebrews 13:02.
When you read that translation, it is hard not to not to smile a little. Check it out!
Gr, aggelos = messenger (never angel)
23
Here follows an overview of all the verses where the word aggelos is being used in
the Greek text. You may go in and check how it is translated in your Bible.
The word aggelos is being used 185 times in 180 verses in the New Pact.
Under COMMENTARY 052 in HEB — God’s Heavenly Priesthood I explain correct use of the word aggelos while I at the same time show some insane translations.
MAT 01:20, 01:24, 02:13, 02:19, 04:16, 11:10, 13:39, 13:41, 13:49, 16:27, 18:10,
22:30. 24:31, 24:36, 25:31, 25:41, 26:53, 28:02, 28:05. MAR 01:02, 01:13, 08:38,
12:25, 13:27, 13:32. LUK 01:11, 01:13, 01:18, 01:19, 01:26, 01:28, 01:30, 01:34,
01:35, 01:38, 02:09, 02:10, 02:13, 02:15, 02:21, 04:10, 07:24, 07:27, 09:26, 09:52,
12:08, 12:09, 15:10, 16:22, 22:43, 24:23 JOH 01:51, 05:04, 12:29, 20:01 ACT
05:19, 06:15, 07:30, 07:35, 07:38, 07:53, 08:26, 10:03, 10:07, 10:22, 11:13, 12:07,
12:08, 12:09, 12:10, 12:11, 12:23, 23:08, 23:09, 27:23. 2TH 01:07. GAL 01:08,
03:19, 04:14. 1CO 04:09, 06:03, 11:10, 13:01. 2CO 11:14, 12:07. ROM 08:38.
COL 02:18. HEB 01:04, 01:05, 01:06, 01:07, 01:13, 02:02, 02:05, 02:07, 02:09,
02:16, 12:22, 13:02. JAC 02:25. 1PE 01:12, 03:22. 2PE 02:04, 02:11. JUD 01:06.
REV 01:01, 01:20, 02:01, 02:08, 02:12, 02:18, 03:01, 03:05, 03:07, 03:14, 05:02,
05:11, 07:01, 07:02, 08:02, 08:03, 08:04, 08:05, 08:06, 08:07, 08:08, 08:10, 08:12,
08:13, 09:01, 09:11, 09:13, 09:14, 09:15, 10:01, 10:05, 10:07, 10:08, 10:09, 10:10,
11:01, 11:15, 12:07, 12:09, 14:06, 14:08, 14:09, 14:10, 14:15, 14:17, 14:08, 14:19,
15:01, 15:6, 15:07, 15:08, 16:01, 16:03, 16:04, 16:05, 16:08, 16:10, 16:12, 16:17,
17:01, 17:07, 18:01, 19:17, 20:01, 21:09, 21:12, 21:17, 22:06, 22:08 og 22:16.
T19. THE LORD
The Lord usually refers to Jesus Christ, but when God is referred to as Jehovah, also
God the Almighty are in almost all translations referred to as the Lord. Therefore it
is often difficult, yes, almost impossible unless you put a lot of effort into it, to know
who is the Lord Jehovah and the Lord Jesus Christ. The Hebrew text writes Jehovah
is such cases, and again, the Pact follows this slavishly.
Hebr. Jehovah = hayah, hayah = I shall fulfill (what) I shall fulfill
Hebr. Jah = is the short version of God’s proper name Jehovah, ref. hallelujah,
which means praise Jehovah.
Hebr. ‘adonai jehovih = the Lord Jehovah, ref. spelling Jehovih. This is because
of a Hebrew sound rule when adonai is followed by jehovah.
THE PACT writes Jehovah or LORD where the LORD is God the Almighty, the
Lord when the Lord is Jesus Christ and lord about any prominent person, for instance Abraham whom also his woman Sarah called lord.
24
Here follows an overview of all the verses where the Lord is God the Almighty in the
Greek text. In some instances they also write God where the Lord Jesus where the
text refers to Jehovah, God the Almighty. If you wonder what is correct when you
read the Bible, here is a good reference list:
MAT 01:20, 01:22, 01:24, 02:13, 02:15, 02:19, 03:03, 04:04, 04:07, 05:33, 21:09,
21:42, 22:37, 23:39, 27:10, 28:02. MAR 01:03, 05:19, 11:09, 12:11, 12:29,* 12:30,
13:20. LUK 01:06, 01:09, 01:11, 01:15, 01:16, 01:17, 01:25, 01:28, 01:32, 01:38,
01:45, 01:46, 01:58, 01:66, 01:68, 01:76, 02:9,* 02:15, 02:22, 02:23, 02:24, 02:26,
02:39, 03:04, 04:08, 04:12, 04:18, 04:19, 05:17, 10:27, 13:35, 19:38, 20:42. JOH
01:23, 06:45, 12:13, 12:38.* ACT 01:24, 02:20, 02:21, 02:25, 02:39, 02:47, 03:19,
03:22, 04:26, 04:29, 05:09, 05:19, 07:31, 07:33, 07:49, 07:60, 08:22, 08:24, 08:25,
08:26, 08:39, 09:31, 10:33, 11:21, 12:07, 12:11, 12:17, 12:23, 12:24, 13:2, 13:10,
13:11, 13:12, 13:44, 13:47, 13:48, 14:03, 14:23, 15:17,* 15:35, 15:36, 15:40, 16:14,
16:15, 16:32, 18:21, 18:25, 19:20, 21:14. 1TH 04:06, 04:15, 05:02. 2TH 02:13,
03:01. GAL 03:06. 1CO 01:31, 02:16, 03:20, 04:04, 04:19, 07:17, 10:09, 10:21,*
10:22, 10:26, 11:32, 14:21, 16:07, 16:10. 2CO 03:16, 03:17,* 03:18,* 06:17, 06:18,
06:21, 10:17, 10:18. ROM 04:03, 04:08, 09:28, 09:29, 10:13, 10:16, 11:03, 11:34,
12:11, 12:19, 14:08,** 14:11, 15:11. EPH 02:21, 05:17, 05:19, 06:04, 06:07, 06:08.
COL 01:10, 03:13, 03:22, 03:23, 03:24. HEB 02:13, 07:21, 08:02, 08:07, 08:09,
08:10, 08:11, 10:16, 12:05, 12:06, 13:06. 2TI 02:19,* 04:14. JAC 01:07, 01:12,
01:23,* 03:09, 04:10, 04:15, 05:04, 05:10, 05:11,* 05:14, 05:15. 1PE 01:25, 03:12.*
2PE 02:09, 02:11, 03:08, 03:10. JUD 01:05, 01:09, 01:14. REV 01:08, 04:08, 04:11,
11:17, 15:03, 15:04, 16:06, 18:08, 19:06, 21:22, 22:05, 22:06 *2ganger, **3 ganger
T20. LORD
The expression Lord of armies is being used throughout all of the Bible, but only
twice in the New Pact:
Gr. kurios sabaoth is being used in ROM 09:29 and JAC (not James) 05:04.
Verse
THE PACT
NIV
King James
ROM 09:29 Jehovah of multitudes The Lord Almighty The Lord of Sabaoth
JAC 05:04 Jehovah of multitudes The Lord Almighty The Lord of sabaoth
Romans 09:29 is a direct quote from Isaiah 13:19, and in the Hebrew text it says Jehovah. It is therefore a falsification exchanging God’s name Jehovah with Lord. NIV
has skipped the whole expression just writing God the Almighty.
Here is a partly transcript of ISA 13:19, SH/G:
hebr. ‘luwlw’ yehovah tsaba —’
trans. if (not ) jehovah armies
THE PACT: multitude
25
This is a firm expression from the First Pact which is a praise to Jehovah, the Jehovah of multitudes.
NWT writes in Romans 09:29:
‘Also, just as Isaiah has said aforetime: ‘Unless Jehovah of armies* had left a seed
to us, we should have become just like Sodom, and we should have been made just
like Gomorrah.’
NWT writes in Jacob (not James) 05:04:
‘Look! The wages due the workers who harvested your fields but which are held
back by you, keep crying out , and the calls for help on the part of the reapers have
entered into the ears of Jehovah of armies.’
I used to think that they were referring to armies as a great number, which is the actual meaning of the word army, but in their Norwegian version they write Jehovah’s
mighty armies of war,’ and then I realized that they had totally misunderstood this
concept.
It has nothing to do with warring armies, but refers to the great multitude of God
creation — the universe with its endless number of planets, the countless number of
stars in the heavens, the millions of heavenly messengers, the earth with its sea creatures, the unlimited number of animals and critters — and finally man himself.
That is the Jehovah of multitudes, not the Jehovah of mighty armies of war!
I am sure that also Jacob used the correct expression in his original text, but that has
been taken away and replaced with lord in the Greek text. There are many such instances, and when the Greek text refers to one of these firm expressions from the First
pact, if that also include Jehovah in the original text, THE PACT also write Jehovah
in its translation from the Greek.
There are many fine nuances in the use of Jehovah / Lord in the Bible which has led
to some terrible misunderstandings in some translations, such as writing that the
Lord, and most preachers thinking that the Lord is Jesus Christ, will again set his feet
on Mount Olive. In the Hebrew text it unequivocally says Jehovah.
26
WORDS THAT ARE QUITE SPECIAL
IN A BIBLICAL RELATION:
The word HEAVEN is only being used in the plural throughout all for the Bible.
Hebr. shameh = heaven, expanse (in the singular, not used in the Bible)
Hebr. shamayim = heavens, exanses (in the plural, only being used in the Hebrew text). The Greek text writes ouranos. That does not directly mean heavens or
expanses, but on high, that or those that are elevated.
Those who read the Bible in both Hebrew and Greek, will in the First Pact read
about the heavens, the expanses. In the New Pact the will read about the, or those,
elevated. In both cases the text is translated heaven, or the heavens by THE PACT.
The Bible does in other words not present the heaven concretely as God’s dwelling. God’s heavens are of a spiritual character including all of the universe.
Expressions like ‘streets of Gold’ and ‘sitting on clouds playing harps’ are pictures of a glorious heavenly existence.
NOTE! There can be nothing physical or material in a spiritual existence!
‘But this I tell you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Realm of
God.’ (1CO 15:50)
The word SOUL creates great confusion in translations of the Bible, which is not
at all strange, because the word is being added or left out according to what suits the
translators, for instance may I mention that the word soul is being used as many as
854 times in the original texts. NIV on the other hand only writes soul 129 times.
King James as many as 458 times, but yet only half as many as the original texts.
One verse is enough to understand correct content and use of this word, GEN 01:
20-21, the very first time the word is being used in the Bible:
NIV: ‘And God said: “Let the water team with living creatures, and let birds fly
across the expanse of the sky. 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and
every living and moving thing* with which the water team, according to their kind,
and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”’
*soul
THE PACT: ‘God said: “Let the water team with living creatures and let creatures
with wings fly on the heavens.” 21 Then God created all the huge sea mammals and
every living soul that swims in shoals in the water, all according to its own species,
and all that fly with wings, all according to its own species. And God saw that it was
Good.’
NB! I also present the full Hebrew text of these verses, and many more, in the
book Genesis, GEN — In the beginning God created —’
What living souls are swimming in shoals in the ocean? Yes, herring, mackerel,
sardines, etc. All these are living souls. And then you know what a soul is! Every
herring in the ocean is a living soul!
And — have you ever seen a invisible and immortal herring?
27
Words that are quite special in a biblical relation
Note also that NIV writes ‘all according to its kind.’ Such a weak translation takes
away a full understanding from the reader. The correct translation is ‘all ac-cording
to its own species.’
And that is how it is!
Only members of the same species are able to multiply with one another. You
cannot breed a dog with a cat!
Why has NIV omitted the word soul in this verse, and in 725 more verses where
the word soul is being used? Think for yourself! If all the animals, all the sea mammals and all the sea creatures such as herrings, had been presented as souls, every
normally thinking human being would have understood that the soul is neither some
invisible nor immortal hocus-pocus that we carry around within ourselves. A soul is
quite clearly a living creature, fishes, animals or humans, who need blood to sustain
life.
Remember the expression: ‘I did not see a living soul!’
I include one more verse which has caused, and keep causing, a lot of confusion,
Genesis 09:04. There NIV writes:
‘But you must not eat meat that has its lifeblood in it.’
Well, this is not the worst translation I have seen, but if you compare it to the
translation of THE PACT and the Hebrew text, you will see what is wrong:
THE PACT: ‘But flesh of a soul with its blood in it you must not eat.’
And here you see that the animal is referred to as a soul! And to make you see
clearly that this is not something THE PACT has made up, I include the four words
that the Hebrew text consists of:
SH/G: basar nephesh dam ‘achal
Transl.: flesh soul
blood devour
And now, if you have considered this verse carefully, you will have seen that this
is God’s commandment to Noah against scavenging. He was to slaughter an animal
before he was allowed to eat it. First kill it and then drain its blood before you eat it!
It has nothing to do with the holiness of the blood which Jehovah’s Witnesses claim.
The word CROSS is also very special in biblical relations. It has developed into
the very symbol of Jesus acts — a symbol that the Christians value dearly.
The cross, or the pole, was the foremost tool of execution of that time in the same
way the gun or revolver is today. So, if Jesus had been shot, would you then be walking around with a gun or revolver or a rifle around your neck?
The Greek text does not write cross, but pole, stauros.
Gr.stauros = pole, stick (used 28 times in 28 verses in the New Pact)
Gr. stauroo = impale, hang on a pole (used 46 times in 42 verses in the New
Pact)
Gr. xulon = tree, stick (used 19 times in 17 verses in the New Pact)
Right is right! According to the Greek text Jesus died on a pole!
But regardless, whether Jesus died on a cross or on a pole, his acts remains the
same.
Words that are quite special in a biblical relation
28
Another word that causes great confusion is SPIRIT, much because of biblical
fablers, which again is based on the fact that the word spirit, in the same way as soul,
is a foreign word in most modern languages. That it was not neither in Hebrew nor
in Greek.
What does it mean that God blew the spirit of life in through Adam’s nostrils? In
means in simple English that he gave Adam the possibility to stay alive through the
necessary function of breathing. In Hebrew this function is called neshama, And this
only applies to the technical function of breathing. It is not connected to what in the
Bible is referred to as the spirit, ruwah. It has therefore nothing to do with good or
bad personal traits. Remember the expression: ‘He who sleeps, does not sin.’ But he
breathes.
What we hear mostly about in the Bible is the Spirit, God’s Spirit or the Holy
Spirit. These words are identical and attached directly to God, and through God also
Christ. But we also hear of the spirit of man. And then it is not the spirit of life,
neshama, we hear about, but simply the spirit, ruwah, that which refers to God —
his power and personality. The spirit of man is his personality — of good or evil!
NB! Be aware that in Greek there is no fine separation between the spirit of life
and the spirit. The word pneuma covers both. This might make it a bit diffuse, because then we need to separate if the spirit, pneuma, refers to the technical function
of breathing or a person’s god or bad qualities. When it says in Hebrew (ECC 12:07)
that ‘the spirit returns to God who gave it,’ this would have been simple if it only
referred to the technical function of breathing. It does not.
It is of course included, but it also refers to the fact that the way you have developed, ruwah, ceases when you die. Then God takes back what he has given you in
life, both your ability to breathe and your personality. A dead person has neither
death nor personality.
It does in no way mean that you go to heaven when you die, the way so many are
fabling about.
Your spirit is your personality, everything that emanates from you of good or evil.
That is your spirit, your personality! In the same way the Spirit, God’s Spirit and the
Holy Spirit becomes identical to what God represents of good and strength, but without evil. And we know from the Bible that everything good is of God, his spirit, that
which God and Christ have in common. But the devilry you may be in possession of,
is not of God. That is the spirit of Satan. And that is the spirit that Adam took to him
of when he ate from when he, metaphorically, ate from the wrong tree.
Hebr. neshama =spirit, breath (the very function of breathing)
Hebr. ruwach = spirit, personality; wind; smell, stench, etc. that which exudes
from something or somebody.
Gr. pneuma = spirit, wind, smell, stench, etc. that which exudes from something or somebody.
Greek does not separate between the spirit, the function of breathing, and the
spirit, the personality. The word pneuma covers both concepts.
You need to understand the language to understand the Bible.
29
Two totally central verses to understand
the establishment of the Realm of God
Jesus’ sacrificial death was not a goal in itself, but a means to the establishment of
the Realm of God. Jesus’ death was a necessity first and foremost so that the Melchizedec priesthood could be established in the heavens in a fellowship with God and
Michael (the Messiah, the Christ, Jesus). This priesthood was to consist of men
without blemish (LEV 21:16-24) it was only to the priests the curtain into the Holiest
tore in two from top to bottom. In addition the establishment of the Realm of God
over the earth will give a resurrection of the dead — both of the righteous and the
unrighteous (ACT 24:15) so that God’s ageous order will make up the heavens (the
priesthood, God’s heavenly government) and the earth the congregation (all who will
get a life in ages on the earth) to one unity under Christ.’ (EPH 01:10) Check it out!
We know from the New Pact that the Levite priests refused to accept Jesus as
their heavenly High Priest. And in return Jesus rejected them. But already before that
happened, they had broken the pact with God. From the day of the Pentecost in the
year 33 to when Cornelius was baptized in the year 36 the members of the Melchizedec priesthood were chosen from the Jews only, but after that mostly from those of
the peoples, ref. the preaching of Paul. You need to understand about the Melchizedec priesthood to understand the expression ‘the sons of the Realm.’
The expression ‘the sons of the Realm’ is only being used twice in the Bible, and
only by Matthew:
MAT 08:12, THE PACT: ‘But the sons of the Realm shall be thrown into the
deepest darkness where they will weep and gnash their teeth,’ ref. the parable of the
rich man and Lazarus.
MAT 13:38, THE PACT: ‘The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of
the Realm and the weeds are the sons of the evil One.’
Read these two verses with consideration. Do they not make up a direct contradiction? Because — how can the sons of the Realm first be thrown into the deepest
darkness and thereafter make up ‘the good seeds?’
Yes, it does seem like a contradiction, but it is not.
In the first verse Jesus refers to those who were chosen according to the First
Pact, the Levite priests. They had broken the pact and even rejected their heavenly
High Priest. Therefore they were rejected by Jesus — they were thrown into the
deepest darkness. They had lost the election. And some of them, those who blasphemed the Holy Spirit, will remain in the deepest darkness — they will not have a resurrection!
But God has not changed his plan, so the election og the members of his priesthood continues, but no longer from the Levite priests, but from those who are added
to the Church of God and Christ — the church that was established on the day of the
Pentecost when the twelve apostles received of the Holy Spirit. (ACT 02:47) They
Two central verses in understanding the Realm of God
30
have now become the sons of the Realm — the good seeds, ref. the parable of the
mustard seed.
But why do I include this under Wrongly Translated Verses? Yes, because here
both King James and NIV are guilty of a conscious falsification of the Bible. In both
Matthew 08:12 and 13:38 King James write ‘the children of the kingdom.’ In that
way they hide the fact that this is a priesthood of men without blemish!
But here NIV is even worse! In Matthew 08:12 they change the text by writing
the ‘subjects of the kingdom.’ Who are they? But in Matthew 13:38 they got it right
and writes ‘the sons of the kingdom.’ — Conscious confusion?
These two verses are so important that I include the Greek text of both of them. You
know, the Greek text is always proof of what is right or wrong!
MAT 08:12
SHG:
huios basileia ekballo eis exoteros skotos ekei klauthmos brugmos
Trans.: son realm thrown in utmost darkness where weep
gnash
oudous
teeth
THE PACT: But the sons of the Realm shall be thrown into the deepest darkness
where they will weep and gnash their teeth.”
MAT 13:38
SHG: agros kosmos kalos sperma huios basileia zizianion huios poneros
Trans.: acre world good seed son realm weed
son evil
THE PACT: The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the Realm and
the weeds are the sons of the evil One.
God has only established one priesthood, the Levite. But Jesus terminated this
priesthood because they had broken their pact with God and refused to receive
their heavenly High Priest, Jesus Christ. After this neither God nor Christ has
established another priesthood. Both the Catholic and Lutheran priesthoods
have been established by men hungry for religious power!
To replace this priesthood God through Christ established the Church of God
and Christ on the day of the Pentecost in the year 33 when the twelve apostles,
less Judas plus Matthias, received of the Holy Spirit. And neither has God nor
Christ established any other church, congregation or organization than the
Church of God and Christ. All other churches / congregations, have been established by men with sharp elbows.
31
An overview of the most important words in the Greek
text that clearly separates between God and Christ.
TDIAKONEO
Gr. diakoneo = help; is being used 40 times in the following verses of the Greek
text:
The word diakoneo, ref. en deacon, is never being used about God the Almighty in
the Greek text, because the word refers to a subordinate service, and God is never
presented as subordinate, but sovereign, in the Bible
MAT 04:11, 08:15, 20:28, 25:44, 27:55. MAR 01:13, 01:31, 10:45, 15:41. LUK
04:39, 08:03, 10:40, 15:41. JOH 12:02, 12:26. ACT 06:02, 19:22. 2CO 03:03,
08:19, 08:20. ROM 15:25. PHL 01:13. HEB 06:10. 1TI 03:10, 03:13 2TI 01:18
1PE 01:17.
TEPIKALEOMAI
Gr. epikaleomai = call on, also called, named and last name is being used 38
times in the following 32 verses of the Greek text.
The word epikaleomai is being used in many different meanings in the Greek text.
The word is neutral of whom is called on; God, Christ or a common man. Yes, the
word simply means to call on. The word also means nickname, for instance about
Judas, also called Iscariot. Finally the word is also used when referring to a person’s
second or last name.
MAT 10:03. LUK 22:03. ACT 01:23, 02:21,0 4:36, 07:59, 09:14, 09:21, 10:05,
10:18, 10,32, 11:13, 12:12, 12:25, 15:17, 15:22, 22:16, 25:11, 25:12, 25:21, 25:25,
26:32, 28:19. 1CO 01:02, 01:23. 2CO 01:23. ROM 10:12, 10:13, 10:14. HEB
11:16. 2TI 02:22. HEB 11:16. 1PE 01:17.
TSEBOMAI
Gr. sebomai = fear, respect, being used 10 times in the following verses in Greek:
The word sebomai is used both about God and about man in general in the Greek
text.
MAT 15:09. MAR 07:07 ACT 13:43, 13:50, 16:14, 17:04, 17:17, 18:7, 18:13, 19:
27.
TEULOGEO
Gr. eulogeo = bless; is used 42 times in the following 40 verses in the Greek text:
Words that separate between God and Christ
32
The word eulogeo is often used in reference to God’s blessings. But the word points
in both direction; both to the blessings that comes from God and the blessings that
are directed toward God.
MAT 05:44, 14:19, 21:09, 23:39, 25:34, 26:26. MAR 06:41, 08:07, 10:16, 11:09,
11:10, 14:22. LUK 01:28, 01:42, 01:64, 02:28, 02:34, 06:28, 09:16, 13:35, 19:38,
24:30, 24:50, 24:51, 24:53. JOH 12:13. ACT 03:26. 1CO 04:12, 10:16, 14:16 GAL
03:09. ROM 12:14. EPH 01:03. HEB 06:14, 07:01, 07:6, 07:07, 11:20, 11:21. JAC
03:09.
TPROSKUNEO
Gr. proskuneo = honor; used 60 times in the following 54 verses in Greek:
The word proskuneo is in the Bible being used in general of anybody who deserves
honor, but the word is especially being used alternatively about God and Christ all
according to whom is mentioned in the text. The word is being used in general about
each and every one who deserves honor, ref. ‘honor him who honor is due.’ In most
English translations the word is also being used about Christ in the meaning of worship, but the word may under no circumstances correctly be translated worship.
But this is done consciously by the translators to make the Bible agree with the blasphemous teaching of the trinity.
MAT 02:02, 02:08, 02:11, 04:09, 04:10, 08:02, 09:18, 14:33, 15:25, 18:26, 20:20,
28:9, 28:17. MAR 05:05, 15:09 LUK 04:07, 04:08, 24:52. JOH 04:20, 04:21, 04:22,
04:23, 04:24, 09:38, 12:20. ACT 07:43, 08:27, 10:25, 24:11. 1CO 14:25 HEB 01:06,
11:21. REV 03:09, 04:10, 05:14, 07:11, 09:20, 11:01, 11:16, 13:04, 13:08, 13:12,
13:15, 14:07, 14:09, 14:11, 15:04, 16:02, 19:04, 19:10, 19:20, 20:04, 22:08, 22:9.
TLATREUO
Gr. latreuo = serve; used 21 times in the 20 following verses in the Greek text.
The word latreuo is also quite special in relation to the biblical text. The word is
only being used I reference to God the Almighty, and never about his only generated
Son Jesus Christ. The word always refer directly to the church service as superior,
ref. the use of the word diakoneo about the service that is subordinate, ref. also priest
and deacon.
MAT 10:03. LUK 01:74, 02:37, 04:08. ACT 07:07, 07:42, 24:14, 26:07, 27:23.
ROM 01:09, 01:25. PHL 03:03. HEB 08:05, 09:09, 09:14, 10:02, 12:28, 13:10.
REV 07:15, 22:03.
TPROSEUCHOMAI
Gr. proseuchomai = worship; used 90 times in 82 verses in the Greek text:
33
Words that separate between God and Christ
The word proseuchomai, worship, pray to, is only being used about God the Almighty in the Bible, and never, not once, about Jesus Christ.
MAT 05:44, 06:05, 06:06, 06:07, 06:99, 14:23, 19.13, 23:14, 24:20, 26:36, 26:39,
26:41, 26:42, 26:44. MAR 01:35, 06:46, 11:24, 11:25, 12:40, 13: 18, 13:33, 14:32,
14:35, 14:38, 14:39. LUK 01:10, 03:21, 05:16, 06:12, 06:28, 09:18, 09:28, 09:29,
11:01, 11:02, 18:01, 18:10, 18:11, 20:47, 22:40, 22:41, 22:44, 22:46. ACT 01:24,
06:06, 08:15, 09:11, 09:40, 10:09, 10:30, 11:05, 12:12, 13:03, 14:23, 16:25, 20:36,
21:05, 22:17, 28:08. ROM 08:26. 1CO 11:04, 11:05, 11:13, 14:13, 14:14, 14:15
EPH 06:18. PHI 01:09. COL 01:03, 01:09, 04:03. 1TH 05:17, 05:25. 2TH 01:11,
03:01. 1TI 02:08. HEB 13:18. JAC 05:13, 05:14, 05:17, 05:18. JUD 01:20.
The two words proseuchomai = worship and the word latreuo = service are only
being used about God the Almighty, and never, not once, about his Son Jesus Christ.
The Greek text clearly separates between God and Christ in the Bible, where God all
the time is being presented as the Sovereign, ref. the teaching of the sovereignty. And
Jesus is without exception being presented as God’s only generated Son, the only one
who has been directly generated from God. The Bible presents the relationship between God ans Christ, Father and Son, as very close, almost identical, but still as two
separate individuals!
But two areas God has reserved for himself only: The worship and the service.
Based on this it is not difficult to establish, yes, directly prove, that the teaching of
the trinity is a grave falsification in relation to the message of the Bible
NB! This presentation is based on NIV and King James. If you also wish to check
out THE PACT about this, you must remember that THE PACT has a somewhat differet order of presentation than King James and NIV of Paul’s books and Acts. THE
PACT has divided the last section of Acts based on Paul’s missionary journeys and
also presents Paul’s books in the order he wrote them.
An overview of the correct order of Paul’s books you will find on page 185.
34
Verses in Matthew that are often wrongly translated in
English and American versions:
Here follows an overview of biblical verses in Matthew that are either directly
wrongly translated or that are twisted to the extent that they do not give a correct understanding of the word of God.
I use the original King James version of 1611, originally a Catholic translation,
and the New International Version, at present the best selling U.S. translation,
and in many cases also the New World Translation by Jehovah’s Witnesses, as
reference Bibles. Their text will then be compared to the original text, and
finally to the translation of THE PACT. At the end follow comments to the text.
Here much dynamite is buried, because much of this is so solidly entrenched in
Christianity that it is often the unmistakable truth that is rejected as false
teaching. But one thing is for sure: If you are going to get a factual and correct
understanding of the Bible, it is a basic prerequisite that it has been correctly
translated!
SHG = Strong’s Hebrew / Greek
Arne Jordly
Matthew
No. Verse
Text
Page
001 MAT 02:20 — Get up. Take mother and child —
053
002 MAT 04:10 — Jesus answered: Get lost, Satan —
053
003 MAT 05:09 — Blessed are those who make peace, —
054
004 MAT 05:32 — He who leaves his woman —
055
005 MAT 05:48 — Be therefore ripe, —
056
006 MAT 06:13 — Let us not be led into temptation, —
056
007 MAT 07:23 — You have never known me. —
057
35
008 MAT 08:12 — But the sons of the Realm —
057
009 MAT 10:28 — Do not be afraid of those —
058
010 MAT 13:38 — The good seeds are the sons of the Realm —
060
011 MAT 16:18 — Not even the gates of the grave, —
060
012 MAT 16:19 — Because I will give you the keys —
061
013 MAT 19:09 — Therefore I say that anyone leaving —
062
014 MAT 21:07 — They returned with the colt of the —
063
015 MAT 24:21 — Later the distress will be greater —
064
016 MAT 25:24 — He who had received one talent, —
065
017 MAT 27:53 — They came out from their tombs —
066
018 MAT 28:01 — After the Sabbaths, —
067
019 MAT 28:09 — And they went to tell it —
069
020 MAT 28:17 — When they saw him, they revered —
070
021 MAT 28:18 — I will be given all authority —
071
022 MAT 28:19 — Go therefore out and teach —
072
023 MAT 09:15. — A VERY SPECIAL VERSE:
073
Mark
024 MAR 01:02 — See! — I will send my messenger, —
075
025 MAR 02:21 — No one will ever sow patches —
076
026 MAR 03:11 — And when those with the unclean spirits, —
078
36
027 MAR 09:13 — But I tell you that Elijah has already come, —
079
028 MAR 09:43 — If your hand makes you stumble, —
080
029 MAR 12:40 — But they devour the houses of the widows —
083
030 MAR 14:12 — On the first day —
085
031 MAR 16:01 — When the Sabbaths were over —
086
Luke
032 LUK 01:03 — Therefore also I think it right —
088
033 LUK 02:35 — But a long sword shall penetrate —
089
034 LUK 05:34 — A VERY SPECIAL VERSE —
089
035 LUK 05:36 — Nobody tears a piece of cloth —
090
036 LUK 08:28 — When he got sight of Jesus, —
091
037 LUK 08:31 — And he begged him urgently —
092
038 LUK 09:24 — For he who wants to save —
092
039 LUK 10:12 — It will be easier for those from —
093
040 LUK 10:13 — Grieve, you from Korazin —
094
041 LUK 10:14 — Therefore it will easier —
095
042 LUK 10:15 — And you from Capernaum —
095
043 LUK 10:18 — I imagined Satan falling —
096
044 LUK 11:48 — And thereby you give testimony —
097
045 LUK 13:25 — When the master of the house —
097
37
046 LUK 13:27 — You did not know where I —
098
047 LUK 16:09 — Do not gain friends through —
098
048 LUK 16:18 — Anyone who leaves his woman —
100
049 LUK 17:21 — Nobody will be able to say: —
101
050 LUK 17:37 — Where the bodies are, —
101
051 LUK 19:21 — I was afraid of you, because I —
102
052 LUK 20:28 —They said: Teacher, —
103
053 LUK 20:36 — Neither shall they ever die again, —
103
054 LUK 20:47 — They devour the widow of her —
105
055 LUK 22:07 — Then came the day before —
106
056 LUK 22:68 — and when I ask, you will not —
107
057 LUK 22:70 — So confirm to us that you are —
107
058 LUK 23:15 — Neither did Herod, because he, —
109
059 LUK 23:43 — COMMA OR PERIOD —
109
060 LUK 24:01 — Very early in the morning —
111
061 LUK 24:52 — In reverence they returned to —
112
062 LUK 24:53 — And they were before the temple —
113
John
063 JOH 01:01 — In the beginning was the Word, —
114
064 JOH 01:02 — He was from the beginning with God. —
115
38
065 JOH 01:05 — The light shone for those in the darkness, —
116
066 JOH 01:11 — He came to his own, but —
116
067 JOH 01:18 — No one has ever learned to know God, —
118
068 JOH 01:39 — Come I will show you where I stay. —
118
069 JOH 01:50 — Because I said you were no hypocrite —
119
070 JOH 02:21 — But the sanctuary that he was speaking of, —
119
071 JOH 03:03 — Unless he is born from above, —
120
072 JOH 03:08 — Those of the spirit blow where they please. —
121
073 JOH 03:11 — For this truth I tell you: —
122
074 JOH 03:34 — For he whom God has sent out, —
123
075 JOH 04:20 — Our fathers honored on this mountain, —
125
076 JOH 04:26 — I who speak to you, am he. —
125
077 JOH 04:37 — One is sown, another is harvested. —
126
078 JOH 05:29 — And they shall come forth, —
127
079 JOH 06:20 — But he said: “Do not be afraid. —
129
080 JOH 06:45 — Because it is written in the prophecies: —
129
081 JOH 07:24 — Do not judge from appearances. —
130
082 JOH 07:34 — You shall seek me without finding me, —
131
083 JOH 07:37 — On the last day before the great Feast —
131
084 JOH 08:24 — Therefore I said that you would die in your sins. — 132
39
085 JOH 08:28 — When the Son of Man has been lifted up, —
133
086 JOH 08:31 — Then Jesus said to the Jews who —
134
087 JOH 08:46 — Who can deny his sin? —
135
088 JOH 08:58 — From before Abraham am I. —
136
089 JOH 09:32 — From ages you have never heard of anyone —
137
090 JOH 09:38 — And he bowed respectfully before him. —
138
091 JOH 09:39 — To this judgement I have come into this world —
138
092 JOH 09:40 — Are also we blind, —
139
093 JOH 10:09 — I am the gate. —
140
094 JOH 10:21 — Such words are not from one who is —
141
095 JOH 11:48 — If we allow this, we will also have accepted —
142
096 JOH 11:50 — Has none of you considered —
144
097 JOH 11:51 — He did not say this of himself, —
144
098 JOH 11:52 — And not only for those of the peoples, —
145
099 JOH 12:20 — There were some Greek —
145
100 JOH 12:31 — For now is the judgement of this world, —
146
101 JOH 12:32 — But when I am lifted up from this world, —
146
102 JOH 12:36 — Believe in the Light —
147
103 JOH 12:38 — That is so that Isaiah’s prophecy —
148
104 JOH 13:07 — What I am doing now, —
148
40
105 JOH 14:02 — My Father’s house is a dwelling —
149
106 JOH 15:19 — If you were of the world, —
151
107 JOH 16:01 — This I tell you so that you shall not stumble. —
152
108 JOH 16:13 — When the Spirit of truth comes, —
152
109 JOH 16:30 — Now we understand that you know —
153
110 JOH 18:16 — But Peter was left outside the gate. —
154
111 JOH 18:17 — Then one of the maids asked —
155
112 JOH 19:23 — When the soldiers had impaled Jesus, —
155
113 JOH 20:13 — Why have you taken away —
156
114 JOH 20:23 — Whenever you forgive anyone’s sins, —
157
115 JOH 21:08 — The other disciple followed in the boat. —
158
116 JOH 21:09 — When they came ashore, —
159
117 JOH 21:11 — Simon Peter jumped in and pulled the net ashore.
159
118 JOH 21:25 — Jesus did many other great acts —
160
Acts
119 ACT 01:01 — My first words to you, godlovers, were about —
162
120 ACT 03:25 — You are the sons of the prophets and of the pact — 163
121 ACT 05:03 — How can Satan have filled your heart —
164
122 ACT 05:21 — When they heard this, early in the morning —
165
123 ACT 06:14 — Then Joseph sent massage to his Father Jacob —
166
41
124 ACT 07:23 — Then Moses became forty years. —
166
125 ACT 07:59 — As they stoned him, —
167
126 ACT 09:15 — The Lord answered Ananias: —
168
127 ACT 10:34 — Then Peter spoke, saying —
169
128 ACT 10:36 — You know the word God sent —
169
129 ACT 11:16 — Then I recalled the word of the Lord —
170
130 ACT 12:15 — But they answered: This is madness! —
171
131 ACT 13:26 — Men, brothers, sons of Abraham —
172
132 ACT 14:02 — But the disbelieving Jews —
172
133 ACT 15:28 — We have decided, by the Holy Spirit, not to —
174
134 ACT 16:33 — At the same time in the night —
174
135 ACT 19:11 — God made it so that no one could perform —
175
136 ACT 20:10 — Paul ran down and threw himself —
177
137 ACT 20:24 — But no words can do anything —
178
138 ACT 20:28 — Take therefore good care of —
179
139 ACT 21:11 — When he entered, he took —
180
140 ACT 22:09 — Also those who were with me, —
181
141 ACT 24:17 — So, after many years —
182
142 ACT 27:12 — And because the harbor —
183
143 ACT 27:37 — All onboard the ship —
184
42
First Thessalonians
144 1TH 02:07 — But we were considerate among you —
186
145 1TH 02:08 — We have longed strongly —
187
146 1TH 02:19 — Because you are our hope, —
187
147 1TH 03:01 — When we could no longer endure —
188
148 1TH 03:13 — And may he strengthen —
189
149 1TH 04:01 — In addition, brothers, we ask —
190
150 1TH 04:04 — Every one among you must know —
191
151 1TH 04:15 — This we say with the Lord’s word —
192
152 1TH 04:17 — After that those who live —
193
153 1TH 05:03 — But when some say ‘peace and —
194
154 1TH 05:05 — For you are all sons of the light —
195
155 1TH 05:23 — Because then the God of peace —
196
Second Thessalonians
156 2TH 01:07 — For he who has been bothered —
197
157 2TH 02:01 — But we ask you, brothers —
198
158 2TH 02:03 — Do not let yourselves be deceived —
199
159 2TH 02:07 — The mystery of the lawless —
200
160 2TH 02:08 — Then the lawless shall be revealed, —
201
161 2TH 02:09 — The presence of the lawless —
203
43
Galatians
162 GAL 01:05 — The glory is his in ages. Amen. —
205
163 GAL 01:24 — And they praised God for it. —
206
164 GAL 02:09 — When Jacob, Caiphas and John, —
207
165 GAL 02:18 — If someone wants to rebuild, —
208
166 GAL 02:19 — Under the law I was dead, —
209
167 GAL 03:06 — This is how it was with Abraham: —
210
168 GAL 03:07 — Understand, therefore, that he —
210
169 GAL 03:16 — To Abraham and those of his semen —
212
170 GAL 03:17 — What I mean is: The pact, which —
213
171 GAL 03:18 — Because, if the inheritance —
213
172 GAL 03:24 — In that way the law became a schoolmaster —
214
173 GAL 03:26 — We are all sons of God —
215
174 GAL 03:29 — And if you are of Christ, —
217
175 GAL 04:01 — What I can say with pleasure, is —
217
176 GAL 04:04 — When time had been fulfilled, —
218
177 GAL 04:05 — But he was to buy free those under the law, —
219
178 GAL 04:14 — And my weakness in the flesh, —
219
179 GAL 05:19 — The acts of the flesh are obvious: —
221
180 GAL 06:17 — Finally, may no one be bothered —
221
44
First Corinthians
181 1CO 01:18 — For the word about the pole —
223
182 2CO 02:14 — A man of the soul does not —
224
183 1CO 02:16 — Because who has known the mind —
225
184 1CO 03:16 — Do you not know that you are a sanctuary —
227
185 1CO 03:17 — If anybody wants to destroy God’s sanctuary—
228
186 1CO 06:04 — Therefore, if you have court cases —
229
187 1CO 06:12 — Of all that is permissible, —
230
188 1CO 06:19 — Do you not know that your body —
231
189 1CO 07:04 — For the woman does not alone —
232
190 1CO 07:09 — But if you are unable to restrain —
233
191 1CO 07:27 — Are you bound to a woman? —
234
192 1CO 07:29 — This I tell you, brother, because —
234
193 1CO 08:11 — Shall a brother through your —
235
194 1CO 10:09 — But we will not tempt the LORD —
236
195 1CO 11:10 — Therefore they owe to have a sign —
237
196 1CO 12:02 — You know, you of the peoples, —
238
197 1CO 13:01 — If I speak with the tongue —
239
198 1CO 13:10 — However, when the complete —
239
199 1CO 14:36 — Or was it from them the word —
241
45
200 1CO 15:44 — There is sown a body of the soul, —
242
201 1CO 15:45 — So it is written: ‘The first man, —
243
202 1CO 15:46 — Consequently that of the spirit —
243
203 1CO 15:48 — The way the one became, —
244
204 1CO 15:55 — And: Death where is your sting? —
245
Second Corinthians
205 1CO 02:15-16 — Before God we are the scent —
247
206 2CO 03:07 — For the service of death —
248
207 2CO 03:13 — But Moses laid a veil —
249
208 2CO 03:16 — It is when they convert to —
250
209 2CO 05:14 — Our love of Christ forces us —
250
210 2CO 05:16 — And because of this, no one —
251
211 2CO 06:18 — I will be a Father to you, —
252
212 2CO 10:17 — Let him who wants to boast, —
253
213 2CO 11:02 — For I am jealous of you —
254
Romans
214 ROM 02:11 — For no one is favored by God. —
256
215 ROM 02:12 — In that way all who sin —
256
216 ROM 05:07 — Hardly anybody will die for a righteous man. —
258
217 ROM 06:07 — Because he who has died, —
258
46
218 ROM 08:15 — For you have not received —
259
219 ROM 08:19 — In anticipation the creation —
260
220 ROM 08:23 — Not only that, but also we —
261
221 ROM 08:26 — In the same way he also help us in the spirit —
262
222 ROM 09:04 — Because it was the Israelites —
264
223 ROM 09:05 — He who stands above all, God, —
265
224 ROM 09:26 — It shall happen in that place —
266
225 ROM 09:29 — For Isaiah has predicted: —
267
226 ROM 10:13 — For: All who call on the name —
268
227 ROM 11:11 — I ask. Did they stumble so that —
268
228 ROM 11:12 — But if their mistakes are riches —
269
229 ROM 11:18 — But do not boast that you are —
270
230 ROM 11:25 — Because I do not, brothers —
271
231 ROM 11:26 — In this way all of Israel will be rescued —
272
232 ROM 11:27 — For such is the pact I have made with them —
273
233 ROM 11:36 — For everything is from himself. —
274
234 ROM 12:16 — Have the same mind toward —
275
235 ROM 14:15 — But if a brother is burdened —
276
236 ROM 16:04 — They have risked their necks —
277
237 ROM 16:25 — Praise be to him who has been —
277
47
Ephesians
238 EPH 01:10 — But there will be one administration —
279
239 EPH 03:21 — The honor in the church —
280
240 EPH 04:30 — Do not put God’s Holy —
280
241 EPH 05:28 — In the same manner —
281
242 EPH 06:02 — Value your father and mother —
282
Philippians
243 PHI 02:02 — Be of the same mindset, —
284
244 PHI 02:06 — Because he who was of God’s —
285
245 PHI 02:07 — He allowed himself to be made small —
287
246 PHI 02:30 — Because of his work for Christ —
287
Colosseans
247 COL 01:15 — He is the image of the invisible —
288
248 COL 01:26 — And therein lies also the mystery —
290
249 COL 01:28 — This is what we preach. —
292
250 COL 02:01 — I want you to know —
293
251 COL 02:18 — Do not let the prize of victory —
294
252 COL 03:13 — Be overbearing with one another —
396
253 COL 03:18 — Women, adapt under your men, —
296
254 COL 03:19 — Men, love your women —
297
255 COL 03:22 — Slaves, obey your masters —
48
298
Philemon
256 PHL 01:10 — So I ask you on behalf of —
299
257 PHL 01:15 — Possibly his being away —
300
Hebrews
258 HEB 01:03 — He is an image of his glory —
301
259 HEB 01:06 — And later, when God brings —
302
260 HEB 01:08 — To the Son he says: —
303
261 HEB 01:09 — For you have loved righteousness —
304
262 HEB 02:13 — Further: I put my trust in him.
305
263 HEB 02:16 — Because it was not the messengers —
306
264 HEB 03:06 — Also Christ, as Son, is —
307
265 HEB 03:07 — By the Holy Spirit he says: —
308
266 HEB 03:14 — Because you shall become —
309
267 HEB 04:03 — It is he who believes —
310
268 HEB 04:12 — Because the word of God —
311
269 HEB 04:13 — No part of creation is hidden—
312
270 HEB 05:04 — But no one can take this honor —
313
271 HEB 05:07 — At the time when he was in the flesh —
314
272 HEB 05:09 — And after his being made —
315
49
273 HEB 07:21 — Those who were priests —
316
274 HEB 10:15 — By the Holy Spirit it was —
317
275 HEB 10:39 — But we do not shy away —
318
276 HEB 11:13 — All these died in the faith —
319
277 HEB 11:16 — But they stretched for —
320
278 HEB 11:17 — By faith Abraham was about to —
321
279 HEB 11:40 — But God has foreseen something better for us. —
322
280 HEB 12:06 — For he whom Jehovah loves, —
323
281 HEB 12:08 — Because if you are not —
324
282 HEB 12:29 — Because God can consume like fire —
324
283 HEB 13:02 — And do not forget your hospitality—
325
284 HEB 13:23 — You shall know, brothers —
326
Titus
285 TIT 01:01 — From Paul, a God’s slave —
327
286 TIT 01:06 — If so may be, he should be blameless —
328
First Timothy
287 1TI 02:06 — He gave himself as a corresponding ransom—
329
288 1TI 02:13 — For Adam was formed first. Thereafter —
330
289 1TI 02:15 — But they will be rescued —
321
290 1TI 04:01 — By the Spirit it is clearly —
332
50
291 1TI 04:03 — They forbid people to take and give in marriage —
333
292 1TI 05:21 — I testify before God and the Lord Jesus —
334
293 1TI 06:09 — Those who desire riches —
335
294 1TI 06:14-16 — Keep his commands without spot or blemish — 336
Second Timothy
295 2TI 02:01 — Now, my child, be strong —
339
396 2TI 02:19 — Yet, God’s solid foundation —
340
397 2TI 04:03 — For the time will come —
341
398 2TI 04:05 — But you, be factual —
341
Jacob
399 JAC 02:21 — Abraham, our father, was made —
343
400 JAC 02:23 — Then the Scripture was fulfilled —
344
401 JAC 02:25 — And — for the same reason also —
345
402 JAC 03:01 — Brothers, not many ought —
346
403 JAC 03:06 — Also the tongue is like a fire —
347
404 JAC 03:15 — That kind of wisdom does not come down —
348
405 JAC 04:04 — Whoremasters! Whores! You ought to know —
349
406 JAC 04:15 — If the LORD wants me to live, —
350
407 JAC 05:04 — But, see! — the workers who have harvested —
351
408 JAC 05:07 — Wait therefore patiently —
352
51
409 JAC 05:08 — In the same way also you —
353
First Peter
410 1PE 01:12 — Then it was revealed to them —
354
411 1PE 03:21 — That is a counterpart to the baptism —
355
Second Peter
412 2PE 02:04 — For God did not even spare the messengers—
358
413 2PE 02:08 — As righteous he lived among them —
359
First John
414 1JO 02:18 — Little children, we are in —
361
415 1JO 05:19 — We know that we are of God —
363
Judas
416 JUD 01:19 — They are the ones causing divisions —
364
Revelation
417 REV 01:01 — This is a revelation of Jesus Christ —
366
418 REV 02:01 — To the messenger of the church in —
367
419 REV 02:09 — I have seen your work —
368
420 REV 03:14 — the beginning of God’s creation. —
369
421 REV 09:06 — In those days men shall seek death —
370
422 REV 12:14 — And the dragon became so furious —
372
423 REV 22:08-09 — And I, John, is the one who saw —
373
52
Because people have been so confused about Jesus’ stay in the tomb over
the centuries, I include a detailed explanation of Jesus’ three days and
three night in the heart of the earth — in Joseph’s tomb.
The way all bibles have been translated down the years, Jesus was in the
tomb only one night, one day and one night, not three days and three
nights.
I consider this a valuable bonus to all truth seeking Christians and normally intelligent people. Therefore, read it with consideration and reverence. Not many have this information!
After all, this is the most important incident that has happened on this
earth since the creation of Adam!
Also the question about baptism has caused a lot of confusion in relation
to a correct understanding of the Bible. Therefore I also include a correct
understanding of baptism at the very end of this book.
Also is included the short explanation of Christ as the hourgall of the
word.
Finally THE PACT ends its presentation with the Lord’s Prayer — Father in the Heavens which is always the last page.
Three Days and Three Nights
Page 375
About Baptism
“
379
Christ — the Hourglass of the World
“
381
Father in the Heavens
“
382
53
in Matthew
NIV = New International Version
King James = The King James’ version of 1611
NWT = New World Translation
THE PACT, MAT 02:20. “Get up. Take mother and child —”
KJ-1611: — ‘Arise, and take the young child and his mother, and go into the land of
Israel for they are dead which sought the young child’s life.’
NIV: ‘Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who
were trying to take the child’s life, are dead.’
SHG lego egeiro
Trans.: say rise
paralambano paidion paidion meter poreuomai eis: ge:
take
child child
mother go
to land
israel tnesko ho zeteo paidon paidion paidion psuche
israel dead who seek child child child soul
THE PACT: He said to him: “Get ready. Take with you mother and child and return
to the land of Israel, for those who were seeking the child’s soul, are now dead.”
COMMENT: As you can see the word soul has been omitted in the translation of
KJ-1611, and likewise in the NIV-translation. But in the original text it is clear that
it is the little child who is the little soul. And then everybody understands that the
soul cannot possibly be something invisible and immortal hocus-pocus that we walk
around with inside of us. The soul is the human being itself!
THE PACT, MAT 04:10. ‘Jesus answered: “Get lost, Satan —”
KJ-1611: ‘Then saith Jesus unto them, Get thee hence, Satan, for it is written, Thou
shalt worship the Lord thy God, and only him shalt thou serve.’
NIV: Jesus said to him: “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord
your God, and serve him only.’”
Wrongly Translates Verses in Matthew
54
SHG: tote lego iesous hupago hupago satanas grapho pruskuneo kurios
Trans.: then say jesus disappear disappear satan write honor
lord
theos monos latreuo
god only serve
THE PACT: Jesus answered: “Get lost, Satan. For it is written: Honor Jehovah your
God. Only him shall you serve.”
DEU 06:13
COMMENT: Here are two matters that are important for one’s biblical understanding; the use of God’s name Jehovah and the word worship: There clearly is a great
quarrel over the use of God’s name Jehovah, even from the time of Jesus. But it is indisputably correct that Jehovah is used as the name of God more than 7000 times
throughout the Hebrew text. And this is a citation from Deuteronomy 06:13. Then it
becomes a falsification to change the original Hebrew word Jehovah to the Greek
word kurios. This also goes for SH/G, Strong’s Hebrew / Greek.
The Greek word for worship is not used in this verse of the Greek text. The word
used is the Greek proskuneo, which in no situation means worship, but honor. The
word for worship in Greek is proseuchomai. The word for serve is latreuo.
These two words never refer to anybody else but God the Almighty in the original
text, and never, not once, do they refer to Jesus Christ. When it in the next verse says
that ‘angels came and served him,’ it is not the word latreuo that is being used, but
diakoneo, a helper, a deacon. God does not share the worship or the service with
anybody, not even with Christ.
THE PACT, MAT 05:09. “Blessed are those who make peace,
—”
KJ-1611: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.’
NIV: ‘Blessed are the peacemakers for the will be called sons of God.’
SHG.: makarios eirenopoios kaleo huios theos
Trans.: bless
peacemaker call son
god
THE PACT: ‘Blessed are those who make peace, for they shall be called the sons
of God.’
COMMENT: Here the original text writes sons, but KJ-1611 writes children. It may
seem innocent, but it is a direct falsification to adjust the word of God in the direction of the teachings of the Pope. Yet, if this may give an appearance of innocence,
55
we shall a little by little see how such translations are a hindrance to a correct understanding of the Bible.
It is also part of the basis why Lutheran churches allow for female preachers / priests.
THE PACT, MAT 05:32. “— He who leaves his woman —”
KJ-1611: ‘But I say unto you that whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the
sake of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery, and whosoever shakll marry her
that is divorced committeth adultery.’
NIV: ‘But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anybody who marries the divorced
woman commits adultery.’
SHG: lego hos -en apoluo apoluo gune perektos logos porneia poieo
Trans say who if leave leave woman without perform adultery do
moicheuo moicheuo moicheuo hos -ean gameo apoluo moicheuo
fornication fornication fornication who if
marry leave fornication
moicheuo
fornication
THE PACT: But I tell you: He who leaves his woman for any other reason than
unfaithfulness, makes her a subject of fornication, because it is fornication to take an
abandoned woman in marriage.”
COMMENT: First: The Greek text never mentions the word wife, but consistently
writes woman, so here we see that the translators are adjusting the text to comply
with modern conditions. It is not a biblical teaching that you need to go to a priest or
a parson to get married. In the Bible you take (the man) or give (the woman) in
marriage, and this refers directly to the sexual act. But the norm of the Bible is very
clear: One man per woman and one woman per man for as long as you live! And
when you break this rule and take another in marriage, one who has had a sexual
relationship, marriage, with someone else, you then commit fornication, because it
is fornication to ‘take an abandoned woman in marriage.’
On the other side, if you live according to God’s norm, you do not at all live in sin
if you are not ‘married’ by a priest or a public official, ref. Joseph and Mary. And this
is not at all based on what period of time you live in, because God’s norm is the same
today as was two thousand years ago — and will be indefinitely!
56
CONCLUSION: God’s norm when it comes to giving and taking in marriage is very
clear, and it does not change with time: One man per woman and one woman per
man! And this norm does not change whether you are falsely blessed by a priest or
not! Your marriage is a pact between the two of you and God — independently of
priests or public officials!
THE PACT, MAT 05:48. “— Be therefore ripe, —”
KJ-1611: ‘Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father which is in heaven, is perfect.’
NB! Without exception they all write perfect here!
SHG: oun
teleios hosper humon pater ho ouranos teleios
Trans.: therefore ripe
like
your father who on high ripe
THE PACT: “Be therefore ripe like your heavenly Father is ripe.”
COMMENT: These translations must be based on a consistent paralysis of the brain,
because if Jesus had demanded perfection from his disciples, or anybody else, he
would unequivocally have led every man into unavoidable sin! It is not a biblical
teaching that anyone of this age can be perfect the way God is perfect. Such translations testify to a total lack of biblical understanding from the translators and lead
many honestly seeking people into total confusion.
I have myself been listening to a feelingly endless sermon on how to be perfect for
God! It all ended in a total confusion that not even the preacher had the slightest
understanding of. And the less she understood, the more words she used. It was a true
suffering!
The Greek word teleios originally means to be ready to burst. It is used, for instance,
about winebags, fishing nets and fruits. And we know that a fruit ready to burst, is
a ripe fruit.
Mark writes in verse 04:34, NIV: ‘He did not say anything to them without using a
parable.’ This is also such a parable. A ripe fruit is ready to be picked. In the same
way also the disciples shall be ready to be picked when God himself is ripe, ready to
fetch them in — when they die. And death sometimes comes like a thief at night.
THE PACT, MAT 06:13. ‘— Let us not be led into temptation,
—’
KJ-1611: ‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.’
NIV: ‘And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one.’
57
SHG: esphero eis peirasmos rhumai poneros [sou basileia dunamis doxa aion
Trans.: lead
in temptation free
evil
[for realm power glory age
amen]
amen]
THE PACT: Let us not be led into temptations, but free us from the evil One.
COMMENTARY: The way this verse has been translated, one would almost believe
that it is a prayer to Satan, and not to God, because it is Satan who leads into temptation, not God. Jacob writes that ‘God does not tempt anybody.’ (JAC 01:13) Therefore this cannot be a prayer to God that he must not lead us into temptation, but a prayer to God that he must protect us from Satan’s temptation. Then it is: ‘Let us not
be led into temptation, —’
THE PACT, MAT 07:23. ‘— You have never known me.’
KJ-1611: ‘And then I will profess unto them: I never knew you. Depart from me ye
that wor iniquity.’ New International Version and New World Translation have
similar text.
SHG: tote homologeo oudepote ginosko apochoreo ergazomai anomia
Trans.: then proclaim never
know go away perform lawlessness
THE PACT: But I am going to tell them straight: You have never known me. Go
away from me, you who perform lawlessness.”
COMMENT: All translations write, based on King James of 1611, ‘I never knew
you.’ But that is contrary to biblical teaching. Of course Jesus has known them! Too
well, by the way, for he shows that they have committed lawlessness. In Greek it
says, but correctly translated: ‘You have never known me.’
THE PACT, MAT 08:12. ‘But the sons of the Realm —’
KJ-1611: ‘But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness.
There shall bee weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
NIV: ‘But the subjects of the kingdom shall be thrown outside into the darkness,
where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
NWT: ‘— whereas the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the darkness
outside. There is where [their] weeping and [their] gnashing of teeth will be.’
58
SHG:
huios basileia ekballo eis exoteros skotos ekei klauthmos brugmos
Trans.: son realm thrown in utmost darness where weep
gnash
oudous
teeth
THE PACT: But the sons of the Realm shall be thrown into the deepest darkness
where they will weep and gnash their teeth.”
COMMENT: Why do King James write children and NIV subjects when the original text clearly writes sons? It is difficult to read other people’s motives, but it is not
difficult to understand that these are falsifications done for a specific purpose; to hide
the biblical teaching of the heavenly Melchizedec priesthood of men without blemish,
in Leviticus 21:16-24. Besides, by writing children or subjects these verses become
gender neutral and then comply with the wrong teachings of both the Pope and
Luther. And therefore these translations may be used in defense of woman priests and
preachers.
The expression ‘the sons of the Realm’ is used only twice in the Bible, and only in
Matthew. Did you notice that the sons of the Realm were to be thrown into the
deepest darkness? Next time we hear about these sons of the Realm in the Bible, is
in Matthew 13:38. Then they shall no longer be thrown into ‘the deepest darkness,’
but make up ‘the good seeds.’ In other words these go from the deepest condemnation to the great blessings of the Realm.
Who are they? What has happened? Why does it become a direct falsification to
write children or subjects instead of sons?
A thorough explanation of who these sons are you will find on page 468 in MAT —
You Have Never Known Me under the title ‘The Sons of the Realm.’ Read it with
consideration and you will understand why it is such a grave falsification to write
‘the children of the kingdom,’ or ‘the subjects of the kingdom.’
THE PACT, MAT 10:28. ‘Do not be afraid of those —’
KJ-1611: ‘And fear not them which will kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul,
but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.’
NIV: Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be
afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.’
NWT correctly writes Gehenna in this verse, and not the grave falsification of hell.
59
SHG:
phobeo ho apokteino soma apokteino psuche mallon phobeo ho
Trans.: fear
who kill
body kill
soul
rather fear
who
dunamai apollumi kai psuche soma geenna
power destroy also soul body gehenna
THE PACT: Do not be afraid of those who can only destroy the body, but not the
soul. Rather pay respect to him who can throw both body and soul in Gehenna.
COMMENT: This is the verse that creates the greatest confusion about the soul.
Because if the soul is the man himself, why does it then also refer to the body, which
is also the man? No, it is not supposed to be easy. But first, who are those who can
only kill the body, but not the soul? They are the evil people and the servants of Satan
who can only kill the body, in other words make a human being physically dead. It
happens all the time. But who is he who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna?
He is God. And how may we understand this? Yes, we must fear God, because it is
only God, and not Satan or his servants, who may prevent a resurrection from the
dead to an ageous life either in the heavens or on the earth. If God decides to destroy
your soul, your living existence, you will have no resurrection. But also remember
that this is a parable, pictures.
And then this gross falsification of hell. Note that in the original text it says geenna,
which was the name of the garbage dump south of Jerusalem. Everything in a garbage dump has been rejected. And in this case Jesus uses it as a picture of those who
have been rejected by God because they refuse to obey his commandments and will.
The word hell is a construed word which does not exist in the Greek text, neither the
word nor the concept.
The teaching of the immortal soul’s ageous torment in hell is a grave falsification of
the message of the Bible. Not even the word torment, which has been central in English translations, is found in the Greek text. The word is basanizo which means pain,
and that is something totally different from a lasting torment! Also the Greek word
kolasis has been translated torment, but in the last translations it has now been correctly changed to punishment.
The word geenna is used seven times in Matthew, in MAT 05:22, Mat 05:29, MAT
05:30, MAT 10:28, MAT 18:09, MAT 23:15 and in MAT 23:33. When the word geenna in English and U.S. translations is being translated hell, it constitutes a grave
falsification of the word of God. Most, also the priests and the preachers, know this.
But they refuse to correct it for fear that they will lose credibility. If they are directly
confronted with this, they choose to hold on to the very teaching even if fewer and
fewer are actively preaching it. So there is light at the end of the tunnel, but it is sad
that it is such a long tunnel.
60
THE PACT, MAT 13:38. ‘— The good seeds are the sons of the
Realm —’
KJ-1611: ‘The field is the world, the good seed are the children of the kingdom, but
the tares are the children of the wicked one.’
NIV: ‘The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the sons of the kingdom.
The weeds are the sons of the wicked one.’
SHG: agros kosmos kalos sperma huios basileia zizianion huios poneros
Trans.: acre world good seed
son realm weed
son evil
THE PACT: The field is the world, the good seeds are the sons of the Realm and the
weeds are the sons of the evil One.
COMMENT: King James stubbornly adheres to the wrong translation children, but
it is encouraging that NIV gets it right this time and writes sons where they last time
translated subjects instead of sons. Why juggle with words like this? If it says son in
the original text it should also be translated son. Otherwise I am not slow to call their
translation a falsification. And it is a known effort at hiding the biblical teaching of
a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish. NWT correctly writes sons in both
these verses, and also in other verses where the text says son. Both King James and
NIV often omit son and write children instead.
And let it be clear: The word huios can never mean child in Greek or be rewritten
with other expressions such as subjects. But the word may for instance be translated
foal if the text is about horses, because the very basic meaning if the word huios
means ‘offspring of the male gender.’
KJ-1611 here translates according to the teaching of the Pope. And this they do
throughout the whole Bible, and in that way they hide the truth from the reader. Because one thing is a fact: The whole Bible is about the establishment of the heavenly
Melchizedec priesthood. The Levite priesthood was only a model of that.
THE PACT, MAT 16:18. ‘— Not even the gates of the grave,
—’
KJ-1611: ‘And I say unto thee that thou art Peter and upon this rock I shall build my
church. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’
NIV: ‘And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. And
the gates of Hades will not overcome it.’
61
SHG: lego de ei petros tautei petra oikadomeo ekklesia pule haides katischuo
Trans.: say that be peter this
rock establish church gate grave overcome
katischuo
overcome
THE PACT: And I tell you, Peter, that on this rock I will establish my church. Not
even the gates to the grave shall overcome it.
COMMENT: Scandinavian translations are eager to use the expression ‘the kingdom of death’ where the Greek text writes hades. Well, it is better than the horrendous King James translation of hell. NIV writes Hades, which i correct enough, but
unlike Gehenna hades is not a place name. The Greek word haides simply means
grave, but it does not refer to the physical grave which in Greek in mnemeion, a
memory place. In Greek, as also in Hebrew, there is also another word for grave
referring to a concept that we do not have in the Western world. It does not refer to
the physical grave, but to the grave as a destiny that all the dead have in common.
That is what causes the confusion.
But many preachers have also created a philosophy around this by maintaining that
those who are placed in Hades may have a possibility of getting rescued if only God
could make up his mind, ref. those who have never heard the message about Christ.
That is pure phantasy! What follows in the footsteps of death, is always the grave, in
Greek haides. So what Jesus tells Peter is that his church, the church of Christ, not
even the grave will have power to prevail over, because all, righteous and unrighteous, will experience a resurrection. (ACT 24:15)
THE PACT, MAT 16:19. ‘Because I will give you the keys —’
KJ-1611: ‘And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heaven, and whosoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever yu shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’
NIV: ‘I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth
will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’
SHG: didomi kleis
Trans.: give key
basileia ouranos hos -ei
deo
realm on high that what bind
ei luo
epi ge
luo
ouranos
that loosen on earth loosen on high
epi deo
in bind
ouranos
on high
62
THE PACT: Because I will give you the keys to the Realm of the heavens. And what
you reject* on the earth, shall be what has been rejected in the heavens, and what you
accept** on the earth, shall be what has been accepted in the heavens.”
*loosen **bind
COMMENT: Read carefully the text of NIV, or King James, and you will see that
they both have the same wrongful translation. The way this verse is translated, Jesus
gives Peter the authority to decide who shall be rescued, either in the heavens or on
the earth. That can of course not be the case! On the contrary. Jesus warns Peter that
what has been rejected in the heavens, the Levite priesthood that also rejected Jesus,
Peter shall also reject on earth even thought they are the sons of Israel.
And that which has been accepted in the heavens, God’s election of the ethnics, or
the peoples, also Peter must accept on earth. This was no easy task for Peter, but he
is again reminded of this when the first of the peoples, Cornelius, was chosen.
The vision Peter gets of the cloth with the unclean dishes coming down from the
heavens, is a confirmation of what Jesus tells Peter in Matthew 16:19.
Acts 10:09-16, King James, shortened:
‘Rise, Peter, slaughter and eat.’
‘Not at all, Lord, because I have never eaten anything unholy or unclean.’
‘What God has cleansed, you must not call unholy.’
And this was all about God’s election of those of the peoples at the expense of the
Jewish priesthood. From now on the members of the heavenly priesthood were to be
chosen from those of the peoples, now equal to the Jews as far as the election goes.
But this did not refer to the priests. The Levite priesthood had been rejected once and
for all! And after this God has never established a new priesthood! (HEB 05:04) To
replace the Jewish priesthood God established the Church of God and Christ on
Pentecost in the year 33 C.E. when the twelve apostles received of the Holy Spirit.
(ACT 01:26 and 02:01)
THE PACT, MAT 19:09. ‘Therefore I say that anyone leaving
—’
KJ-1611: ‘And I say unto yuo: Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery, and whoso marrieth her
which is put away doth commit adultery.’
NIV: ‘I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness,
and marries another woman, commits adultery.’ (The rest of this verse is omitted by
NIV.)
63
SHG: lego hos -an apoluo apoluo gune ei_me porneia
gameo allos
Trans.: say that who leave leave woman if no unfaithfulness marry other
moicheuo moicheuo ho gameo hu apoluo moichao moichao
fornicate fornicate who marry who leave fornicate fornicate
THE PACT: Therefore I say that anyone leaving his woman for any other reason but
unfaithfulness and takes another woman in marriage, is guilty of fornication. And he
who takes in marriage one who has been left, is also guilty of fornication.”
COMMENT: This is almost identical to MAT 05:32. The word wife does not exsist
in biblical terms. There is only mention of woman. But it is used by translators to
build up under the tradition of church marriages.
That is not a biblical teaching either. It only builds on traditions made by men.
To marry is also not a biblical expression. You give, the woman, and take, the man,
in marriage. And that refers directly to the sexual act. The point being that if someone
leaves his woman without her having been unfaithful to him, so that she takes another
in marriage, he is guilty of her fornication. And one who takes a woman who has
been left, in marriage, is also guilty of fornication.
People no longer adhere to these commandments by Jesus. To most modern people
having sex has turned into an unworthy game of unfaithfulness and fornication.
THE PACT, MAT 21:07. ‘They returned with the colt of the
—’
KJ-1611: ‘And brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and they
sat him thereon.’
NIV: They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their clothes on them, And Jesus
sat on them.’
SHG: ago onos
Trans.: return donkey
polos epitithemi epano himation epikathizo epano
colt lay
thereon cloak
sit
thereon
-autos
self
THE PACT: They returned with the colt of the donkey, and they placed their cloaks
on it for him to sit on.
64
COMMENT: If you read KJ-1611 and NIV with care, you will see that their translations have great flaws. The way they write, it is clear that Jesus rides on both a donkey and a colt simultaneously! That is impossible. When you read THE PACT you
will see that Jesus does not ride on a donkey and a colt, but on a donkey’s colt.
Where is the mistake? Onos polos does not mean a donkey and a colt, but is presented in the genitive, a donkey’s colt. It is amazing how some mistakes are spread
around the whole world, because KJ-1611 is some kind of template for all biblical
translations ever since. But through some afterthought it should be self-evident that
Jesus did not ride into Jerusalem on two animals at the same time! It should be unnecessary to mention that such translations are pretty confusing to an inexperienced
reader.
Read THE PACT one more time, and you will see how clear the original text really
is!
THE PACT, MAT 24:21. ‘Later the distress will be greater —’
KJ-1611: ‘For then shall be great tribulations such as was not since the beginning of
the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.’
NIV: ‘For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the
world until now — and never will be equaled again.’
SHG: tote megas thlipsis hoios apo arche
kosmos nun kairos ou_me
Trans.: after great tribulation that from beginning world now time never
ode ou_me
or never
THE PACT: “Later the distress will be greater than it has ever been from the beginning of this world until then — and never will be again.
COMMENT: These translations from OKJ and NIV cause great confusion, because
they do not refer to the future the way the Greek text does, but they fix it to there and
then. NIV even writes ‘until now,’ which makes the confusion complete! Why? Yes,
they do not separate between the great distress of the Jews when Judea and Jerusalem
were attacked and almost annihilated. That distress happened from the year 67 to the
year 70 C.E. But then Jesus tells about that which will happen sometime later, once
far into the future, and not now the way NIV writes. Verses 21 to 28 are about this
distress, which Jesus calls the Great Distress. These two tribulations must be clearly
separated between for the reader to understand. The word explaining this is the little
65
word nun, which is often translated with now, but which also means from now and
until sometimes in the future. It may also be used in retrospect, from now and back
to sometime in the past. But right is right: This becomes difficult without a full understanding of the seemingly insignificant word nun.
These unclear translations have caused great confusion among preachers who claim
that the Great Distress has already taken place because they confuse it with the distress of the Jews when Judea and Jerusalem were more or less annihilated by the Romans in the year 70. Verses 15-20 are about this distress. But verses 21-28 are about
the Great Distress at the end of this age when God will exterminate all devilry from
the earth. ‘There will be new heavens and a new earth where righteousness shall
live.’ (2PE 03:13) It has until now, almost 2000 years later, still not happened.
THE PACT, MAT 25:24. ‘He who had received one talent, —’
KJ-1611: ‘Then he which had received the one talent came and said: “Lord, I knew
thee that thou art a hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown and gathering where
thou hast not strowed.’
NIV: ‘Then the man who had received the one talent came: “Master,” he said, “I
knew that you are a hard man, harvesting where you have not sown and gathering
where you have not scattered seed.’
SHG: de lambano heis talanton proserchomai epo kurios ginosko ei skleros
Trans.: also get
one talent come
say say
know be hard
anthropos therizo hopou spero sunago hothen diaskorpizo
man
harvest what sow gather what spread out
THE PACT: He who had received the one talent, also came: He said: ‘Lord, I know
that you are a hard man who will not harvest what you have sown, but gather in of
what you have not spread out.’
COMMENT: I cannot stop wondering how two major translations can be identical,
but still not correspond with the contents of the Bible. Here both KJ and NIV write
‘harvesting where you have not sown and gathering where you have not spread out.’
This refers to the Levite priesthood which Jesus rejected, and they were the ones he
did not harvest from, because they had been rejected. Then the correct translation
will be ‘who will not harvest what you have sown.’ And the Levite priesthood had
been sown a long time ago through Aaron.
66
When Jesus started choosing the apostles instead of the Levite priests, they were the
ones he gathered in of, in spite of the fact that they had not been sown, or spread out.
The apostles had not been chosen, spread out, beforehand, but were still gathered in
by Jesus. He who had only received the one talent, is a picture of the Levite priesthood, he who received two talents is a picture of the Jews that accepted Jesus, like
the apostles. And he who got the five talents is a picture of those of the peoples who
shall constitute the majority of God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec. And
remember that this is a parable!
THE PACT, MAT 27:53. ‘They came out from their tombs —’
KJ-1611: ‘They came out of the grave after his resurrection, and went into the holy
city, and appeared unto many.’
NIV: ‘They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the
holy city and appeared to many people.’
SHG: eiserchomai mnemeion meta egeris eiserchomai eis hagios polis
Trans.: go out
tomb
after rise go
in holy city
emphanizo polus
confirm
many
THE PACT: They came out from their tombs after their resurrection and went into
the Holy City. This has been confirmed by many.
COMMENT: When first I started reading the Bible, I became irritated that I was
unable to understand a simple verse like this. Because in verse 52 it says that some
of the holy, some of the dead, were risen through Jesus’ death. But in verse 53 it says
that they came out from the graves after Jesus’ resurrection! How could someone
whom had been risen from the grave through Jesus’ sacrifice still remain in the grave
for three days and three nights until after Jesus’ resurrection?
This was what originally started my digging into the original text. And it was not
necessary to understand a croak of Greek to see that the name Jesus was not included in the Greek text. It had been added by the translators! And then it became
evident that it was not after Jesus’ resurrection they came out of the graves, but after
their own!
Why have NIV added the word Jesus in this text, and King James writing his resurrection, also referring to Jesus. Have they got Jesus on their brains?
67
So to Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation, or rather re-writing, of the verses 51-53. And
I include the whole text from NWT:
Verse 51: ‘And look! The curtain of the sanctuary was rent in two, from top to
bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rockmasses were split.
Verse 52: And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones
that had fallen asleep were raised up,
Verse 53: (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his*
being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many
people.’
*Jesus’
NB! What is presented in parenthesis has been added and does not exist in any text.
And also Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to the resurrection of Jesus, and not to the resurrection of those in the graves. This is an example of pure confusion.
Why has it been done in this way? After a discussion with a Jehovah’s Witness, an
elder of a congregation, I am left with this impression: Jehovah’s Witnesses do not
accept the contents of the original text in these verses, because according to their
teaching only the 144.000 are considered as holy, and none of these died under the
First Pact. Therefore those in the graves cannot be holy. They therefore interpret
these verses so that none of these were risen through the power of Jesus’ death, but
that they were only skeletons scattered about as a result of the earthquake when he
died, and therefore it was not any formerly dead who went into Jerusalem and ‘became visible to many,’ but eyewitnesses to the fact that skeletons were scattered
about. In these verses Jehovah’s Witnesses actually reject Jesus power of resurrection. But, of course, they do not do that on a general basis.
If it is of interest to you, and it ought to be, especially if you are a Jehovah’s Witness, you may go into the original text of these verses and find out from the text the
great deviation of NWT’s translation, or more correctly re-writing.
So to the word holy. Many maintain that it means pure, cleansed, in relation to
God. The word holy simply means being set aside. And it is in that meaning those in
the graves are referred to as holy, for nobody can deny that those being put in a grave,
have been set aside in the real sense of the word.
THE PACT, MAT 28:01. ‘After the Sabbaths, —’
NIV: ‘After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and
the other Mary went to look at the tomb.’
KJ-1611: ‘In the end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the
week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.’
NWT: ‘After the Sabbath, when it was growing light on the first day of the week,
Mary Magdalene and the other Mary, came to view the grave.’
68
SHG: opse sabbaton epiphosko epiphosko eis mia sabbaton erchomai
Trans.: after sabbats get light get light on first sabbath go
maria magdalene allon maria theoreo taphos
mary magdala
other mary see to grave
THE PACT: After the Sabbaths, as daylight broke on the first day after the Sabbaths,
Mary from Magdala and the other Mary came to see to the grave.
COMMENT: The way these three translations, and also every other translation into
English, write, Jesus was only lying in the chamber one day and two nights. In addition they strengthen this misconception by wrongly writing ‘on the first day of the
week’ instead of adhering to the Greek text which says ‘on the first day after the
Sabbaths.’ And thereby they are guilty of two grave falsifications, first through shortening Jesus’ stay in the grave to one day and two nights instead of three days and
three nights. And secondly by referring to the Sunday, ‘the first day of the week’
instead of the first day after the Sabbaths.’ And here one is as guilty as the other, because there has developed an attitude that if they all write the same, one is not worse
that the other. But no better either! In addition it also simplifies their work in translating. But the way this is translated, or more correctly, re-written, they place a veil
over what is correct.
Yet, right is right. This is far from evident in the Greek text, and to get it in place
correctly, you have to understand part of the Jewish calendar, for instance it makes
a difference knowing that the new day of the Jews did not start at six in the morning,
but at six in the evening. Therefore it was important to entomb Jesus before six in the
evening on the 14. of Nisan, because after six started the first Sabbath. Jesus was
risen in the morning on the 17. of Nisan, not after the first, but after the third Sabbat,
because the day between the Sabbaths had also developed into a Sabbath, ref. our
Saturday between Long Friday and first day of Easter. This day was at the time of
Jesus also an official Sabbath.
Go to the prophet Jonah. In JON 01:17 it says, NIV: ‘But the Lord provided a great
fish to swallow Jonah, and Jonah was inside the fish three days and three nights.’
And this is what Jesus refers to in Matthew 12:40 when he referred to the sign of
Jonah telling the pharisees, whom he knew had dishonest intentions, that they would
get no other sign than the sign of Jonah: Because the way Jonah was three days and
three nights in the belly of the great fish, the Son of man will also stay three days and
three nights in the inner of the earth.’
Jesus was in the grave from six in the evening on the 14. of Nisan until six in the evening on the 17. And the night before the two Marys came to see him in the chamber,
he spent preaching to the demons that had been taken into custody. (1PE 03:19)
69
THE PACT, MAT 28:09 ‘And they went to tell it —’
KJ-1611: ‘And as they went to tell the disciples, behold, Jesus met them saying: ‘All
hail,’ And they came and held him by the feet, and worshiped him.’
NIV: ‘Suddenly Jesus met them. ‘Greetings,’ he said. They came to him, clasped his
feet and worshiped him.’
NWT: ‘And look! Jesus met them and said: “Good day!” They approached and
caught him by his feet and did obeisance to him.’
SHG: poreuomai apagello mathetes idou iesous apantao lego chairo proserchomai
Trans.: go
tell
pupil
see jesus meet
say greet come
krateo pous proskuneo
grip foot reverence
THE PACT: And they went to tell it to the disciples. But, see! — then Jesus met
them and said: “Be greeted.” And they came toward him, stretched their hands
toward his feet and bowed before him if reverence.
COMMENT:
POINT 01: In Exodus 29:37 it says, NIV: ‘For seven days make atonement for the
altar and consecrate it. Then the altar will be most holy, and whatsoever (whosoever) touches it, will be holy.’
In Ezekiel 44:19, NIV, it says: ‘When you go into the outer court where the people
are, they are to take off the clothes they have ministered in and are to leave them in
the sacred rooms, and put on other (unconsecrated) clothes, so that they do not
consecrate the people by means of their garments.’
In the same way as the unconsecrated becomes holy through what has been consecrated, but also the holy becomes unclean through that which has not been consecrated.
John tells in JOH 20:17 when Mary from Magdala met Jesus after his resurrection.
She turned toward him and impulsively wanted to touch him. But then he says: “Do
not touch me because I have not yet gone to my Father. —’
After Jesus’ resurrection he was a holy heavenly messenger, and if someone unclean,
sinful, touches a holy, the holy then becomes unclean. Therefore Jesus says to her:
“Do not touch me.” And for that reason Jesus would neither allow anybody else to
touch him after his resurrection, or as NIV writes ‘clasp his feet.’
This translation is then directly contrary to John 20:17 also in NIV’s own translation.
70
Then to the apostle Thomas who many claim touched Jesus after his resurrection.
But that is not correct! What John tells in JOH 20:24-29 is that Thomas was offered
to touch him to make him believe. But it never says that he did! To me it is a matter
of fact that Thomas believed Jesus on his word. After all, he even got to see the nailmarks!
Finally many refer to the fact that Jesus ate physical food after his resurrection. Then
he cannot possibly have been a heavenly messenger, many claim. But also the heavenly messengers that visited Abraham (GEN 18:01-08) ate physical food. And no
food makes a man unclean. Both Jesus and Paul stresses that. A man’s uncleanliness
in relation to God has been inborn through the original sin — man’s inclination to
contradict the Spirit of God.
POINT 02: Both KJ and NIV write in this verse that they worshiped Jesus. If you
go to the Greek text above, you will find that the word translated with worship is
proskuneo. That word can in no instance mean worship, but honor, revere. And you
can honor anybody as long as he deserves it. Remember the expression ‘honor who
honor is due.’
The word for worship is without exception proseuchomai, and this word never
refers to Jesus in the Bible, but only to God the Almighty.
Check the table from page 031. You may or may not like to hear it, but NWT from
Jehovah’s Witnesses has got this right — most of the times.
If you now read the translation of THE PACT you will see that it fulfills the conditions of both POINT 01 and POINT 02.
THE PACT, MAT 28:17. ‘When they saw him, they revered
—’
KJ-1611: ‘And when they saw him, they worshiped him, But some doubted.’
NIV: ‘And when thay sw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted.’
NWT: ‘— and when they saw him, they did obeisance, but some doubted.’
SHG: eido proskuneo ho
distazo
Trans.: see revere
some doubt
THE PACT: When they saw him, they revered him. But there were some who doubted.
71
COMMENT: We see again that both KJ-1611 and NIV wrongly translate proskuneo
with worship. And that mistake is repeated throughout all of the Bible, even if they
know better. Why? It is simple. It is part of the Pope’s and Luther’s teachings that
Jesus was to be worshiped, and most Catholics and Lutherans places their teachings
before the correct understanding of the word of God. The Catholics adjust the word
of God according to the Pope, the Lutherans according to Luther, Jehovah’s Witnesses according to the Watchtower, and so on. But that day shall come, says God, when
only the true understanding of his word will prevail. Where does God say that? Then
you must read chapter 11 in Revelation about God’s two witnesses, the First Pact
through Moses and the New Pact through Christ.
The Bible presents Jesus as the first of God’s creation. In Romans chapter 01 God
warns against worshiping the creation rather than the Creator. In the eyes of God that
is idolatry. And that is also true if you pray to Jesus!
THE PACT, MAT 28:18 ‘— I will be given all authority —’
KJ-1611: ‘And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying: “All power is given unto me
in heaven and in earth.”’
NIV: Then Jesus came to them and said: “All authority in heaven and on earth has
been given to me.”’
NWT: ‘And Jesus approached and spoke to them, saying: “All authority has been
given me in heaven and on the earth.”’
SHG: iesous proserchomai laleo lego pas exousia didomi ouranos ge
Trans.: jesus begin
speak say all authority get
on high earth
THE PACT: Then Jesus began speaking to them, and he said: “I will be given all
authority in the heavens and on the earth.
COMMENT: Excuse my being so blunt, but I see the three translations above as
quite brainless. Correct translation is ‘I will receive,’ and that is correct both based
on the text and reality! First the text: The future perspective is in the conjugation of
the verb didomi. Besides, Jesus was not given all authority in the heavens when he
ascended. And he has not yet received all authority on earth. It is enough just looking
around you, and you have a solid proof. If all the devilry that this world is so full of
right now, was of Jesus’ authority, then Jesus died in vain! Mark writes in 12:36,
siting Psalms 110:1, THE PACT: ‘For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: ‘Sit to my right until I have put your enemies under your feet.’
PSA 110:01
72
For one who has studied the prophecies of the Bible thoroughly, and figured them
out, it is evident that Jesus today has received all authorities in the heavens, ref. REV
12:07-12. Then he threw Satan out from the heavens and down to earth. And there
Satan shall continue to exert his activities until evil has reached its full measure. First
then God shall intervene, through Christ, and exterminate all devilry from the earth.
Then there will be ‘new heavens and a new earth where justice shall prevail.’
(2PE 3:13) The word exousia means authority and clearly shows that Jesus does not
exert his power on his own, but through God’s authority. (THE PACT, MAT0 3:17).
Check the original text.
Gr. oudokeo = approbate (inaugurate with authority)
So much about the heavens. And then a little more about the earth where Jesus has
not yet received authority. But the process is well on its way. And the worldly see
more clearly than most Christians that the world is heading toward a climax that becomes more and more intensive with each passing day. And according to Jesus the
world is inevitably heading for a great tribulation. The future looks exciting, but not
necessarily promising.
Again: If the evil of the world today is part of Jesus’ authority, he died in vain!
THE PACT, MAT 28:19. ‘Go therefore out and teach —’
KJ-1611: ‘Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.’
NIV: ‘Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name
of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’
SHG: pereuomai oun
matheteuo pas ethnos baptizo onoma pater huios
Trans.: go
therefore teach
all people baptize name father son
hagios pneuma didasko tereo pas hosos entallomai
holy spirit
teach keep all what command
THE PACT: Go therefore out and teach all peoples. Baptize them in the name of the
Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and teach them how to keep everything I have
commanded you.
COMMENT: If you consider it closely, you will see that it is not possible to ‘make
disciples of all nations,’ the way NIV writes. The word for disciple in Greek is mathetes, but it does not say so in the Greek text of this verse. It says matheteuo which
means teach. There is also a great controversy over baptism. Some say it is a pre-
73
requisite for being rescued. Other say it is only a question of having a clear conscience with God through Jesus’ resurrection, the way Peter explains it. (1PE 03:21) No
verse in the Bible contradicts that, not even Mark 16:16 which has been added in
later transcripts. It is not part of the original text.
THE PACT, MAT 09:15. — A VERY SPECIAL VERSE:
KJ-1611: ‘And Jesus said unto them: “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn
as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come when the bridegroom
shall be taken from them, and then thay shall fast.’
NIV: ‘How can the guests of the bridegroom mourn while he is still with them? The
time will come when the bridegroom will be taken away; then they will fast.’
SHG:
Trans.:
iesous rheo dunamai huios numphon
pentero epi numphios
jesus say power son bridechamber mourn with bridegroom
hemera erchomai hotan numpios
apairo
tote nesteuo
day
come
when brigegroom take away then faste
THE PACT: Jesus said: “How can the sons in the bridechamber mourn while the
bridegroom is with them? But the time will come when the bridegroom is taken away
from them. Then they may faste.” (Also read Mark 02:19 and Luke 05:34)
COMMENTARY: This verse has been translated in many ways, but THE PACT has
chosen to uncompromisingly follow the ancient Greek text as also King James of
1611 has done, with the grave exception that they write children, not sons. The
thought is this: When Jesus came to earth, he started the election of the bride. And
therefore as a picture he considers the earth as his bridechamber — where the bride
is. At the same time he uses the word bridegroom about himself. And the fact that
this has anything to do with sons has conveniently been omitted in most translations!
But remember it is a parable.
There is a great controversy over whom the bride is, but here the Bible is quite clear.
The bride is symbolic of all who are elected as members of Gods heavenly priesthood, the Mechizedec, with Jesus as their High Priest, the bridegroom. When the
earth is referred to as a bridechamber, it is natural that the bride is the church, or the
congregation. But which church or congregation? The Catholics? The Protestants?
The Watchtower? Adventists? Mormons? The Pentecostals?
It should not be difficult to admit that these churches and congregations, which many
oppose each other as bitter enemies, and which the Bible so clearly says shall be
74
liquidated, (REV chapt. 17, 18 and 19) cannot possibly constitute a chosen unit under Christ. Most of them, from the Catholics to Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not even
build on the teachings of the Bible, but on the teachings and interpretations of men.
Besides, neither Jesus nor the apostles, nor Paul or any other among God’s chosen,
were members of any of these churches, congregations or organizations. But after the
Pentecost in the year 33 o. t. they were still added to the church, or the congregation.
And the only church / congregation that has ever been established by God, is the
Church of God and Christ. And from this church God then chooses his heavenly
priesthood, the Melchizedec, the holy, the elect, those whom God has set his seal on,
those who received the Holy Spirit, those who shall rule with Christ during the thousand years, the hundred and forty-four thousand. The whole temple order witnesses
about this, because it was only for the priests the curtain tore in two from top to bottom! No one was allowed to enter neither into the holy place nor the very holy place
unless he was a member of the Levite priesthood. If one who was not consecrated
dared enter into the sanctuary, he would automatically be killed by God directly. It
is only God’s adopted sons who get to take part in the first, the spiritual, resurrection
to the heavens. (REV 20:06) They are the ones who get the sonship. (ROM 08:04-07)
And they shall rule with Christ over the earth during the thousand years.
Then we will experience that God has created ‘new heavens and a new earth, where
righteousness will prevail.’
And then we will be back to where Adam was before he chose to believe in Satan’s
first lie instead of being obedient to the law of God, in GEN 17:18, NIV:
‘And Jehovah God commanded the man: “You are free to eat from any tree in the
garden, but you must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for when
you eat of it, you will surely die.”’
NB! Here the text of NIV indicates that God had predestined Adam to eat from the
wrong tree: ‘— when you eat of it —’ It would have been a better translation if they
had written: ‘— if you eat of it —’
That would also correspond with the fact. Adam had a free choice and was not predestined by God to fall in sin! But as we all know, Satan has a sneaky way of misleading us.
75
in Mark
THE PACT, MAR 01:02 and MAR 01:13. ‘— See! — I will
send my messenger, —’
KJ-1611, MAR 01:02. ‘— See, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall
prepare the way for thee.’
KJ-1611, MAR 01:13. ‘— and was with wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto
him.’
NIV — The New International Version and NWT - the New World Translation have
similar texts.
I include the part of the Greek text where the word aggelos is being used in both verses:
MAR 01:02, Strong’s Hebrew / Greek: — idou apostello aggelos pro prosopon hos
kataskeuazo hodos emphrosthen
MAR 01:13, Strong’s Hebrew / Greek: aggelos diakoneo
MAR 01:02, THE PACT. ‘It is written by the prophet: ‘See! — I will send my messenger before you, and he shall clear the way for you!’
MAL 03:01
COMMENT: The meaning of the word aggelos is without exception messenger.
And in the KJ-1611 translation of Mark 01:02 you see that it is correctly translated
messenger. But in verse 13 it is translated angel. Why? Yes, when the translators
think that the word aggelos refers to a heavenly being, they write angel. But it is going too far calling John the Baptist an angel. Therefore they write messenger. It may
seem like a trifle, but this is the reason there is such a confusion about angels, because sometimes they believe that the Bible refers to heavenly beings when it quite
clearly refers to earthly messengers. Some of these translations become directly rediculous, like in Hebrews 13:02. — I will explain each verse as I get to them.
Wrongly Translated Verses in Mark
76
MAR 01:13, THE PACT. ‘He stayed in the wilderness for forty days. He was tempted by Satan, and he was among beasts. But messengers came and helped him.’
Jehovah’s Witnesses naively proclaim to have an angel, a heavenly being, in each
congregation leading them on the right path. They base this on the messages of the
seven churches that John writes to in Revelation. In REV 02:01, NIV, it says: ‘To the
angel of the church of Ephesos write: —’ In that way begins the messages to each
of the seven churches in Asia. KJ-1611 and NWT have similar text.
Think now! Can anybody send a letter to an invisible angel, a heavenly being? Of
course not. And this the translators ought to have understood!
I shoved this to the husband of the woman who claimed that Jehovah’s Witnesses has
an angel in each congregation, and that in the Greek text also John the Baptist is referred to as an aggelos. Then he snuffed contemptuously and exclaimed: ‘Hah! The
angel John! That is the dumbest I have heard!’ His wife exclaimed referring to my
Greek text: ‘Throw away that rubbish! It only confuses you! Read the Watchtower!’
It is strange how people so easily submit to their own dogmas even it there is not the
least common sense in them. It is also tragic to witness how difficult it is for the very
most to absorb the simple message that the Bible represents. But poor translations
must be blamed for this, especially when they are consciously being falsified!
THE PACT, MAR 02:21. ‘No one will ever sow patches —’
NIV: ‘No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an ord garment. If he does, the new
piece will pull away from the old, making the tear worse.’
COMMENT 01: Read this one more time — with consideration — and see if you
understand any of it! Is it possible for a new patch, even if it is sown on and old
cloth, to pull away from the old and make the tear even worse? There has got to be
a limit! No, this is a breach of logic of dimensions! What about KJ-1611 and NWT?
Are also they as far off as NIV? Read and compare.
KJ-1611. ‘No man also soweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new
piece that fill it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.’
COMMENT 02: No, this really was not much better! Have you even seen a new
patch of cloth take away from the old? No, and neither has anyone else! And then is
the question: When NIV and KJ-1611 has failed so blatantly, can we then put our
trust in NWT by Jehovah’s Witnesses?
77
NWT: ‘Nobody sews a patch of unshrunk cloth upon an old outer garment; if he
does, its full strength pulls from it, the new from the old, and the tear becomes
worse.’
COMMENT 03: No, this was rather worse than better, because here they talk about
‘the full strength of a piece of cloth.’ And all three translations talk about an unshrunk piece of cloth. Where have they got that from? Definitely from the original
text, because it does not mention anything about an unshrunk piece of cloth with
power to tear away the new garment, or outer garment, as NWT writes. What is then
correct? By the way, how can they all write about unshrunk cloths when the original
text does not mention it by a single word? Yes, they sell rights to each other, and all
modern translations into English is based on the old King James of 1611. That is why
the same mistakes are being constantly repeated. Jehovah’s Witnesses even has it in
writing that they have bought the rights to use the King James version as a basis of
their New World Translation.
Here follows the original text:
SHG: oudeis oudeis kai epirrhapto epiblema agnaphos shakos epi palaios
Trans.: no one no one ever patch
patch
new
linen on old
himation ei_de_me kainos pleroma pleroma airo airo palaios
cloak
so that not new
piece
piece take take old
schisma
tear
ginomai cheiron
look
worse
And here is the correct translation:
THE PACT: “No one will ever sew patches of new linen on an old cloak. Because
then the new patch will accentuate the wear of the old and make it look even worse.
COMMENT 04: If you now follow the original text word by word, you will see how
simple and logical this is. And then you will also understand its contents. And again:
Jesus speaks in pictures. He is not speaking about old and new clothes. The new garment is a picture of Jesus’ new teaching, God’s new law through Christ. The old and
worn cloak is a picture of the law and the teachings of Moses which already at that
time was so torn and worn that is was about time to replace it! But, says Jesus, it is
of no use starting to patch up the First Pact with patches from the New, because then
it will become even more evident how worn and outdated the old actually is! And as
we know Jesus fulfilled the First Pact, that which did not lead to the goal for ‘the
sons of Israel and the foreigners who lived among them.’
He replaced the First Pact with the New Pact, that which leads to the goal, no longer
just for ‘the sons of Israel and the strangers that lived among them,’ (LEV 17:03,
78
among many others) but for those among all peoples who accepts the message about
Jesus,* which the Jews did not. *Hebr. Jehowshuvah, (Joshua) Jehovah’s Rescuer.
THE PACT, MAR 03:11. ‘And when those with the unclean
spirits, saw him —’
KJ-1611. ‘And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried,
saying —’ NIV and NWT write likewise.
THE PACT: ‘And when those with the unclean spirits caught sight of him, they
threw themselves before him. They called to him, saying: “You are the Son of
God!”’
COMMENT: This is too ridiculous! Nobody can see a spirit. And neither can a
spirit fall down and cry! Have you ever seen anything like that? No, and neither has
anybody else! It is of course those who were possessed by the spirit, the way of
speech of that time referring to various mental illnesses, that saw Jesus and then fell
down before him and calling on him to be healed!
In the next verse it says, NIV: ‘But he gave them strict orders not to tell them (the
spirits) who he was.’ Who was it that was not to tell? The unclean spirits? There has
got to be a limit! And such wrong translations are in some versions repeated time and
time again. It therefore creates a total lack of understanding with many of the readers
and form the basis of extensive unbiblical fables!
Also read MAR 01:23-26 and compare THE PACT with any translation. Then
check the original text. They are all way off the target here!
In MARK 01:34 NIV writes: ‘He also drove out many demons, but he would not let
the demons speak, because they knew who he was.’ KJ and NWT have similar texts.
THE PACT: He healed many who suffered from different diseases. And he drove
out many demons. But he denied those with the demons to tell anyone about what
they had experienced.
NOTE: If you now read the original text, you will see how clearly it says there. And
then you will also become confident with how to use the original text. It is not at all
a precondition that you know Greek, because it has been translated in English word
by word. It is like using a dictionary.
In Mark 05:12 NIV writes: ‘— the demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs,
allow us to go into them.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have similar text.
79
In Mark 09:26 NIV writes: ‘The spirit shrieked, convulsed him violently and came
out. The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said: ‘He’s dead.’
THE PACT: ‘Then he shrieked out, and he suffered strong convulsions. After it had
come out of him, he lay there like a lifeless. Therefore many said: “He is dead!”’
Why all this confusion? You have to realize that the ancient Greek is without personal pronouns. They must be added during translations based on a correct English
grammar.
NOTE that this is the last time we read about driving out demons in Mark, but the
same wrong translations you will also find in Matthew, Luke and John. And when
you know this, you may yourself look up the verses where this has been done, because I will only include these wrong translations in Mark. Many of their ways of
speech are also based on the superstitions of that time, and their translations will not
by a longshot help give the reader understanding of the contents. On the contrary!
THE PACT, MAR 09:13. ‘But I tell you that Elijah has already come, —’
NIV: ‘But I tell you, Elijah has come, and they have dome to him everything they
wished, just as it is written about him.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have similar text.
‘Just as it is written about him.’ Where is that written? No, nowhere in the First
Pact. In these three translations all of this statement has been dedicated to Jesus, but
Mark here refers to Matthew. And the last word grapho in the Greek text has been
added by Mark and not spoken by Jesus.
SHG: lego helias kai erchomai poieo hosos thelo grapho
Trans.: say elijah really come
do
what wish write
THE PACT: But I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did to him as they
pleased.” And that is how it is written.
COMMENT: If you now read THE PACT’s translation, you will see that ‘and that
is how it is written’ is not added as part of Jesus’ speech. That is because there is no
reference to this whatsoever in the First Pact that ‘they did to him as they wished.’
NIV has usually no references to the First Pact, while NWT, on the other hand, has
extensive references, but not concerning this verse. They have not found such a reference in the First Pact either. King James has a footnote in LUK 01:17, but when
you read LUK 01:17 you may read the prophecy of John in Malachi 04:05-06. There
it says:
80
MAL 04:05, NIV: ‘See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and
dreadful day of the LORD* comes.
*JHVH
MAL 04:06, NIV: He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the
hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a
curse.’
As you see Malachi does not at all mention the fate of John in this prophecy, ‘that
they did with him as they pleased.’ And because this is not part of the First Pact there
is not much of a probability that Jesus could have referred to it, because he only
referred to the law, the Psalms and the prophecies.
What then is Mark referring to in MAR 09:13? Yes, he refers to Matthew 17:12,
where also Matthew writes that ‘they did to him as they pleased,’ in other words they
beheaded him. Luke has not included that. And based on this there can remain little
doubt that Matthew wrote his message before Mark did, or Mark could not have
referred to Matthew and his message about Christ.
It is common among biblical scholars to claim that Mark is the oldest of the messages
about Christ, but if so were the case, Mark could not possibly have referred to what
Matthew has written. And neither could Jesus have referred to this in a prophecy,
because he was the one who told this when coming down from the mountain. And
everybody understands that Jesus could not have referred to Matthew, because he
died about ten years before Matthew wrote his message. And therefore it is clear that
is is not Jesus who refers to ‘that they did to him as they pleased,’ but Mark with a
direct reference to Matthew based on Jesus’ explanation of this. And here we also
have proof that Mark wrote his message later than Matthew, most likely when he was
attending to Paul in Rome.
And because about 30 years passed from Matthew wrote his message about Christ
until Mark did, it almost speaks for itself that Mark must have read what Matthew
wrote.
It is therefore most likely that those who maintain that Matthew wrote his message
about 10 years after Jesus’ death, and Luke about 40 years after Jesus’ death, and
Mark just a few years later than Luke, have figured this out just about correct. Realizing that both Luke and Mark wrote their messages while Paul was imprisoned in
Rome, is also a strong indication of the same.
THE PACT, MAR 09:43. ‘If your hand makes you stumble, —’
NIV: ‘If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life
maimed than with two hand go into hell, where the fire never goes out.’
81
KJ-1611 has similar text, but NWT writes Gehenna. KJ-1611 and NIV write hell.
Here is the original text:
SHG: ean cheir skandalizo apokopto apokopto kalos eiserchomai eis zoe kullos
Trans.: if
hand stumble cut off
cut off better go in
to life cripple
e
duo cheir aperchomai eis geenna
than two hand go
in gehenna
pur ou
asbestos
fire never quench
And here is a correct translation:
THE PACT: “If your hand makes you stumble, cut it off. For it is better to wander
into ageous life as a cripple, than to have two hands and be thrown into the fire of
Gehenna which is never quenched.”
COMMENT: As you see from the Greek text there is not a single word there connected to hell, but Gehenna. And Gehenna is not a state or situation, but a place
name south of Jerusalem. Gehenna was the name of the garbage dump south of
Jerusalem. If you now have taken to heart that Jesus always spoke in parables, pictures, when he explained something, it becomes easy to understand, but maybe more
difficult to accept for an old winebag, that Jesus here refers to such who God will
reject, not to an everlasting torment in hell, but to an everlasting death. And the
reason why Jesus refers to the fire of Gehenna, is that there was always a fire burning
at the garbage dump. It was nourished so that what had been rejected, would burn up.
There is also a mention of maggots that never die, because there are always maggots
and other vermin in connection with a garbage dump. And then it is of course not so
that each maggot will never die, but the maggots will never die out! And correct
translation is that the maggots never die out because there is only a limited use of
prepositions in the ancient Greek. And then the prepositions will have to be added
based on a correct English grammar.
The place name Gehenna is in English translations periphrased hell twelve times in
the following twelve verses: MAT 05:22, MAT 05:29, MAT 05:30, MAT 10:28,
MAT 18:09, MAT 23:15, MAT 23:33, MAR 09:43, 09:45, MAR 09:47, LUK 12:15
and JAC (not James) 03:06. Every single one of these verses constitute an extensive
and consistent biblical falsification on part of the translators!
The Greek place name geenna or ge hinnom is derived from the Hebrew Ben Hinnom’s Valley, or the Valley of the sons of Hinnom. That valley was a place of idolatry and child offerings going way back in time, and therefore this valley was declared
unclean by God. And that was the basis of it finally being chosen as Jerusalem’s garbage dump. What was thrown there was useless and about to be discarded. And remember that Jesus always explained in parables, pictures!
82
If you belong to the ever growing group of Christians who wants a correct understanding of this, you will find Ben Hinnom’s Valley referred to in 11 verses in the
First Pact, for instance in JOS 15:18, JOS 18:16, 2KI 23:10, 2CH 33:06, NEH 11:30,
JER 07:32, JER 19:06 and JER 32:35.
If you open your Bible and read a little around these verses, you will start to see a
total picture of this. And then you will see that the doctrine of hell is not based on
Jesus’ teaching, and that Jesus’ referring to the fire of Gehenna builds on centuries
old Jewish traditions that has nothing to do with the abominable teaching of an
everlasting burning hell! The doctrine of the immortal soul’s everlasting torment
in an everlasting burning hell builds on as many as three different biblical falsifications:
T01. The soul is far from immortal in the Bible. On the contrary, based on God’s
judgement every soul must suffer death because of Adam’s disobedience. (GEN 03:
19) In Genesis 01:21 God said, THE PACT: ‘Then God created all the great mammals of the sea and every living soul that swim in shoals in the water.’ Here you see
that every creep teaming in the ocean, from the smallest sardine to the biggest catfish, are spoken of as souls directly by God. Are you going to make him a liar like
so many translators have done?
Have you ever seen an invisible or immortal herring?
NOTE! KJ-1611 and NIV have removed the word soul from their translations of this
verse, but King James has added it in a footnote. By the way, have you ever considered that the teaching of the immortal soul builds on Satan’s first lie: ‘You shall certainly not die!’ (GEN 03:04)
T02. The word torment is not used in biblical connections. The word translated torment is basanizo. It does not actually mean torment, but bother, pain. When the
Bible refers to birth pains, the word basanizo is being used in the original text.
T03. The word hell is a construed word without basis in any original biblical text,
and the very concept of hell has never been a biblical teaching. All this abominable
wrong teaching about the soul’s endless torment in an everlasting burning hell
totally lacks foothold as part of the word of God. It was construed hundreds of
years ago by the Pope based on a business idea.
‘As soon as the money in the box clings, the soul out of purgatory springs.’
It was this teaching that enabled the Pope to enrich the papacy through the distribution of letters of absolution. In the Middle Ages many farmers left everything they
owned to the Pope in exchange of a letter of absolution.
83
And this people believe in even today! Then it is actually more credible to put one’s
trust in nerds, forest trolls and witches flying on broomsticks. Nerds we at least know
exist. Trolls too. And witches, even if none of them fly on broomsticks.
If you read the article A Satan’s Lie! on page 379 in MAR — The Realm of God is
Near thoroughly and with consideration, this will be strikingly clear to you for the
rest of your life.
THE PACT, MAR 12:40. ‘But they devour the houses of the
widows —’
NIV: ‘They devour the widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such
men will be punished most severely.’ KJ-1611 writes: ‘— these shall receive stronger damnation.’ NWT writes: ‘— these will receive a heavier judgement.’
SHG: hos katesthio chera oikos prophasis proseuchomai makros
Trans.: thus devour
widow house appearance pray
long
proseuchomai houtos lambano perissoteros
krima
prayer
these
get
more difficult judgement
THE PACT: ‘But they devour the houses of the widows and make long prayers for
the sake of appearance. — For them it shall be more difficult during the judgement.’
COMMENT: How many degrees of judgement are there? Only two. Either you are
acquitted and receive endless life, or you are found guilty and must suffer everlasting
death. There is no in between! How can anybody then get a harder or heavier judgement? No, that is not correct!
In Luke 10:12 NIV writes: ‘I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom
than for that town.’ Yes, as insane as this it is possible to translate! It is of course not
the town itself Jesus is referring too, but the people who lived in the towns. If you
read NIV’s translation with consideration, you will see that what they write is an impossibility, because Sodom as a town has been destroyed once and for all.
Yet they have understood that something will be ‘more bearable,’ but it is something
quite new that also tows shall before the judgement! Shall the town then be resurrected? There has got to be a limit!
THE PACT: ‘Because this I say: It will be easier for those from Sodom and Gomorrah on that day than for those from that town.’
84
The opposite from having it easy during the judgement, is getting it difficult during
the judgement. How may that be understood? Yes, when it says that some will have
it easier, it simply means that it will be easier for them to adjust to the will of God
and thereby get ageous life.
For the others, on the other hand, those who have been false and without love of
what God represents, such as the pharisees, it will be more difficult, yes maybe so
difficult that they refuse to live according to the will of God and may thereby be judged to everlasting extinction.
It is evident that NIV is completely without understanding of what the judgement
involves. KJ-1611 and NWT have not been considering it very thoroughly, either!
By the way, do you know what the day of judgement involves?
Do you think it is a certain day of 24 hours when all shall be placed before the judgement seat where Jesus is sitting with his index finger and mallet? ‘You have been a
bastard! You go to hell!’ Bang! Bang! Bang! Or: ‘Maybe I ought to send you to the
kingdom of the dead? Or purgatory?’ Bang! Bang! Or: ‘Ahhh, you’ve been a good
guy! You may come to heaven!’ Bang!
No! The day of judgement is the thousand years, or what is left of the thousand years
after you have been resurrected to the judgement. Contrary to common religious
teaching it is the choice you then make that will determine your final fate, ref. Adam.
The teaching that the good go to heaven when they die, and the bad go to hell, is a
far cry from being a biblical teaching! You stay in the grave until you are resurrected,
some very few to a heavenly glory, but the very, very most, righteous or unrighteous,
(ACT 24:15) to the judgement on the earth. (There are some exceptions to this, but
they are few.)
The Bible is really clear here, but good grief how they keep fabling! And the reason
is that so many so-called Christians are unwilling to accept the factual teachings of
the Bible. They thing they know it better themselves!
One grave example: Have you not heard all the Christians maintaining that they are
saved? They can even give you the specific time of when it happened! Maybe you
are even one of them?
Jesus says differently. He says that those who endures until the end, will be saved!
(MAT 24:13)
Do you thing that making Jesus a liar on a daily basis will bring you such a great
blessing that it will take you straight to heaven when you die? Think again!
85
THE PACT, MAR 14:12. ‘On the first day —’
NIV: ‘On the first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when it was customary to
sacrifice the Passover lamb, Jesus’ disciples asked him, “Where do you want us to
eat the Passover?”
KJ-1611: ‘And the fist day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his
disciples said unto him, Where wilt though that we go and prepare that thou mayest
eat the passover?’
NWT: “Now on the first day of unfermented cakes, when they customarily sacrificed
the passover victim, his disciples said to him: “ Where do you want us to go and
prepare for you to eat the passover?”
SHG: protos hemera azumos
hote thuo
pascha mathetes lego
Trans.: first day
unleavened when slaughter passover pupil
say
pou thelo aperchomai hetoimazo phage paska
where wish go
celebrate meal
passover
THE PACT: On the first day before the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when they were
to slaughter for the Passover, the disciples asked him: “Where do you want us to
celebrate Passover.”
COMMENT: It does not agree with Moses that the Passover was slaughtered on the
first day of the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which was a Sabbath, but on the day before, on the very Passover which to the Jews was not a holiday or a Sabbath.
According to Jewish tradition, and the Bible, Jesus was impaled on the same day.
And Passover, the very pascha, was not the first day of the Feast of the Unleavened
Bread, but the day before. To the Judeans the first day if the Feast of the Unleavened
Bread was a Sabbath, and on a Sabbath no work whatsoever was allowed.
The whole explanation you will find in Leviticus 23:01-08. The very story is part
of Exodus.
NB! Be aware that Passover had developed in such a way in Judea at the time of
Jesus that the first two days of the Feat of the Unleavened Bread were Sabbaths. The
very Passover took place on a Wednesday while the two first days of the Feast were
Thursday and Friday. And the followed the seventh day Sabbath. And Jesus was resting in the tomb all of these three Sabbaths; days of rest. He was resurrected just after
six on the Sabbath which actually was the beginning of the next week, on a Sunday.
And in that way Jesus lay in the grave three days and three nights. But Jesus was not
risen early on Sunday monring the way many have understood it, based on wrong
86
translations and lack of understanding. Then Jesus would have lain in the grave four
night, and not three as the prophecy says. No, Jesus has his spiritual resurrection the
day before. And this time he used to preached to the sprits that were taken into
custody. 1PE 03:19-20) And who were they?
The spirits that had been taken into custody, were the godsons that saw that the
women on the earth were beautiful and took in marriage those whom they desired.
(GEN 06:01-08) Their offspring became vicious giants, the nephilim, and it was to
destroy these God sent the flood. Satan was then about to gain a final victory over
the world. Therefore it became necessary for God to take action!
What happened to the godsons who were the originators of these giants? Thy had the
ability to dematerialize and return to their previous existence. But is says that they
were lain in chains, metaphorically of their losing the ability to materialize again. So,
it was to these Jesus went and preached after his spiritual resurrection! And this is
also what Judas (not Jude) refers to in JUD 01:06, THE PACT: ‘And the messengers
that did not hold back (against sin) when they left their dwellings (the heavens), will
be kept in darkness in everlasting chains until the judgement on the great day.’
THE PACT, MAR 16:01. ‘When the Sabbaths —’
NIV: ‘When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the Mother of James,
and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus’ body.’
KJ-1611: ‘And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary, the mother
of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint
him.’
NWT: ‘So when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of
James, and Salome bought spices in order to come and grease him.’
SHG: sabbaton diaginomai maria magdalene maria iakobos solome agorazo
Trans.: sabbath go by
mary magdala mary jacob solome buy
aroma
erchomai aleipho
spicy oil go
anoint
THE PACT: When the Sabbaths were over, Mary from Magdala, and Mary, the
mother of Jacob, and Salome, went to buy spicy oil. And they went to anoint him.
NOTE: If these translations were correct, Jesus would not have lain in the grave
three days and three nights, but only, and in this order — one night, one day and one
night. And he would have been risen Sunday morning. Not so.
87
COMMENT: Jesus died on the day of preparation on the 14. of Nisan. Then followed the Feast of the Unleavened Bread beginning with two Sabbaths. Originally
Moses only referred to the first as a Sabbath, but according to the Mosaic Church
both of the first two days had become Sabbaths. Both these two Sabbaths were unique of the Feast. And then we must not forget that even it this was a feast, also followed the seventh day Sabbath. And that fell on the day after the first two Sabbaths.
And in that was Jesus was in the grave three days and three nights on three consecutive Sabbaths. And Jesus was risen on the first day of the week, as it is wrongfully
translated. The Greek text says ‘on the first day after the Sabbaths.’ And these rewritings make it even worse to get a correct picture of the text. It is hard enough the
way it is written in Greek.
The law about the pascha, passover, and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread you may
read about in Leviticus 23:04-08.
The prophecy of Jesus’ stay in the grave for three day and three nights you may read
abut in Jonah 01:17. Jesus refers to this prophecy in Matthew 12:40.
Hebr. pesach = passover (Easter)
NB! The correct name of Jesus’ half brother is not James, but Jacob. The translators
of the so-called King James Version changed his name from Jacob to James in honor
of King James who initiated and supported this translation. THE PACT makes no
such considerations. How it is in the original text, is also how it will be translated no
matter what — in honor of the real King!
88
in Luke
THE PACT, LUK 01:03. ‘Therefore also I think it right —’
NIV: ‘Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, —’ KJ-1611 and NWT have similar texts. And in this case even the
original text has a synoptic text! What could then be wrong?
SHG: dokeo
kago akribos parakoloutheo pas anothen grapho
Trans.: seem (right) also I exact
knowledge
all beginning write
kathexes
right context
kratistos
kratistos
theophilos
most honorable most honorable godlover
THE PACT: Therefore also I think it right, because I have had exact knowledge of
this from the beginning, to write it down in consecutive order to you, most honored
godlover.*
*theophilus
COMMENT: Luke has written two of the most foremost letters of the New Pact, the
Message after Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, or just Acts. And he begins both
of his writs in the same way. (LUK 01:03, ACT 01:01) And he writes them both to
‘Theophilus.’ Who is this Theophilus who Luke at the beginning dedicates his letters
to? Do we hear about him anyplace else in the Bible? No, we do not. Does it then not
seem a bit far fetched by Luke to dedicate both his writs to someone we have never
heard of before; someone who has not been mentioned in the Bible whatsoever?
Then the question is: What does the Greek word ‘theofilus’ mean in English? Yes,
directly translated it means ‘godlover.’ And it is to every ‘most honored godlover’
Luke dedicates both his letters, and not to a person who is totally unknown in a
biblical relation, a person called Theophilus!
Gr. theos = god, mighty
Gr. philos = love
89
Wrongly Translated Verses in Luke
THE PACT, LUK 02:35 — But a long sword shall penetrate —
NIV: ‘— so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. But a sword will
pierce your own soul too.’* KJ-1611and NWT have the same text, but NWT correctly writes ‘a long sword,’ and that is exactly what the word rhomphaia means.
And then it also agrees with what happened in reality.
*ref. to Mary
SHG: de rhomphaia dierchomai dierchomai psuche kai dialogismos polus
Trans.: but sword
penetrate penetrate soul
also speak of
many
kardia apokolupto
heart reveal
THE PACT: ‘But a long sword shall penetrate his soul, and he will be spoken of by
many so that what is in their hearts will be revealed.’
COMMENT: The word also, or too, does exist in this text, but does not refer to
Mary. Because, when was Mary’s soul pierced by a long sward, or spear? No, it has
not happened, because this does not refer to Mary, but to Jesus. And it happened
when the Roman soldier put the spear into his side! (JOH 19:34) Actually, old Simon
prophesized correctly about Jesus’ death.
Why almost all translations all the time write the same mistakes, seem quite strange.
And it is far from coincidental. But also I have been blinded by the wrong translations of this verse and thought that is was through Mary this long sword would
pierce. I thought it was a picture of how she would suffer when watching her oldest
son die. At the same time I became uneasy and felt something was wrong. And then
there is only one sure way of finding out what the truth is: Digging deeper into the
original text! And actually, this verse is very logical when you see that also the rest
of this verse is about Jesus. It is he who ‘will be spoke of by many, and not Mary.
Remember that King James was originally a Catholic translation. Therefore Mary.
THE PACT, LUK 05:34 — A VERY SPECIAL VERSE:
NIV: ‘Can you make the guests of the bridegroom fast while he is still with them?’
NWT wrongly writes ‘the friends of the bridegroom,’ and all this in spite of the fact
that KJ-1611 basically has it correct.
SHG: epo dunamai poieo huios numphon
nesteuo en -hos numphios
Trans.: say can
do son bridechamber fast
when with bridegroom
THE PACT: Jesus answered: ‘Can anyone ask the sons in the bridechamber to fast
as long as they still have the bridegroom with them?’
90
COMMENT: This verse is translated in many different ways. Also THE PACT has
been in doubt here, but has chosen to uncompromisingly follow the ancient Greek
text the way also the original version of King James of 1611 has done except for
their writing children, not sons. The thought is this: When Jesus came to the earth,
he started electing the bride. And therefor he metaphorically considers the world as
a bridal chamber — where the bride stays. In that same context he uses the word
blidegroom about himself. And the fact that this refers to sons, has also been omitted! And remember: It is a parable.
There is a great controversy over who the bride is, but here the Bible is quite
clear: The bride is a picture of all who are chosen to make up God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec, with Jesus as High Priest. And when the earth is spoken of
as a bridechamber, it is natural that the bride is on the earth. And that is not a hindrance to the interpretation that the bride is the church. But what church? The Catholic? The Lutheran? Watchtower? The Adventists? The Mormons? It should not be
hard admitting that these churches, which in many cases oppose each other as bitter
enemies, and which the Bible so clearly say will be eradicated, (REV, chapters 18
and 19) cannot be one unity under Christ. (EPH 01:10)
Besides, neither Jesus, the apostles, Paul, or any of God’s chosen at the time of
Jesus, were members of any of these organizations. But on the day of the Pentecost
in the year 33 they became added to the church. (ACT 02:47) And the only church
/ congregation which has ever been established by God is the Church of God and
Christ. And from this church God chooses his heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec,
the holy, the elect, those God has set his seal on, those who received the Holy Spirit,
those who are to rule with Christ during the thousand years, the one hundred and
forty-four thousand. The whole temple order, including the Levite priesthood, testifies to this. It was only for them the curtain in the temple tore in two, because no one
except the priests had access neither to the Holy nor the Most Holy place. If someone
entered without being consecrated, he was struck dead directly by God. It is only
God’s adopted sons who get to take part in the first, the spiritual, resurrection. (REV
20:06) They are the ones who get the sonship. (ROM 08:14-17) And they shall rule
with Christ from the heavens over the earth during the thousand years. (REV 20:04)
They are the firstfruit together with Christ who is the First of the firstfruit.
THE PACT, LUK 05:36. ‘Nobody tears a piece of cloth —’
NIV: He told them this parable: ‘No one tears a patch from a new garment and sews
it on an old one. If he does, he will have torn the new garment, and the patch from
the new will not match the old.’
KJ-1611: And he spake also a parable to them: ‘No man putteth a piece of new
garment upon an old, if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece
that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old.’
91
NWT: Further he went on to give an illustration to them: ‘No one cuts a patch from
a new outer garment and sews it onto an old outer garment, then both the new patch
tears away and the patch from the new garment does not match the old.’
SHG: lego kai parabole oudeis oudeis epiballo epiblema kainos himation palaios
Trans.: say also parable no one no one tear off piece cloth new cloak
old
ei_de_me ei_de_ me kai kainos scizo scizo epiblema kainos sumphoneo palaisos
for then for then også new tear tear cloth
new fit
old
THE PACT: Then he told them yet another parable: “Nobody tears a piece of cloth
off a new cloak to patch an old. Because then you tear up the new without the new
piece fitting the old.”
COMMENT: NWT’s translation of this verse is more free fantasy that a translation.
And KJ-1611 is not much better. How can a new patch be torn off just because you
sew it on an old cloth? On the contrary! Jesus here refers to his new teaching, the
New Pact, and says that it is impossible to take a little from the New Pact and use it
to patch up the First, because the First was already obsolete. It was about to be
fulfilled by Christ. Today only the New Pact is valid both to Jews and those of the
peoples. Jews, Christians and Muslims, and all the rest, are now under the same pact!
THE PACT, LUK 08:28. ‘When he got sight of Jesus, —’
NIV: ‘When he saw Jesus, he cried out and fell at his feet, shouting at the top of his
voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I beg you,
don’t torture me!’ KJ-1611 writes torment and does also NWT.
SHG: eido iesous anakrazo prospipto prospipto megas phone epo tis iesous huios
Trans.: see jesus call out fall down fall down loud voice say what jesus son
theos hupsistos hupsistos deomai basanizo
god highest highet
ask
bother
THE PACT: When he got sight of Jesus, he fell down before him. In a loud voice
he said: “What do you want with me, you Jesus, Son of the Highest God? I beg you,
do not bother me!”
COMMENT: Many translations write ‘do not torture me’ or ‘do not torment me’
here. The word in Greek is bazanizo meaning plague, bother, but not in any case
torture. The word torture does not exist in the Greek text, only in the translations.
We have before seen that the word quai is translated woe, an expression of pain,
92
sorrow. But when we read about birth pains in connection with births, bazanizo is
used in the Greek text. The reason this has any importance is the fact that a correct
translation helps discredit the unbiblical teaching of an eternal torment, or torture.
That teaching is definitely not from God, but of Sa---, eh, men. Amen!
THE PACT, LUK 08:31. ‘And he begged him urgently —’
NIV: ‘And they (the spirits) begged him repeatedly not to order them to go into the
Abyss.’ Also KJ-1611 and NWT translate this verse in such a way that it was the
spirits who spoke. And this has built up under a lot of superstitions over the years!
SHG: parakaleo
epitasso
aperchomai abussos
Trans.: ask urgently command come out
abyss
THE PACT: And he begged him (the one with the mental illness) urgently that he
did not command them to come out of him to be sent to the abyss.
COMMENT: Evil spirits can neither ask, speak, shout or scream. The evil spirit is
metaphorical of the disease, the mental suffering, that this person struggled with.
When it says that Jesus threatened the evil spirits, it becomes a bit more difficult. But
do not be led astray by wrong interpretations because of fine details. Jesus also
threatened trees. So be aware that much of this is in pictures, signs.
What is the abyss in the Bible? Note that NIV presents it with a capital A, Abyss,
and therefore adheres to the schooling that the Abyss is synonymous of the much
revered Hell by Christians. Nothing can be further from the truth! The abyss is a
picture of something that is not of the good, and something that has been hidden. It
says in REV 11:07 that ‘when God’s two witnesses (the First and the New Pact) had
fulfilled their testimonies (when the Bible had become complete) the beast (the
Roman Empire represented by Emperor Constantin) rose from the abyss to go to
battle against them, —’ The abyss is also in this case a picture of something that is
not of the good, but then becomes active. And this refers directly to the way Emperor
Constantin changed the original contents of the Bible so that it would be acceptable
to people under the Roman Empire who had previously believed in pagan gods, ref.
the false teaching of the trinity which was introduced by Constantin in the year 325
C.E.
THE PACT, LUK 09:24. ‘For he who wants to save —’
‘For whoever wants to save his life will lose, but whoever looses his life for me, will
save it.’ KJ-1611 has a corresponding text. NWT, on the other hand, follows the
original text in this verse and writes soul where the for soul, psuche, is being used
in the Greek text.
93
SHG: hos -an thelo sozo psuche apollumi hos -an apollumi psuche
Trans.: he if wish rescue soul
lose
he if lose
soul
heneka
houtos sozo
because of this
rescue
THE PACT: For he who wants to save his soul, will lose it, but he who loses his
soul because of me, shall rescue it.
COMMENT: It may seem innocent, but a deliberate omission of the word soul in
verses that clearly shows that the soul is the very human being, and not some invisible hocus-pocus that people carry around within themselves, make up some grave
falsifications of the word of God. And it confuses the reader to believe that the soul
is both invisible and immortal. That is not from God, but of Sa---, eh, men. Amen!
By the way, do you realize that the teaching of the immortal soul builds on Satans
first lie: ‘You shall certainly not die?’ (GEN 03:04) There is definitely a reason why
Jesus says that Satan is the father of lies!
The Hebrew and the Greek texts write the word soul as many as 854 times. But in its
translation the New International Version (NIV) uses the word as few as 129 times
in 125 verses. If NIV had written soul the very first time it is being used in the Bible,
everybody would have understood that the soul is the individual itself, whether man
or animal. In Genesis 01:20 it says: ‘— The waters shall teem with living souls, —’
Have you ever experienced an invisible or immortal herring? More than this an honest person does not need to understand what the soul is. The reason this has been,
and still is, so consistently falsified, is that in this way it agrees with the original
wrong teachings of both the Pope and Martin Luther. — Long live Christian honesty!
It is so hard to find.
THE PACT, LUK 10:12. ‘It will be easier for those from —’
NIV: ‘I tell you it will be more bearable on that they for Sodom than for that town.’
KJ-1611 and NWT have corresponding texts.
SHG: lego anektoteros
anektoteros hemera sodoma e
polis
Trans.: si mer utholdelig mer utholdelig dag
sodoma enn by
THE PACT: Because this I say: It will be easier for those from Sodom and Gomorrah on that day than for those from that town.”
COMMENT: How can it be easier, or more bearable, for Sodom on that day? Has
not Sodom been destroyed once and for all? Yes, it is of course not the town itself
94
Jesus refers to, but the people who lived in that town. And then it also has to be
translated in that way. Think a little! But what confuses the translators in cases like
this, is that in the Greek text there are neither prepositions or personal pronouns.
Therefore they have to be added based on correct English grammar.
NOTE that such wrongly translated verses you will find throughout all of the Bible.
And these are such great breaches of logic in relation to a correct understanding of
the word of God that it leaves many honest readers confused and bewildered.
THE PACT, LUK 10:13. ‘Grieve, you from Korazin —’
NIV: ‘Woe to you, Korazin! Woe to you Bethsaida! For if the miracles that were
performed in you had been performed in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented
long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have similar texts.
SHG: ouai chorazin ouai bethsaida ei dunamis ginomai turos sidon hos ginomai
Trans.: grief korazin grief bethsaida if power do
tyre sidon
that do
palai
palai
metanoeo kathemai sakkos
spodos
old time old time repent
sit
sack cloth ash
THE PACT: “Grieve, you from Korazin. Grieve, you from Bethsaida. Because if
the power that was exerted among you, had been exerted in Tyre or Sidon, those who
live there would have repented long ago and clothed themselves in sackcloth and
ashes.
COMMENT: The Greek word metanao means to repent, but Scandinavian translations consistently write convert. The expression to convert is also a biblical expression, but the Greek word for convert, turn about is epistrepho.
THE PACT follows this without deviation. In addition, it was of course not the
towns Jesus condemned, but the people living in them. Some translations also write
in verse 12 that ‘it will be easier for Sodom on the day of judgement than for Korazin and Bethsaida. How can that be possible? Sodom was destroyed thousands of
years ago! Will it be rebuilt, and then be destroyed again? Think a little! Also this,
of course, refers to the people living in those towns, and not the towns themselves.
In the same way it was those who lived in the town of Korazin and Bethsaida Jesus
condemned, simply because these people had witnessed Jesus divine powers and
rejected them. They had blasphemed the Holy Spirit. But if those in Tyre and Sidon
who were non-Jews, had experienced the same, they would have repented and clothed themselves in sackcloth and ashes a long time ago. Towns cannot repent or convert. Think a little!
95
THE PACT, LUK 10:14. ‘Therefore it will easier —’
NIV: ‘But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon at the judgement than for
you.’ KJ-1611 and NWT write the same.
LUK 10:14
SHG: anektoteres
anektoteres
turos sidon en
krisis
e
Trans.: more bearable more bearable tyre sidon during judgement than
THE PACT: Therefore it will be easier for those from Tyre and Sidon during the
judgement than for you.
COMMENT: Again, neither Tyre or Sidon will stand before the judgement, but
those people who lived in them. It is strange that those who have translated this, have
not reconsidered! And again it is important to know, and to remember when needed,
that in ancient Greek, Koiné, is very seldom used auxiliaries, almost no prepositions,
almost no personal pronouns, not the indefinite article, and not even the word not.
Therefore it is important to keep your tongue straight when you translate from Koiné.
THE PACT, LUK 10:15. ‘And you from Capernaum —’
NIV: ‘And you, Capernaum, will you be lifted up to the skies? No, you will go down
to the depths.’
KJ-1611: ‘And you, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shall be trust down to
hell.’
NWT. ‘And you, Capernaum, will you perhaps be exalted to heaven? Down to Hades
you will come!’
NB! Study the extensive breaches of logic in all of these translations! It is no wonder
that the word of God had ben placed in discredit by normally intelligent people.
SHG: kapernaoum ho hupsoo ouranos katabibazo
katabibazo
haides
Trans.: capernaum who lift up on high thrown down thrown down grave
THE PACT: And you from Capernaum could have been lifted up to the heavens, but
you shall be thrown into the grave.
COMMENT: The concept of a kingdom of the dead does not exist in the Bible.
Neither does hell as KJ-1611 writes! Haides simply refers to the grave as a place
where the dead have a common fate. Words like hell and kingdom of the dead are
construed without basis in the original text and therefore create great confusion to
ordinary readers. NIV writes depths. What is that? It is not correct, but definitely
better than hell! Writing haides when they do not understand the contents, is correct,
96
but at the same time it is not a translation that will make the reader understand what
he is reading. All such translations form the basis of an extensive wrong teaching and
are a direct hindrance to a correct understanding of the message of the Bible. Sometimes I wonder if these so-called Christians know what honesty is.
You have to have a deep understanding of the Bible to understand this verse. Jesus
grew up in Capernaum, and the people there knew who he was. But they rejected him
as God’s heavenly Son. And they even rejected his acts being from God. Therefore
they blasphemed the Holy Spirit. If they had believed in Jesus, they could have been
elected as members of God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec, which almost
all of the Bible is about. But, of course, since they rejected Jesus, he will also reject
them. And more, by rejecting Jesus’ acts being from God they blasphemed the Holy
Spirit. Therefore Jesus says that they will be thrown into the grave. And thereby they
will not experience the resurrection, neither the first nor the second.
THE PACT, LUK 10:18. ‘I imagined Satan falling —’
NIV: ‘He replied, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’ KJ-1611 and NWT
write the same.
SHG: epo theoreo
satanas astrape pipto ouranos
Trans.: say imagine (see before him) satan
lightning fall on high
THE PACT: Then he answered: “I imagined Satan falling like lightning from the
heavens.
COMMENT: Most translate this verse in such a way that Jesus concretely saw this
with hs eyes as he said it. That is not correct. The word theoreo means to see, but
also imagine, present, literally theorize. Jesus saw this as a result of the extensive
preaching that would take place before the Realm of God could be established. And
according to Daniel’s prophecy this can be dated. Also read Revelation 12:07-12.
This is what Jesus saw before him, imagined.
Be aware that when Jesus sent out the twelve, it was an example of the preaching
among the Jews about the first resurrection. The one that John referred to, he who
was not together with them, but who nevertheless drove out demons in the name of
Jesus, was an example that also some of the peoples, Gr. ethnos, were to be subjected
to this power. And when Jesus sent out the seventy, the seventy were an example of
the preaching among the peoples, the non-Jews, on the earth. Remember that Jesus
always explained in pictures and acted in signs. This is repeated throughout the
whole Bible, ref. the wanderings of the sons of Israel in the wilderness where the
Messiah was leading the way to the promised land.
97
THE PACT, LUK 11:48. ‘And thereby you give testimony —’
NIV: ‘So you testify that you approve of what your forefathers did; they killed the
prophets, and you build their tombs.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have similar translations.
NJ-1611 write: ‘They killed them, and you build their tombs (sepulchres).’ This must
be a grave misunderstanding, because in that way it took thousands of years before
they were buried with a tombstone. And NWT writes the same as KJ even if it is way
off the target.
SHG: ara
martureo martureo
Trans.: therefore witness witness
sunendokeo ergon humon pater men
approve
work your father for
apokteino oikodomeo mnemeion
kill
build
monument
THE PACT: And thereby you give testimony that you approve of the work of your
fathers. — They killed the prophets and you build monuments over them.
COMMENT: It is the fact that they build monuments over those whom their forefathers killed, Jesus refers to. And then the monuments become more monuments of
their fathers evil acts than in honor of those whom they killed.
THE PACT, LUK 13:25. ‘When the master of the house —’
NIV: ‘Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand
outside knocking and pleading, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer: I do
not know you or where you come from.’ Both KJ-1611 and NWT have similar texts.
But that does not correspond with neither the facts nor with the original text. Of
course Jesus knew where they came from!
SHG: oikodespotes oikodespotes egeiro apokleio thura archomai histemi exo
Trans.: lord house lord house rise close
door begin
stand outside
krouo thura lego kurios kurios anoigo apokrinomai ereo eido pothen
knock door say lord lord open respond
say know wherefrom
THE PACT: When the master of the house gets up to close the door, you will be left
standing outside knocking on the door. And you shall say: Lord, Lord, open op for
us.’ But he will answer you by saying: ‘You did not know where I came from.’
COMMENT: When Jesus came to earth, the priests, his own priesthood where God
has decided he was to become their Highest Priest, rejected him as God’s heavenly
98
Son. And they themselves confirmed that they did not know where Jesus came from:
In John 09:29 it says, NIV: ‘We know that God spoke to Moses, but as for this fellow
(Jesus), we do not even know where he comes from.’ Adn because they rejected
Jesus’ heavenly origin, he shall also reject them, with their own words, when they
seek a heavenly existence. (Remember that this is a parable with the priests as examples.)
It is the two words eido pothen, (not) know wherefrom (I am) that linguistically confirm this. It is far from difficult to translate this correctly, but it again shows the
tendency that when one does it wrongly, the rest ‘make the same mistake.’ But this
is no longer valid for the priesthood. That has long ago been rejected! No, Jesus here
uses the priesthood as an example of such who will not accept Jesus for what he is,
God’s heavenly Son. And today that is the major part of Christianity who more and
more often claim that Jesus was not the Son of God, and still is not, but God the Almighty.
I will refer to an ugly example of this: In the book Faith and Teachings by Alf Somdal at the top of page 386 the author in strong words warns against Jehovah’s Witnesses! And why? Yes, because Jehovah’s Witnesses do not believe that Jesus is God
the Almighty, but the Son of God! What the Bible says, seem to be of lesser importance.
THE PACT, LUK 13:27. ‘You did not know where I —’
NIV: But he will reply, ‘I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me,
all you evildoers!’ KJ-1611 and NWT basically write the same.
SHG: ereo lego eido pothen
aphistemi pas ergates adikia
Trans.: speak say know wherefrom go away all work
wrong
THE PACT: But he will answer by saying: ‘You did not know where I came from,
you who are teachers of what is wrong.’
COMMENT: Here we have the same problematics as in verse 25, but I have still
dicided to include it because it is so basic to a correct understanding of the text, because it is being translated directly opposite of what it says in the Greek text. It is self
evident that Jesus knew them and where they came from. He even refers to their
wrong teachings, works.
THE PACT, LUK 16:09. ‘Do not gain friends through —’
NIV: ‘I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is
gone, you will be welcomed in the eternal dwellings.’
99
KJ-1611: ‘And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that, when you fail, they may receive you unto everlasting habitations.’
NWT: ‘Also, I say to you, make friends for yourselves by means of the unrighteous
riches, so that, when you fail, they may receive you into the everlasting dwelling
places.’
Note that all these translations are contrary to Jesus’ teaching. Also note that they are
almost true copies of KJ-1611. Those who wrote this, cannot even have glanced at
the Greek text when they wrote it!
SHG: lego poieo heautou philos mammonas adikia
hotan ekleipo dechomai
Trans.: say do self
friend money
dishonest slik fail
receive
eis aionios skene
in ageous tent
THE PACT: But I say: Do not gain friends through their dishonest desire for money,
because then you will fail and not be accepted in the ageous tent.
COMMENT: here NIV, KJ-1611 and NWT have close to identical texts and one is
as wayward as the other. In addition they testify to a total lack of biblical understanding, because the way they all write, Jesus recommends them to practice unrighteousness so that they may gain a life in ages ‘in the eternal dwellings.’ Where is that?
Does anybody really believe that Jesus has recommended unrighteousness as a prerequisite of a life in ages? And how can they all write the same, when it says something totally different in the Greek text! And as you can see, I have included the
Greek text word by word, transliterated, so that anyone who is interested, may go in
and check it. And then you will see that what it says there, is totally different. And
again remember that the word not is not used in Greek. It has to be added based on
the translator’s understanding of the text.
When you have studied the Greek text, then check the translation of THE PACT and
you will see that it agrees with both the original text and the rest of the message of
the Bible. Translation this verse in such a way that Jesus recommends unrighteousness as a prerequisite of a life in ages, is a breach of logic of dimensions! The result
of such actions are exactly the opposite. It is not at all strange that people get bewildered by such translations!
Note that some write dwelling, others tent, in this verse. The original text writes tent.
And the ageous tent refers to a life in ages on the earth! (REV 07:15)
100
The example to be able to understand this, is the tent in the wilderness that symbolized Gods final order. The sanctuary, the very building, symbolized that of the heavens, but the outer courtyard symbolizes the earth. And that is how it is throughout
all of the Bible. When God rises his tent over them, it is symbolic of the world being
sub-ject to the rule from God through Jesus and his heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec, the one hundred and forty-four thousand, God’s adopted sons.
THE PACT, LUK 16:18 — ‘Anyone who leaves his woman —’
NIV: ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman, commits adultery,
and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.’ Both KJ-1611 have
identical text here, but check the Greek text and you will see that different words are
being used there. But these are basically correct translations although the original
text uses different words.
SHG: pas -ho apoluo apoluo gune gameo heteros moicheuo moicheuo
Trans.: all who leave leave woman marry another fornicate fornicate
pas -ho gameo apoluo apoluo aner moicheuo moicheuo
all who marry leave leave man fornicate fornicate
THE PACT: “Any one who leaves his woman to take another in marriage, commits
fornication. And any one who takes in marriage one who has been left by her man,
commits fornication.”
To get married is not a biblical expression. The Bible all the time writes give and
take in marriage. To divorce is neither a biblical expression. Instead the Bible write
leave. The word wife does not have a biblical origin. The Bible consistently writes
woman. The Bible never talks about breaking the marriage woe. It consistently
speaks about doing, committing, adultery or fornication.
In other words, it you have met a woman, or a man, who has had many different relationships behind them, it is of little use bringing her or him to church to get the
priest’s or minister’s blessing. No priest or minister has received such an authority
from God. The relationship will, regardless, be at strife with God’s order, because
the marriage is the sexual togetherness. And a woman, or man, with many sexual
relationships behind him / her can never become yours in the eyes of God. Then they
both live in adultery!
In John 04:17-18 Jesus says to the Samaritan woman, THE PACT: ‘The woman
answered and said: ‘I have no man.’ And Jesus answered: ‘Well spoken. You have
no man. Because you have had five men. But he whom you have now, is not your
man. You speak the truth.’
101
THE PACT, LUK 17:21. ‘Nobody will be able to say: —’
NIV: ‘— nor will people say, ‘Here it is,’ or ‘there it is.’ Because the kingdom of
God is within you.’ KJ-1611 also writes that ‘the kingdom of God is withing you.’
NWT, on the other hand, writes ‘the kingdom of God is among you.’
SHG: oude ereo idou hode e idou ekei idou basileia theos entos
Trans.: no
say see here or see theree se realm god among
THE PACT: Nobody will be able to say: ‘See — here it is.’ Or: ‘See — there it is.’
But, see — the Realm of God is among you.”
COMMENT: ‘— the Realm of God is among you.’ Some translations, among then
the New International Version, write ‘the Kingdom of God is within you.’ Then they
cannot have understood much of the plain message of the Bible, but yet a message
that is so difficult for Christians to understand — and even more difficult to accept!
The Realm of God is the reestablishment of what Adam destroyed through his
disobedience against the commandment of God. (ACT 03:21) To carry out this, God
shall establish a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish (LEV 21:16-21)
consisting of righteous men, the holy, the elect, those whom God has set his seal on,
the one hundred and forty-four thousand, those who get to take part in the first, the
spiritual, resurrection to a life in the heavens as God’s adopted sons and Jesus’ brothers, the bride. (ROM 08:12-17) These shall become God’s heavenly government,
and they shall rule over the world in age and ages. That is how simple it is! But good
heavens how difficult it is for blown-up Christians to accept this! It is still a fact that
it is the selection of this priesthood that the Bible is mostly about. When Jesus says
that the Realm of God is among them, he refers to himself as a priest in ages, and to
the first twelve members of this priesthood, the twelve apostles.
Read Ephesians 01:13-14 and you will see how straight forward this is presented
there. Then go directly to Revelation 07:04 and you will see this quite clearly! Then
it is important that you will not reject it, or you will never be able to understand the
plain message of the Bible. I explained this to a preacher some years ago, and he
looked at me disapprovingly and exclaimed aggressively: ‘I know what it says, but
I refuse to believe it!’ Then I asked carefully what relation he had to the one hundred
and forty-four thousand, and he exclaimed even more aggressively, almost with
hostility: ‘I just let them sail along on their own!’ I knew this guy from years before..
He recognized me, but I did not recognize him, for now he was a full-time preacher.
THE PACT, LUK 17:37. ‘Where the bodies are, —’
NIV: ‘Where, Lord,’ they asked. he replied, ‘Where there is a dead body, there the
vultures will gather.’ KJ-1611 and NWT basically have the same text, but write ‘eagles’ instead of vultures.
102
SHG: apokrinomai epo pou kurios epo hopo soma ekei aetos sunago sunago
Trans.: respond
say where lord say where body there vulture gather gather
THE PACT: Then they asked, saying: “Where, Lord?” And he replied: “Where the
bodies are, the vultures will gather.”
COMMENT: This may seem like a quibble, but I include it anyway, especially
aimed at people who want to have every detail in place. In the original text it says
body, but referring to dead bodies. Some translations write carcass, which should
also be fair enough. Yes, it is even a better text than writing bodies. But the Greek
text says body.
The word aetos also means eagle, but in this verse it does most likely refer to vultures, because they are the foremost birds of prey while eagles are usually not.
THE PACT, LUK 19:21. ‘I was afraid of you, because I —’
NIV: ‘I was afraid of you, because you are a hard man. You take out what you did
not put in and reap what you did not sow.’
KJ-1611: ‘I feared thee, because you are an austere man: thou takest up what you
layedst not down, and reapest that you did not sow.’
NWT: ‘You see, I was in fear of you, because you are a harsh man; you take up
what you did not deposit, and you reap what you did not sow.’
SHG: phobeo hoti austeros anthropos airo tithemi
Trans.: fear
for strict
man
take lay out
therizo speiro
harvest sow
THE PACT: ‘I was afraid of you, because I knew that you are a strict man who does
not take in of what you have laid out, but harvest of what you have not sown.’
COMMENT: What was laid out that Jesus did not take in of? That was definitely
the Levite priesthood. They rejected Jesus and were in turn rejected by God. NWT
writes deposit here, but that is overdoing it. Then what was harvested that had not
been sown? That was the disciples that Jesus chose just out of the blue. Unlike the
priesthood they had not been sown, but they were harvested. And this parable is repeated by Jesus in many different versions.
English and American translations have much better texts here than most Scandinavian translations. But NWT disappoints a little when writing deposits. They have
understood the Realm of God, but are still not able to get this right. They ought to
tear apart their contract to be allowed to translate directly based on King James and
instead concentrate on the Greek text. And then start all over again, because they
have added too many meaningless words that do not exist in the original text.
103
THE PACT, LUK 20:28. ‘They said: Teacher, Moses has —’
NIV: ‘Teacher,” they said, “Moses wrote for us that it a man’s brother dies and
leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for
his brother.’
KJ-1611: ‘Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man’s brother die, having a
wife, and he die without children, that this brother should take his wife, and raise up
seed unto his brother.’
NWT: ‘— saying: “Teacher, Moses wrote us, ‘If a man’s brother dies having a wife,
but this one remained childless, his brother should take the wife and raise up offspring from her for his brother.’
SHG: lego didaskalos moseus grapho ean tis tis adelphos apotnesko echo gune
Trans.: say teacher
moses write if any be brother die
have woman
apotnesko ateknost ateknost adelphos lambano gune exanisteme sperma adelphos
die
childless childless brother take
woman produce semen brother
THE PACT: They said: “Teacher, Moses has written* that if one who has a brother,
dies childless, and he has a woman, then his brother shall take this woman and produce semen with her for his brother.
*GEN 38:08
COMMENT: This is not a question of rescue or not, but still right is right. It says
nothing about a wife or a widow in this text, the way NIV writes, and neither does it
write to marry or to have children or raise up offsprings.
This verse is a good example of how direct the Bible may be. It doesn not talk about
having children or raising offsprings, but writes sperma, semen. And the sperm is as
we know the smallest particle of a sex cell, the smallest sprout to a new life. Read
the translation of THE PACT and you will see hoe direct also THE PACT is. It does
not doctor the word of God, but presents it identical to the original text.
THE PACT, LUK 20:36. ‘Neither shall they ever die again, —’
NIV: ‘— and they can no longer die, because they are like the angels. They are
God’s children, since they are the children of resurrection.’
KJ-1611: ‘Neither can they die any more: for they are equal to the angels; and are the
children of God, being the children of the resurrection.’
NWT: ‘In fact, neither can they die any more, for they are like the angels, and they
are God’s children by being children of the resurrection.’
SHG: oute
dunamai apotnesko eti
eti
Trans.: neither will
die
after this after this
104
isaggelos
like messenger
isaggelos
huios theos en
huios anastasis
like messenger son god
because son resurrection
THE PACT: Neither shall they ever die again, because after this, they shall be like
the messengers. And they shall be the sons of God, because they are the sons of the
resurrection.
COMMENT: Here all three translations write God’s children when it says sons in
the original Greek text. And let it be as clear as running water: These are conscious
falsifications in order to make God’s word as gender neutral as possible. And if that
alone had been the consequence, it would not have been too bad, but it hinders a
correct understanding of who the sons of God are. And hold on to something solid:
All of the Bible is about these sons of God! They are the ones to constitute the heavenly section of the Realm of God, and only these get to be part of the first, the spiritual, resurrection! They are the ones who will make up the Melchizedec priesthood
which the whole temple order, including the priesthood, was an example of.
The wrong translation of this verse must be rather embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a close to correct understanding of the Melchizedec priesthood, the
one hundred and forty-four thousand plus one, Jesus Christ, the heavenly High Priest.
And yet they do not manage to get a correct translation of who the sons of God are.
Again this is solid proof that the follow the King James translation almost like
slaves. If they had followed the original Greek text, they would have managed to get
this correct, because when the Bible refers to the sons of the resurrection, it refers
to the members of this priesthood. These are the ones who get to take part in the first,
the spiritual, resurrection to a life in ages in the heavens. All the rest of us, those who
get to take part in the second resurrection, will get a resurrection on the earth. Remember: Jesus did not adhere to any gender equality policies when he elected the
twelve apostles. All were men without a blemish because they, according to God’s
plan, were to make up a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish. The Levite
priesthood was an example of this, because no one who had the slightest handicap,
could become a priest even if he was born a Levite. And then it was not so that all
Levites were priests, but all priests were Levites.
You may read about the priesthood without blemish in Exodus and Leviticus. The
most detailed description you will find in Leviticus 21:17-24. In this verse all of
them also write angels. And indeed there is quite a angel-hysteria out there! And this
confusion most of the translators are responsible of! The Greek word aggelos, which
has been transformed into angels, without exception means messenger whether from
the heavens or of the earth. But when the translators believe that aggelos refers to a
105
heavenly being, they write angel. And when it is clear that aggelos refers to an
earthly being, they write messenger, ref. REV 02:01. But there are many examples
of the same. And then they make common preachers or messenger into heavenly beings. And at the same time as they are invisible, they fly around in the heavens with
wings! This has created confusion, indeed!
The princess of Norway, Martha Louise, even believes that she has the ability to pick
up angel feathers and through her teachings she has become a millionaire! — Uff da!
THE PACT, LUK 20:47. ‘They devour the widow of her —’
NIV: ‘They devour widows’ houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men
will be punished most severely.’
KJ-1611: ‘Which devour widows’ houses, and for a show make long prayers: the
same shall receive grater damnation.’
NWT: ‘— and who devour the houses of widows and for a pretext make long prayers. These will receive a heavier judgement.’
SHG: hos katesthio chero oikia prophasis proseuchomai makros proseuchomai
Trans.: they devour widow house appear
pray
long prayer
houto lambano perissoteros krima
these get
more difficult judgement
THE PACT: They devour the widow of her house and say long prayers for the sake
of appearance. Such will experience more difficulties during the judgement.”
COMMENT: Here we hear about being punished most severely, receive greater
damnation and receive a heavier judgement. What does it mean getting a greater
damnation or receive a heavier judgement? How many levels of judgements are
there? No, there are only two: Either you are found worthy to a life in ages, or, if you
blaspheme the Holy Spirit, you will be sentenced to a death in ages. Anything in between does not exist! You cannot not be a little bit saved or be greatly lost. It is one
or the other. But at least here they all show that they do not know what the judgement involves. Can you imagine Jesus sitting on a judge’s seat with his gavel ready?
‘Hey, you! You may get to heaven!’ — Pang! ‘Hey. you! You will go to hell!’ —
Pang! No the judgement is the choice you yourself take in relation to Jesus acts after
the resurrection. Believe in him an live! Reject him and die!
In John 08:15 Jesus says: ‘I judge nobody.’ But in John 09:39 he says: ‘To judgement I have come to this world.’ And the judgement is the choice you make yourself
in relation to Jesus’ acts, and the day of judgement is the thousand years. Then you
106
are resurrected with you old personality, and then it is a question if you have been
of the good, of God, or represented evil, of Satan. And to somebody who has been
as full as evil as the priests and the pharisees, it will be more difficult to accept Jesus
acts that for someone who has lived righteously. Then it will be easy for some to
make the right choice, but for other it will be quite difficult. Yes, for some it will be
so difficult that even if they are subject to God’s direct power, they will chose to side
with satan the same way Adam did. The final judgement will then happen after Satan
again has been let loose from his imprisonment. Then those who choose wrongly,
will be forever lost.* They have sentenced themselves to the second, the endless,
death!
Gr. olethros = destroy, fall into decay
THE PACT, LUK 22:07. ‘Then came the day before —’
NIV: ‘Then came the day of unleavened bread n which the passover lamb had to be
sacrificed.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then came the day of unleavened bred, when the passover must be killed.’
NWT: ‘The day of the unfermented cakes now arrived, on which the passover victim
must be sacrificed.’
SHG: de erchomai hemera azumos en
-hos pascha
dei
thuo
Trans.: so come
day
unleaven when that passover must slaughter
THE PACT: Then came the day before the Feast of the Unleavened bread when they
were going to slaughter for Passover.
Here they translate as if the Feast of Unleavened Bread only lasted one day. Not so.
This refers to the Passover, the day before the days of unleavened bred. When you
check the text, you see that this may be easily misunderstood, because the original
language has a very limited use of prepositions. And here before is a preposition, and
therefore needs to be added in the translation. Omitting the preposition in this case
leads to the misunderstanding that the period of unleavened bred and the passover
are identical lasting only one single day. Not so. The Passover was the day of preparation before the beginning of leading to the Sabbaths of the unleavened bread.
COMMENT: The day before the Feast of the Unleavened Bread was the very pascha, the Passover. According to Judean traditions this only lasted one day, the day
before the Sabbaths of the unleavened bread. This celebration lasted for as many as
seven days!
NB! be aware that the celebration of Easter in the Western world does not correspond to the celebration of the Judeans. The Passover of the Judeans was in memory
of the exodus of the sons of Israel from Egypt, and indeed, there were not many Brits
or Americans taking part in that!
107
Read about the regulations of the Passover and the feast f the Unleavened Bread
in Exodus, all of chapter 12. Of the holidays of the sons of Israel you may read
in Leviticus, all of chapter 23. There Moses once again explains the relation between the Passover and the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
THE PACT, LUK 22:68. ‘— and when I ask, you will not —’
NIV: ‘— and if I asked you, you would not answer.’
KJ-1611. ‘And if I ask you, ye will not answer me, nor let me go.’
NWT: ‘Moreover, if I questioned you, you would not answer at all.’
NB! Here both NIV and NWT have left out the last sentence of this verse. KJ-1611
writes ‘nor let me go.’ When did they not let hin go?
SHG: ean kai erotao apokrinomai e
apoluo apoluo
Trans.: when also ask answer
rather leave leave
THE PACT: And when I ask you something, you never answer me, but rather walk
away from me.
COMMENT: The last part of this sentence has been left out by most translators. It
sort of does not fit in. But that is only because of lack of understanding. They should
have put some more time into it. The word apoluo is simple to understand. It simply
means leave, walk away from. The thought behind it is this: The pharisees and the
teachers of the law often question Jesus in order to discredit him. But when Jesus
asked them a question, they refused to answer, and instead walked away from him,
for instance when he asked them about John’s baptism. It is wrong to write that they
would not let him go, because they themselves walked away from him when he asked
them difficult questions that they would not answer.
THE PACT, LUK 22:70. ‘So confirm to us that you are –-’
NIV: ‘They all asked: ‘Are you then the Son of God?’ He replied: ‘You are right in
saying I am.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then said they all, Art thou then the Son of God?’ And he said unto them,
Ye say that I am.’
NWT: ‘At this they all said: Are you the Son of God?’ He said to them: ‘You yourselves are saying that I am.’
NB! Compare NWT with KJ-1611. It is a direct transcript. Also note that in these
translations Jesus does not confirm that he was the Son of God.
108
SHG: de phemi pas ei oun huios theos epo lego
eimi
Trans.: then confirm all if then son god say say (in response) I am
THE PACT: So confirm to us all that you are the Son of God!” Then he answered:
“I tell you: — That I am!”
NB! Note how directly Jesus confirms that he is the Son of God. Also note that he
does not say that he is God the Almighty. Such a claim would have been blasphemy,
and, according to the law of Moses, the Jew would then have been in their full right
to execute him!
COMMENT: First to the very translation. NIV writes ‘you are right in saying I am.’
But they did not say so. They asked him. But here also KJ-1611 and NWT have the
same text. But now you may check the original text and see that their translations are
not correct! On the contrary: Jesus confirmed clearly and directly that he was the Son
of God. It was not something he was ashamed of or afraid to confirm. And in this
case they could not have sentenced him to death for something they themselves
claimed to be true. They needed his confirmation, and they got it!
Then to all this fable that Jesus says he is God the Almighty in this verse: It is nonsence, yes, even blasphemous! What they wanted to learn was if he would confirm
in court what he so often had said when he was preaching — that he was the Son of
God, the promised Messiah — he whom the Jews had been waiting for for centuries.
And that was what Jesus so clearly and directly confirmed! And that was what provoked them. Yes, it provoked them to the extent that they sentenced him to death
because of that statement!
NB! Be aware that if Jesus just one single time had claimed to be God the Almighty,
the Jews, according to the law of Moses, would have been in their full right when
they executed him, because that was covered by the concept of blasphemy and was,
again according to the law, subject to the death penalty.
Then to the I Am-philosophy: It has nothing to do with the Bible. It is a man-made
philosophy without any basis in the word of God. Besides, in the Greek text Jesus
never even utterd the expression I am, only eimi. In Greek the personal pronoun is
hidden in the conjugation of the verb itself. So when Jesus says eimi, he says I am.
What then about ego eimi, I am? Is it never used in Greek? Yes, but only when the
I is to be accentuated, in other words not you, but I am the Son of God. But this expression you will not find in a single verse throughout the Bible!
Again: The word ego, I, is only being used in Greek when the ego is to be accentuated. And therefrom the expression an egotist!
109
THE PACT, LUK 23:15. ‘Neither did Herod, because he, —’
NIV: ‘Neither has Herod, for he sent him back to us; as you can see, he has done nothing to deserve death.’
NB! Basically a correct translation except for the word us. Pilate did not send Jesus
back to the Jews, but to the authority of Pilate to be judged by him.
KJ-1611: ‘No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death
is done unto him.’ Uff da! What kind of nonsense was that?
NWT: ‘In fact, neither did Herod, for he sent him back to us; and, look! nothing
deserving of death has been committed by him.’
NB! Also NWT write us instead of me here. Apart from that they have a correct
translation, but in a stilted, supposedly religious, language not always corresponding
with the Greek text.
SHG: alla
oude herodes anapempo
Trans.: neither nor herod send back
idou oudeis axios thanathos prasso
see nothing demand death
do
THE PACT: Neither did Herod, because he has sent him back to me. For, see! —
nothing that he has done, warrants death!
COMMENT: It is not an important matter, but it may still seem confusing that some
translators write opposite of each other. But the situation was that neither Herod
found any guilt with Jesus and therefore returned him to Pilate who was of higher
authority. Initially Pilate was rather relieved when Jesus was under Herod’s jurisdiction. But when Jesus was questioned by Herod, he did not answer him with one
single word. Yet neither Herod found anything to accuse him of that would warrant
death, and therefore he returned Jesus to Pilate, which did not make Pilate very
happy. He tried to avoid having anything to do with this. But the Jews were persistent. And because Pilate had shown respect of Herod’s power, they now became
friends.
These translations clearly illustrates how a lacking use of personal pronouns in the
Greek text may lead to many confusing translations. Because in many such cases you
must add the personal pronoun based on your own understanding of the text. But, sad
to say, if you do not understand the text, there are many traps to fall into. And then
the one safest way is to uncompromisingly follow the text.
THE PACT, LUK 23:43 — COMMA OR PERIOD
NIV: Jesus answered him: “I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.’ (Or: “I tell you the truth today. You will be with me in paradise.”)
KJ-1611: And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with
me in paradise. (Or: Verily I say unto thee to day. Thou shalt be with me in paradise.)
110
NWT: And he said to him: “Truly I tell you today. You will be with me in Paradise.”
(Or: “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”)
SHG: iesous epo amen lego semeron paradaisos
Trans.: jesus say truth say this day paradise
THE PACT: And Jesus said: “This truth I tell you on this day: You shall be with me
in Paradise.”
COMMENT: Through all the Bible the Man Jesus Christ is being presented as a
heavenly firstfruit, because no man before him has ascended to the heavens. (JOH
03:13) It was only when Jesus dies that the curtain in the temple tore in two from top
to bottom. (MAT 27:51) And he lay as we know in the tomb three days and three
nights before he was resurrected. If the robber had been taken ‘up to heaven’ on the
day he died, he would have become the heavenly firstfuit, not Jesus. And of that had
been the case, Jesus’ sacrificial death would have been in vain.
Where is Paradise? In the First pact the garden of Eden was presented as a Paradise.
But in the New Pact we hear of God’s paradise (REV 02:07) which refers to that of
the heavens. Based on this we understand that Paradise is no specific place, but a
picture of a condition that gives ageous life. So this robber received a promise of a
life in ages. Is he then in the heavens? No, he is still in the grave waiting for a resurrection. (ACT 24:15) he will only get a life in ages after the thousand years are over.
(REV 02:07) What abiut the other robber? Is he burning in hell? No, he is also in the
grave waiting for a resurrection — as one of the unrighteous. And he will be
resurrected tgether with the other robber — one righteous, the other unrighteous.
Whether he will get a life in ages with the first robber, or is lost in ages, depends on
the choice he takes during the judgement when Satan again is released for a short
time, ref. Adam. That is the judgement.
I am fully aware the after almost two thousand year of false teaching, it is difficult
to accept the message of the Bible.
This is how this verse is wrongly translated: ‘I tell you the truth, today you will
be with me in paradise.’
This is how it is correctly translated: ‘This truth I tell you on this day: You will
be with me in Paradise.’
This is how shrewd it may be done! It is only a question of where you place the
comma. In version 01 the robber goes straight to heaven when he dies, ref. the Pope
and Luther. In version 02 he rests in the grave until he gets a resurrection on the
earth, ref. the Bible. (ACT 24:15)
111
By the way, both of these robbers were thrown into the fire of Gehenna, wrongly
translated hell. Gehenna was the name of the garbage dump south of Jerusalem
where everything useless would be thrown in the fire. And it was custom among the
Jews at that time that anybody sentenced to die an the pole, would be denied a proper
burial, but just thrown into the fire to become incinerated. That was the ultimate
humiliation!
THE PACT, LUK 24:01. ‘Very early in the morning —’
NIV: ‘On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the
spices they had prepared and went to the tomb.’
NB! Note that in the previous verse NIV refers to the Sabbath in the singular!
KJ-1611: ‘Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they
came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices they had prepared, and certain other
with them.’
NB! In the previous verse also King James refers to the Sabbath in the singular
NWT: ‘On the first day of the week, however, they went early to the tomb, bearing
the spices they had prepared.’
NB! In the previous verse also NWT refers to the Sabbath in the singular. But Jehovah’s Witnesses are aware that this is not correct. Therefore they say, ‘parts of three
days and three nights.’ That does not make it any better.
SHG: kai mia sabbaton orthros erchomai mnema phera aroma hos hetoimazo
Trans.: then after sabbath early come
tomb carry spice that prepare
THE PACT: Very early in the morning on the day after the Sabbaths they arrived
at the tomb bringing the spicy oils that they had prepared.
COMMENT: The prophet Jonah was in the belly of the great fish for three days and
three nights. This was an example of Jesus stay in the tomb for three days and three
nights. Jesus referred to this in MAT 12:40. He died at the end of the Jewish pascha,
the Passover, which was a day of prepara-tion to the Sabbaths. According to Moses
the Feast of the Unleavened Breads fol-lowed the very next day ans lasted for seven
full days. The first was a special Sab- bath. But as time went on, it also developed
so that the second day became a sabbat, naturally, for also the third day was a
Sabbath, the seventh day Sabbath. And thereby Jesus stayed in the tomb three days
and three nights which were all Sabbaths. The next day, Sunday, was the first day
after the three Sabbaths.
Just imagine! All the three days and three night Jesus stayed in the tomb, were
Sabbaths. He rested from his work.
112
This is complicated, but it definitely does not make it easier by not following the
Greek text where it says ‘on the first day after the Sabbaths’ and then re-write the
text to ‘on the first say of the week.’ How dishonest is it possible to be? Or is it ignorance from copying King James?
THE PACT, LUK 24:52. ‘In reverence they returned to —’
NIV: ‘Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.’
NWT: ‘And they did obeisance to him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.’
NB! Here both kj-1611 ans NIV write worship. NWT write do obeisance, which is
a very formal word, but yet correct.
SHG: proskuneo hupostrepho hierousalem megas chara
Trans.: reverence return
jerusalem very happy
THE PACT: In reverence they returned to Jerusalem, and with great pleasure.
COMMENT: The word proskuneo does not in any case mean worship in Greek. It
means honor, have respect of, reverence. The word for worship in Greek is proseuchomai. This word is, without exception, only used of God the Almighty in the Bible.
Why, then, do the translators consistently and consciously translate prosckuneo with
worship? That is simple, but not so easy to accept. But in this way the word of God
is being adjusted to agree with the many wrong teachings of the Pope and Martin
Luther, who maintained that you are to worship Jesus Christ as well as God the Almighty. And later alsi the Pentecostals and all the other denominations who slavishly follow the great leaders of yesteryear without themselves checking what is correct. The Pentecostals even claim that it is correct to worship and even pray to the
Holy Spirit! None of these are biblical teachings, but commandments made by men.
This also shows that with each new church we get further and further away from the
original biblical true teaching. And this is a result of religious leaders not having
respect for the word of God, but instead place themselves in the driver’s seat.
This is a scary example of the teaching of one of the leaders of the Lutheran church:
‘The bible is no cook book. We need to invent a teaching which all of the people will
accept.’ Quote: Einar Gelius, a minister of the Norwegian church in Oslo. This guy
has no respect of God, but instead wants to play God himself.
Remember: Whom did Jesus teach us to pray to in Father in the heavens in Luke
11:01-04 and in Matthew 06:07-13? To himself? To the Holy Spirit? Or to God the
Almighty?
113
THE PACT, LUK 24:53. ‘And they were before the temple —’
NIV: ‘And they stayed continually at the temple, praising God.’
KJ-1611: ‘And they were continually in the temple, praising and blessing God.’
NWT: ‘And they were continually in the temple blessing God.’
SHG: enanti hieron aineo eulogeo theos amen
Trans.: before temple praise bless god amen
THE PACT: And they were before the temple praising [and blessing]* God.
[Amen.]*
*added in later transcripts.
COMMENT: Based on these translations you are left with the impression that they
stayed in the temple continually praising God. That is, of course, not correct, and
neiteher does the original text say so. But here the text seem a bit illogical. The situation was that they were often inside the temple court, or about, and praised God
there.
In a best case scenario they ought not write continually, but often. All three translations write continually, which means coherently. And that was of course not the
case. And then again this strange question: When it does not say so in the Greek text,
why do they all write the same in their translations? There is only one answer.
THE PACT consistently follows the Greek text even if that may be a poorer literary
solution in English. And maybe that is why some translators try to ‘improve’ the
text? But why do they all try to ‘improve’ the text in same way when it does not even
say so in the original Greek text?
114
in John
THE PACT, JOH 01:01. ‘— In the beginning was the Word,
—’
NIV: ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God.’ King James of 1611 has similar text, but NWT writes that ‘the word was
a god.’
It is evident that the belief in the trinity, the teaching that says that Jesus is God the
Almighty, and the teaching of the sovereignty, the belief that Jesus is the Son of God,
separates these translations. It is also evident that both KJ-1611 and NIV defend the
teachings of the Pope and Luther that Jesus is God the Almighty. Catholic and Lutheran priests and ministers alike, men as women, tell in their sermons that ‘God came
down to the earth, laid himself in the womb of Virgin Mary and let himself be born
as Jesus Christ.’ — Does this agree with the Bible?
SHG: arche
logos logos theos logos theos
Trans.: beginning word word god word god
THE PACT: In the beginning was the Word, the Word was from God and the word
became god.’.
COMMENT: Here we have ended up in a minefield even before we have properly
started, because the way this verse is being translated, separates between the belief
in a threefold God and a sovereign understanding of God. But as you see from the
Greek text, neither that is of much help because it is open to all kinds of interpretations — unless we have a proper understanding of the Greek grammar.
First, in ancient Greek there is a very limited use of prepositions. Therefore in Greek
it only says beginning, but in order to make this a readable English we need to add
the preposition in. There is also a very limited use of the definite article, the. Therefore a correct beginning is: ‘In the beginning —’ They all have that correct.
115
Wrongly Translated Verses in John
Then, as you may see, there is no use of any auxiliaries in this verse, therefore the
auxiliary must be added in the past tense, was. And in the next section the words was
and from, an auxiliary and a preposition, must be added in order to make it a readable
English with a correct grammar, as is also the case with the auxiliary be or become.
Then referring to the word theos, God, it is being used with a capital G-- when the
proponents of the trinity think that God refers to Christ. But those who stick to the
message of the Bible about Jesus being God’s Son write God with a capital letter
when it refers to God the Almighty, and god in lowercase letters when it refers to
Christ. And they all know that the Word refers to Christ.
THE PACT has an understanding of the Sovereign God whose Son is Jesus
Christ.
Remember that the word god means mighty whether you write elohiym in Hebrew,
theos in Greek, allah in Arabic of god in English, and the a one hundred percent
correct translation of this verse will be:
‘In the beginning was the Word, the Word was from the Mighty and the word
became mighty.’
In next verse it says: ‘He was in the beginning with God.’ And this effectively kills
the notion that Jesus is God the Almighty, because he cannot be with God if he is
God! There can not exist a shred of doubt that KJ-1611 and NIV-1984 translations
of this verse make up a rough and willed biblical falsification! And in the Catholic
and Lutheran churches, as well as that of the Pentecostals, the proclamation of Jesus
as God the Almighty is among the roughest of all biblical wrong teachings!
Again: That is a grave falsification of the Bible! Those who are responsible of
this, know better!
THE PACT, JOH 01:02. ‘— He was from the beginning with
God.’
SHG: houtos arche
theos
Trans.: this
beginning god
THE PACT: He was from the beginning with God.
COMMENT: The Word refers to Christ who is of the male gender. But the word
houtos in Greek is not a personal pronoun, but a reflective pronoun, and the word
houtos, this, also refers to Christ. It is then not grammatically correct to write he, but
is is correct according to the contents. And that is how it is in Greek.
116
THE PACT, JOH 01:05. ‘— The light shone for those in the
darkness, —’
NIV: ‘The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood.’
NB! What is it that the darkness has not understood?
KJ-1611: ’And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.’
NB! Same translation as NIV, or vise versa.
NWT: ‘And the light is shining in the darkness, but the darkness has not overpowered it.’
NB! The wording ‘has not overpowered it’ in this verse is free fantasy!
SHG: phos phaino skotia
skotia
katalambano
Trans.: light shine darkness darkness receive
THE PACT: The light shone for those in darkness, but those in darkness did not
accept / receive it.’
COMMENT: It says in verse 04 that the light shone for man. Therefore it was man
who was in darkness and who refused to receive the light, Christ, and thereby get the
information, the enlightening, of what belongs to God and Christ.
John here shows hoe directly the Jewish leaders, especially the Levite priesthood,
rejected that Jesus was the Son of God. He was the Light, and they refused to receive
him. ‘He came to his own, but his own did not receive him.’ (JOH 01:11) This refers
to the priest, and it was especially to the priests Jesus came, and then as their own
heavenly, spiritual High Priest. The darkness itself cannot receive, understand or
overpower anybody or anything at all!
THE PACT, JOH 01:11. ‘He came to his own, but —’
NIV: ‘He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.’
KJ-1611: He came unto his own, but his own received him not.’
NWT: ‘He came to his own home, but his own people did not take him in.’
SHG: erchomai paralambano
Trans.: come
receive
THE PACT: He came to his own,* but his own did not receive him.
*the Levite priesthood
117
COMMENT: As you see from the two words that make up the Greek text of this
verse, it is not easy to get a certain translation of these two word. Because in such
cases it is not enough just keeping to the text. You need to have an almost total
knowledge and understanding of the message of the Bible. And above you see the
uncertainty is the translations of NIV and NWT while King James this time has it
totally correct. Strange — they copy King James until their ears glow, but when King
James is correct for a change, they alter the text. NIV writes ‘that which is his own.’
What is that? And an eager to prove their proficiency NWT has added two words that
are not in the Greek text, home and people. First of all it proves that they have understood nothing of this, and in addition it is a hindrance for the reader to understand
it. Do not fiddle about with the word of God! It is so detailed that it only takes a little
fiddling to lead readers astray!
It is evident that that NIV has no understanding of what he came to — ‘that which
is his own.’
NWT tries to add words of their own, words that are not in the original text or follow
grammatical rules by writing ‘He came to his own house (which house was that?) but
his own people (the Jews?) did not receive him.’ First: What house did Jesus have
on the earth? he says himself that he has no place to rest his head! And neither was
it so that the Jews as a people did not receive him They gathered around him in hordes and they all cheered him when he rode into Jerusalem — except the priests and
the pharisees. They were the ones responsible for his death — not the Jewish people!
But they had to suffer because of the evil acts of their leaders! ‘Let his blood come
over us and our children!’ (MAT 27:25)
So, who were ‘his own?’ And who did not receive him? They were the Levite priests.
That was the exact purpose of the establishment of the Levite priesthood — they
were to make up and example of God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melcizedec. And
this you will understand if you read Hebrews, chapters 07-12) And it was exactly the
priests who refused to receive him! Not only did they reject him as their future heavenly High Priest, but they also refused him as the heavenly Son of God! And finally
they killed him! The Jews as a people were not responsible for this, but it is always
so that the people must suffer for the misdeeds of their leaders. And when Jesus says
he ‘had come to the lost sheep of the house of Israel only,’ then who were they if not
the Levite priests. They were the ones who were lost, and although Levites also they
were part of the house of Israel.
‘His own’ were those who had been sown, but who were not harvested, because now
he gathered in from those who had not been sown or scattered, the disciples. And because Jesus started the election of the disciples before he rejected the priesthood, the
they were as a group already rejected by God. But not as individuals, ref. Nicodemus. The twelve apostles became the first twelve members of the Realm of God!
118
THE PACT, JOH 01:18. ‘— No one has ever learned to know
God, —’
NIV: ‘No one has even seen God, but God the one and only, who is at the Father’s
side, has made him known.’
KJ-1611: ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the
bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.’ NWT follows King James.
NB! Note that the sentence but God the one and only has been added in NIV’s
translation. And in that way they make Jesus into God the Almighty. This is a grave
biblical falsification! In addition this verse then contains a gross breach of logic, because if Jesus were God the Almighty, how could he then be at his Father’s side? No,
there has got to be a limit!
NB! In KJ-1611's translation Jesus is still the Son of God as the Bible presents him.
SHG: oudeis oudeis horao theos popote popote popote monogenes
Trans.: no one no one see god never never never only generated
monogenes
huios ho kolpos pater exegeomai
only generated son who bosom father make known
THE PACT: ‘No one has ever learned to know God the way his only Son does. And
he has made him known to us.’
COMMENT: This is not one of the easiest verses in Greek, but it does not demand
a long study to see that the sentence that has been added by NIV, but God the one
and only, does not exist in the Greek text. God in Greek is theos, and the word is
only used once in this verse. So, can father and Son be the same person? The very
teaching is false, and changing the contents of the Bible in order to make it agree
with this wrong teaching, is a gross and detestable biblical falsification!
THE PACT, JOH 01:39. ‘— Come I will show you where I
stay.’
NIV: — So they went and saw where he was staying, and spent that day with him.
it was about the tenth hour.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have similar texts.
SHG: lego erchomai eido erchomai eido pou meno meno hemera hos
Trans.: say come
see come
see where stay stay day
until
dekatos hora
tenth hour
119
THE PACT: He answered: “Come and I will show you where I stay,” Then they
spent the day together with hin until the tenth hour.
COMMENT: Read this text with consideration. How can it have lasted just one
hour, the tenth, if he spent the day with them? They did not spend the whole day with
Jesus, but until the tenth hour, which was until four in the afternoon. The way this
verse is usually translated, we lose the feelig of how long they stayed with him. —
Ok, it is not an important matter, but still, right is right as far as possible.
THE PACT, JOH 01:50. ‘— Because I said you were no hypocrite —’
NIV: ‘Jesus said, “You believe because I said I saw you under the fig tree. You shall
see greater things than that.”’ KJ-1611 and NWT have corresponding texts.
SHG: iesous apokrinomai epo hoti
epo hupokrites suke suke pisteuo
Trans.: jesus respond
say because say hypocrite figtree figtree believe
opthanomai
see
meizon touto
greater this
THE PACT: ‘Jesus answered by saying: “Because I said you were no hypocrite
when I saw you under the fig tree, you believe? Then you shall experience greater
things than that.”’
COMMENT: It is frustrating to read translations where they have all left out the
same word or part of sentence from a verse, the first time probably because they did
not understand it! But why have all the others the same text? And that in spite of the
fact that the text that has been omitted, is the text that shows the very point!
Here Jesus shows that he knows that Nathanael is no hypocrite, and that impressed
Nathanael who did not understand how Jesus could know that. And to understand it,
we must go back to verse 47 where Jesus says to Nathanael: ‘See — a true Israelite
without betrayal.’ In other words: No hypocrisy from that guy!’ But why leave out
this point when it says it so clearly in the original text?
THE PACT, JOH 02:21. ‘But the sanctuary that he was speaking of, was his own body.’
NIV: ‘But the temple he had spoken of was his body.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have corresponding texts.
120
SHG: lego naos
soma
Trans.: say sanctuary body
THE PACT: ‘But the sanctuary that he was speaking of, was his own body.’ (See
also verse 19)
COMMENT: The word for temple in Greek is hieron, and the word for sanctuary
is naos. And it is important to separate between the temple and the sanctuary to get
a full understanding of this, The temple refers to the entire temple section where the
people gathered, thoe outer court, but also includes the building, the very sanctuary.
To the inside the sanctuary, which was a pattern of the heavens, only the priests had
access. And then it is not hard to understand that when the curtain tore in two from
top to bottom, it was only the priests it tore for. And they are the only ones who get
a heavenly, spiritual, resurrection as members of God’s heavenly priesthood, the
Melchizedec.
The purpose of the temple was to serve as a symbolic place of offering in expectation
of the coming of the Messiah, the Christ, Jesus. But through Jesus’ death he himself
constituted the offering for sin once and for all. And thereby he completed the purpose of the temple. But he reestablished the function of the sanctuary after three days
through his own resurrection from the dead to a heavenly sanctuary. Then Jesus had
taken over the function that this sanctuary had had for hundreds of years. And in that
way he also ended, naturally, the function of the earthly priesthood. Because, what
will we need a priest for, when the function of the priest has been terminated? The
letter to the Hebrews explains this in detail!
THE PACT, JOH 03:03. ‘— Unless he is born from above, —’
NIV: ‘I tell the truth:, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again.’
KJ-1611 and NWT have similar texts.
SHG: iesous apokrinomai epo amen amen lego ean_me tis gennao anothen ou
Trasn.: jesus respond
say true true say if no any bear
above no
-dunamai eido basileia theos
able
see realm god
THE PACT: ‘Jesus answered by saying: “This truth I tell you: Unless he is born
from above, no one can see the Realm of God.”
COMMENT: Most versions translate this verse with ‘being born again.’ But in the
Greek text it does not say again, but from above. Jesus here directly refers to those
121
who will take part in the first, the spiritual, resurrection. And keep an open mind
further and you will see that Jesus confirms this time and time again. But it is next
to impossible to see if you reject the heavens and the earth as one unit under Christ.
(EPH 01:10) You must also know the difference between the first, the heavenly
spiritual resurrection, (1TE 04:13-18) and the second, the earthly resurrection of the
soul. (ACT 24:15)
‘Born again Christians’ have become a world organization, and then most of them
say they are ‘born again’ when they receive Christ and become so-called ‘saved.’ In
relation to the contents of the Bible this is a great misconception. Is it possible to get
the upper hand of this great misconception? It is in this case as it is in most cases of
wrong teaching: It sticks like glue!
And if you ask them directly: ‘When did you see the Realm of God?’ they are unable
to answer. And most of them are dishonest, or the most eager, mumble: ‘Eh, eh, it
must be when we received Christ.’ Do you get to see the Realm of God then?
The entire existence of this organization builds on a direct misinterpretation of the
Bible!
Fact is that unless you get to take part in the first, the spiritual, resurrection, you will
never see the Realm of God. But then you must be born from above! And that is a
new birth! Remember what Jesus said: ‘The Realm of God is not so that you can see
it with your eyes.’ (LUK 17:20) But then some interpret that to mean that you carry
the Realm of God within you! Ok, but can you then see it with your eyes? No, but to
see it with your eyes you must be part of the first resurrection. Do you really think
that you can twist and turn the word of God the way you yourself see fit until it
agrees with your own philosophical considerations? If you belong to that extensive
group that believe they can interpret the Bible the way it suits them, you will sometime in the future experience a real surprise! You cannot interpret the Bible. You
must understand it.
NB! In verse 03:12 Jesus confirms to Nicodemus that he has explained to him about
what has to do with the heavens. Read the verse — with consideration. Evaluate
what it says there, and not what you think it says or what you would like it to say! Do
not read your own mind. Read the text!
THE PACT, JOH 03:08. ‘Those of the spirit blow where they
please.’
NIV: ‘The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell
where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the spirit.’
KJ-1611 and NWT have similar texts.
122
SHG: pneuma pneo hopou thelo akouo phone autos eido eido pothen
Trans.: spirit
blow where wish hear sound self know know wherefrom
erchomai pou
hupago houto pas gennao pneuma
come
whereto go
this all bear
spirit
THE PACT: ‘Those of the spirit blow whereever they want. You do not hear the
sound of them, and you do not know where they come from or where they go to. That
is how it is with all who are born of the spirit.’
COMMENT: Here it is usual to translate spirit with wind, but this has nothing to do
with physical winds. Wind is not called pneuma in Greek, but anemos, To blow is
pneo. This refers to the first, the spiritual, resurrection. Writing the wind in this verse
takes away from the reader every possibility of understanding that this has to do with
the spiritual resurrection. By the way, have you ever heard the whisper of a spirit?
What is the conclusion of this verse, also in the translations where they write wind
instead of spirit? Yes, Jesus says to Nicodemus, NIV: ‘That is how it is with all who
are born of the spirit.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have the same wording. The conclusion
is correctly translated, but what is written before, creates great confusion. Why have
they all chosen this wording? It must be the little word pneo that confuses them. And
note that the word pneo, blow, is attached to pneuma, spirit. It is therefore not a
physical wind this refers to, but the ability of the spirits to move rapidly. And it is
difficult finding a better word that blow to describe that. Also heavenly messengers
(angels) are referred to as being able to fly, again a picture of their ability of rapid
movements. And this has formed the basis of all this angel-confusion we are being
exposed to today. — When you celebrate Christmas, do you then set forth ‘cute little
angels’ with wings? They are our modern-day house gods.
NB! In verse 06 Jesus says: ‘He who is born of flesh, is of flesh, and he who is born
of spirit, is of spirit.’
If you want to develop a complete understanding of the spiritual resurrection, you
may read the full explanation in the article Dead in the flesh, alive in the spirit in the
book What Does the Bible Say? Go to www.jordly.com It is free.
THE PACT, JOH 03:11. ‘For this truth I tell you: —’
NIV: ‘I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know and we testify to what we have
seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony.’ Both KJ-1611 and NWT have
roughly the same wording.
SHG: amen amen lego laleo eido martureo horao lambano marturia
Trans.: true true say speak see testify hear receive testimony
123
THE PACT: “For this truth I tell you: I speak of what you know and testify to what
you have seen, but you will not receive my testimony.”
COMMENT: Jesus has, at night and all alone, explained to Nicodemus about God’s
heavenly order. And do not forget that Nicodemus was one of the pharisees! But
where have the translators suddenly got the plural form we from? And if that is correct, who are we? The disciples? No, they had not started preaching yet, but were
still disciples, pupils, and not apostles, messengers.
If you now read THE PACT’s translation, you will understand what Jesus tries to tell
Nicodemus. And in the next verse Jesus draws the conclusion where it becomes clear
that he has tried to explain to Nicodemus about the heavenly. I also here include the
original text so that the most eager readers may themselves control it.
The ancient Greek Koiné has only a limited use of prepositions, and here you see a
good example of how important it is to add the prepositions in the right place.
SHG: ei
epo epigeios pisteuo pos pisteuo ean epo epouranios
Trans.: when speak earthly believe how believe when speak heavenly
THE PACT: “When I speak to you about earthly matters, you do not believe me.
How will you then believe me when I speak to you about heavenly matters?”
NB! Here Jesus confirms to Nicodemus that he has tried to tell him about the heavenly. But Nicodemus understands little or nothing of what Jesus tells him, which apparently surprises Jesus. That is when he exclaims: ‘Are you a teacher of Israel and
do not understand this!’
And again: Jesus has all the time tried to explain about the spiritual resurrection to
Nicodemus. And that Nicodemus, one of Israel’s foremost teachers, ought to have
understood a long time ago!
If you have a complete understanding of the first, the spiritual, resurrection, you are
also able to explain what the Realm of God is, who get to be members there and what
their future work will be. These are the ones who are to wander in these acts that God
has beforehand prepared them to wander in. (EPH 02:10)
THE PACT, JOH 03:34. ‘For he whom God has sent out, —’
NIV: ‘For the one whom God has sent speaks the words of God, for God gives the
spirit without limit.’
KJ-1611: ‘For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth
not the Spirit by measure unto him.’
124
NB! Note that these two translations are directly opposite to each other. NIV writes
that God gives the spirit without limit, while KJ-1611 write that God does no give
the spirit by measure. NWT follows King James.
SHG: hos theos apostello laleo rhema theos theos didomi pneuma metron
Trans.: who god send
speak word god god give spirit measure
THE PACT: ‘For he whom God has sent out, speaks words from God. But God does
not give the spirit by measure.’
COMMENT: Here we see that NIV writes that God gives the spirit without limit.
That is directly opposite of what the text says, though it may be close to true about
Jesus. Kj-1611 writes that God does not give the spirit by measure, and then they add
unto him referring to Jesus. But if anybody did get the spirit in full measure, it would
have been the Christ.
So, what does it actually mean? Yes, among the twelve apostles that received of the
Holy Spirit on the day of the Pentecost in the year 33, not all got the spirit by the
same measure, ref. their ability to perform God’s acts. Those among the disciples
who got most of the Holy Spirit, was Peter. He even had of God’s power to resurrect
the dead similar to Jesus, ref. when he rose Tabitha, in Greek Dorcas, from her death.
(ACT 09:36-43) We do not hear that any of the others had that power. But John got
it in a different way through his Revelation.
Peter was among the first and foremost among the circumcised, the Jews. He was the
apostle of the circumcised. Paul had the same power when he stood forth as the
apostle of the peoples.
A comparison from our daily lives could be a good comparison to understand this:
A class of twelve pupils are being educated to become carpenters, and they all pass
their exams. But in spite of their all passing their exams, it does not mean that they
will all have the same dexterity as carpenters. They have not got their dexterity by
measure. It is the same way with the spirit. It is not given by measure.
And note that it was only the twelve apostles who received of the Holy Spirit on the
day of the Pentecost in the year 33. And that has relevance to us who are living today, because many live under the delusion that they get the Holy Spirit when they are
baptized. It is only the few elect that get the Holy Spirit to that great an extent. And
they did not get it automatically get it in baptism, ref. Cornelius who received the
Holy Spirit directly from God without being baptized with water.
Also today we have of God’s spirit, even if it may be limited. To us what Jesus says
in John 06:63 is applicable. Read — with consideration!
125
THE PACT, JOH 04:20. ‘Our fathers honored on this mountain, —’
NIV: ‘Our forefathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place
where you must worship is in Jerusalem.’ KJ-1611 also write worship in this vers,
and of all things so does NWT.
SHG: pater proskuneo toutoi oros lego hierosoluma topas hopou dei proskuneo
Trans.: father honor
this mountain say jerusalem place where must honor
THE PACT: ‘Our fathers honored on this mountain, buy you maintain that Jerusalem is the place where we must honor.’
COMMENT: As you see from the Greek text it does not say worship there, but
honor. Now it is so that you may both honor and worship God, but the word proskuneo that is used in this verse, does not in any case mean worship even if it is translated that way. It is to be translated either honor or reverence.
When the original text says proskuneo, honor, and is translated worship about Jesus,
the proponents of the trinity take that as proof that also Jesus may be worshiped, and
that he thereby stands forth as God the Almighty. That is a clear falsification of the
teaching of the Bible. The word for worship in ancient Greek is proseuchomai. It
is through all of the Bible only used about God the Almighty. The same goes for the
word latreuo, serve.
None of these words are ever being used of Jesus in the Bible. The worship and the
service God is not even willing to share with his only generated Son Jesus Christ.
The word for honor is proskuneo. It is being used about both God and Christ, or any
other person. But a prerequisite of being honored is that the honor goes to the person
who deserves the honor. (REV 22:08-09) Remember the expression: ‘Honor he who
honor is due.’ Also in the verses 21, 22, 23 and 24 proskuneo is wrongly translated
worship.
THE PACT, JOH 04:26. ‘I who speak to you, am he.’
NIV: ‘Then Jesus declared: “I who speak to you am he.”’
KJ-1611: ‘Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he.’
NWT: ‘Jesus said to her: I who am speaking to you am he.’
SHG: iesous lego leleo eimi
Trans.: jesus say speak I am
THE PACT: ‘And Jesus said: “I who speak to you, am he.”’
126
COMMENT: Many translations, especially in the Scandinavian countries, use this
verse as proof that when Jesus says I am, and it is translated I am he, Jesus claims
to be God the Almighty. That is far from the case, because if Jesus had claimed to
be God the Almighty, the Jews would have been in their full right when they executed him. Besides, Jesus never said ego eimi in the Greek text, only eimi wich in
itself means I am, because the substantive is hidden in the verb. The expression ego
eimi is only being used when the ego is to be emphasized, and Jesus never emphasized himself. And God’s proper name has never been Greek!
Neither the contention that the meaning of God’s proper name Jehovah means I am
is correct. In Strong’s comments to the original text it is being stressed that the meaning of God’s proper name Jehovah, meaning hayah hayah, can never be an auxiliary,
but a word of action, a verb. And that verb is hayah which is being uses twice in a
row to make up God’s proper name. It means I shall fulfill, I shall fulfill, and definitely not I am. The word hayah is being used more that a thousand times in the Hebrew text, and always as an active verb! In the First Pact it was always during periods of judgement God presented himself as Jehovah. And therefore the Jews’ great
respect of God’s proper name: I shall fulfill what I shall fulfill! Therefore it can
never mean I am.
It is strange how difficult it is for most Christians to have a factual attitude to the
word of God, the Bible. Because to many when they open their Bible, it is time for
feelings and fables!
THE PACT, JOH 04:37. ‘One is sown, another is harvested.’
NIV: ‘Thus the saying ‘One sows and another reaps,’ is true.’
KJ-1611: ‘And therein is that saying true, One soweth, and another reapeth,’
NWT: ‘In that respect, indeed, the saying is true, One is the sower, another the reaper.’
NB! Note NW translation here. They have added a few words that are not in the
original text. And that is done through all the translation. Have they done it to make
their translation sound more solemn, or is it to hide the fact that their translation is
almost identical to King James?
SHG: en
toutoi logos alethinos allon
apeiro allos
therizo
Trans.: therefore this word true
another sow
another harvest
THE PACT: ‘Therefore this expression is true: One is sown, another i harvested.’
COMMENT: This expression Jesus uses throughout all the messages, and always
in the form of a picture. Those who were sown, are a picture of the Levite priest-
127
hood. But they rejected Jesus, and in turn Jesus rejected them. Therefore they were
not harvested. Those who were harvested, are a picture of those whom Jesus elected
after the New Pact, the twelve apostles. When Jesus says in verse 35 that ‘already
now is the harvesting,’ he refers to the election of the twelve apostles as members of
God’s heavenly priesthood. And this is a joy to both God, the sower, and Jesus, the
harvester. They are both joyous that the Realm of God is about to be established! Do
you know what the Realm of God is? Can you explain it? Most reject it!
Is it the way most charismatics claim that you get the Realm of God inside of you
when you receive Jesus? Do they know what the Realm of God is?
Is it true what the Lutheran churches preach that you become an ageous member of
the Realm of God through child baptism? Do they know what the Realm of God is?
Some Christian churches preach that all Christians of this world make up the Realm
of God. Do they know what the Realm of God is? How many dishonest Christians
are there in this world?
Read Daniel 02:44 and you will see that the Realm of God is quite concrete and will
make up God’s ageous rule over this world with the heavenly priesthood as this
world’s government. Read Ephesians 01:10 — with consideration and an open mind,
and remember what is written there. Finally you may read Psalm 37:29, THE PACT,
and see what is says there: ‘Blessed are the righteous, because they shall inherit the
earth and live on it forever.’
NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB!
THE PACT, JOH 05:29. ‘— And they shall come forth, —’
NIV: ‘— and come out — those who have done good will rise to live, and those who
have done evil will rise to be condemned.’
KJ-1611: ‘And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of
life; and they that have done evil, to a resurrection of damnation.’
NWT: ‘’— and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, and
those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgement.’
NB! Note that the all have the same understanding of this verse — that you will be
given a life in ages or be condemned based on your acts in this life. Now let us see
what the Greek text says about that:
SHG: ekporeuomai ekporeuomai poieo agathos anastasis
zoe prasso
Trans.: come forth come forth do good
resurrection life practice
phaulos anastais
krino
evil
resurrection judgement
128
THE PACT: ‘And they shall come forth — those who do good to a resurrection of
life, and those who practice evil, to a resurrection of judgement.’
COMMENT: Read this verse with consideration! Most translations write ‘those who
have done good —’ and ‘those who have done evil —’ But it does not say so in the
Greek text. There it says ‘those who do good —’ and ‘those who practice evil —’
And now it is a blessing having the Greek text! Why?
This is difficult to most Christians, because after centuries of wrong teachings it is
hard to adjust to the truth without struggle. And what it says in this verse, will lead
to such a struggle for many. Because God has a different message than what many
have become comfortable with. And therefore many reject the teaching of the Bible
in favor of the interpretations by the Pope and Luther, in spite of the fact that the
Bible gives a more secure and credible presentation than both the Pope and Luther.
It is the teaching of the Bible that those who have died, will rest in the grave until
their resurrection. Most who die will neither go to hell nor come to the heavens. But
a small minority of one hundred and forty-four thousand will get a spiritual resurrection as members of God’s heavenly priesthood, the world’s future heavenly government. (EPH 01:10)
And hold steady: It is this priesthood, the holy, the elect, the bride, those whom God
has set his seal on, God’s adopted sons and Jesus heavenly brother, the Bible is
mostly about! It was only them the curtain tore for! They are the ones who get the
sonship, in most Scandinavian translations falsified to childship in order to be politically correct. The rest of us will get a resurrection on the earth. And believe it or not,
but it is the clear message of the Bible that it is the choices we make after the resurrection that will judge us — either to a life in ages or to a death in ages, ref. Adam.
I know that this may be difficult to accept, but I could not in my wildest imagination
think of writing anything but what the Bible so clearly presents! So start your struggle and get it in place! I have done mine.
In Romans 06:07, NIV, it says straight forward that ‘anyone who has died, has been
freed* from sin.’ And this verse Christian leaders are making great efforts to explain
away!
*bough free through your ultimate sacrifice, your soul’s death
In Acts 24:15, NIV, it says: ‘I have the same hope in God as these men (those trying
to kill Paul) that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked.’
And this most Christians have difficulty accepting. But God will carry through his
plan whether mankind, Christians or not, will accept it or reject it.
And contrary to both the Pope and Luther, God’s plan will be a great blessing to
most of us, even to blown up Christians!
129
THE PACT, JOH 06:20. ‘But he said: “Do not be afraid.”’
NIV: ‘But he said to them, It is I; don’t be afraid.’
KJ-1611: ‘But he saith unto them, it is I; be not afraid.’
NWT: ‘But he said to them: it is I; have no fear.’
SHG: lego phobeo
Trans.: say afraid
THE PACT: But he said: “Do not be afraid”
COMMENT: Here all translations have added ‘it is I.’ But as you see from the original text, it is not included there. In additions the proponents of the trinity have created their own philosophy based on this addition that originally does not exist in the
text, that Jesus here says that he is God the Almighty trough the Greek text ego eimi,
I am.
You may now confirm this through the included original text that such claims are
free fantasy. Or to state the full truth: It is conscious biblical fablings without ba-sis
in the word of God to make it agree with the Pope and Luther. It does not!
THE PACT, JOH 06:45. ‘Because it is written in the prophecies: —’
NIV: ‘It is written in the Prophets: They will all be taught by God. Everybody who
listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me.’
KJ-1611: ‘It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught by God. Every
man therefore that hath heard, and hath learns of the Father, cometh unto me.’
NWT: ‘It is written in the prophets: And they will all be taught by Jehovah. Everybody that has heard from the father and has learned come to me.’
SHG: grapho prophetes pas didaktos theos pos oun akouo manthano
Trans.: write prophecy all teach
god then who hear teach
pater erchomai
father come
THE PACT: ‘Because it is written in the prophecies: ‘All his sons shall be taught
by Jehovah.’
JES 54:13
COMMENT: NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB!
Even the original text to this verse has been tampered with by such who consciously
try to hide the true contents of the word of God. ‘They will all be taught by God’ is
130
a quote fro Isaiah 54:13. But it does not say so there. Therefore I include the Hebrew
text:
‘kol ben limmuwde yehovah
all son teach
jehovah
And then you will not need to know many words in Hebrew to see that in this verse
it does not say God, but Jehovah! Also note the short word ben. It means son. And
why has that been left out in all of the translations together with jehovah? And this
is repeated throughout all of the Bible. Where there is a mention of God’s sons, it is
either being left out or translated in such a way that it will be impossible for most
readers to understand it! But correct translation of this sentence shall be: ‘All his
sons shall be taught by Jehovah.’
Believe me, or let it be, but if you do not know who the sons of God are in the Bible,
you will not be able to understand it, which is, whether you like to hear it or not, also
their goal!
— Do you know who the sons of God are? Do you know who the sons of the Realm
are? Do you think it is you and me? Do you believe it is all who believe in God and
Christ, men as women?
Read Wrongly Translated Verses and you will see how conscious all these biblical
falsifications are throughout all of the text! And here I just refer to some of the worst
examples. So do not come and tell me that all this is coincidental! They are conscious and gross biblical falsifications.
Read the article The sons of the Realm in What does the Bible say?
THE PACT, JOH 07:24. ‘Do not judge from appearances.’
NIV: ‘Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgement.’
KJ-1611: ‘Do not judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgements.’
NWT: ‘Stop judging from the outward* appearance, but judge with righteous judgement.’ NB! Is there also an inward appearance?
*added by NWT
SHG: krino kata opsis krino dikairos krinsis
Trans.: judge after see judge righteous judgement
THE PACT: Do not judge from appearances. Judge with just sentences.”
COMMENT: English and U.S. versions basically have this verse correct, but Scandinavian translations write ‘do not judge by what you see.’ But if you are to judge
anybody, it must be by what you see. So when you see the great confusion in some
of the translations, is it then any wonder that the Bible becomes confusing to many?
131
THE PACT, JOH 07:34. ‘You shall seek me without finding
me, —’
NIV: ‘You will look for me, but you will not find me; and where I am you cannot
come.’
KJ-1611: ‘Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me; and where I am you cannot
come.’
NWT: ‘You will look for me and will not find me, and where I am you cannot come.’
SHG: zeteo heurisko hopou eimi ou -dunamai erchomai
Trans.: seek find
where I am no can
come
THE PACT: ‘You shall seek me without finding me, for where I am going to be,
you cannot come.’
COMMENT: The Greek word eimi means I am. The personal pronoun I is hidden
in the conjugation of the verb. But as there is no future perspective in the Koinean
Greek language it also means have been or shall be, all according to which action,
relation or time the verb relates to. Here Jesus actually says ‘where I am.’ But he is
still on the earth, and not back with his Father in a heavenly existence. Therefore it
is correct to use the future perspective: ‘Where I am going to be.’
This is not a big matter, but with a nuanced text like that of the Bible, it is important
that all aspects of the text are correctly translated.
THE PACT, JOH 07:37. ‘On the last day before the Great
Feast —’
NIV: ‘On the last and greatest day of the Feast, Jesus stood and said in a loud voice:
“If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”’
KJ-1611: ‘In the last day, the great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If
any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.’
NWT: ‘Now on the last day, the great day of the festival, Jesus was standing up and
he cried out, saying: “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me and drink.”
SHG: eschatos hemera megas heorte iesous histemi krazo lego ean tis dipso
Trans.: last
day
great feast jesus stand call say if any thirst
erchomai pino
come
drink
132
THE PACT: On the last day before the Great Feast Jesus stood forth, calling out and
saying: “If anybody is thirsty, then come to me and drink!
COMMENT: The day of preparation to the Feast of the Unleavened Bread was the
14. of Nisan, the day when Jesus entered into the New Pact with the disciples. This
was also the day that he died, at three in the afternoon. Then there was only three
hours left until the first day of the great Sabbath, the Feast of the Unleavened Bread.
Therefore it was important to bury Jesus on that day, because no work could be done
during the seven days of the Great Feast. Otherwise he would have been hanging on
the pole over the holiday and would have already started to de compose. For that
reason also the two robbers were checked to see if they were dead. And when they
were not, their bones were broken to speed up the process and make them die instantly so they would not be hanging there during the whole holiday. And after their
bones were broken and they had given up their spirit, they were quickly taken to
Gehenna and thrown on the fire there.
If you check the Greek text, remember that there are no prepositions there. They have
to be added.
What keeps me baffled is that they uncritically copy each other and presenting the
same mistakes without having checked the original text. Also this mistake has its
origin with King James of 1611.
In Leviticus 23:05-08, NIV, it says:
LEV 23:05.
‘The Lord’s Passover begins at twilight on the fourteenth day of the
first month. (Nisan)
LEV 23:06.
On the fifteenth day of that month, the Lord’s Feast of the Unleavened Bread begins; for seven days you must eat bread without yeast.
LEV 23:07.
On the first day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.
LEV 23:08.
For seven days present an offering made to the Lord by fire. And on
the seventh day hold a sacred assembly and do no regular work.’
THE PACT, JOH 08:24. ‘Therefore I said that you would die
in your sins.’
NIV: I told you that you would die in your sins; if you do not believe that I am the
one I claim to be, you will indeed die in your sins.’
KJ-1611: ‘I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if ye believe
not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.’
NWT: ‘Therefore I said to you. You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe
that I am he, you will die in your sins.’
133
SHG: epo oun apothnesko humon hamartia ean pisteuo eimi apothnesko humon
Trans.: say that die
your
sin
if believe I am die
your
hamartia
sin
THE PACT: ‘Therefore I say that you were dead in your sins, because if you will
not believe that I am whom I claim to be, you will remain dead in your sins.’
NB! When Jesus said this, he had already, through many parables, judged the priests
to death, for instance when he called them offsprings of Satan, ‘you have the Devil
for a father’ and ‘you are a brood of vipers.’
COMMENT: The proponents of the trinity use these translations for all they are
worth, and when Jesus says I am he, they claim that Jesus thereby confirms that he
is God the Almighty. But, again and again, claiming that Jesus is God the Almighty
has always been, is, and always will be, pure biblical nonsense!
I was in Norway recently. There the state owned and run TV channel NRK has fifteen minutes long morning services. And there one after the other, priestesses as well
as priests, or ministers, have this sermon: ‘And God came down to earth, laid himself
in the womb of virgin Mary and let himself be born as Jesus Christ. And when he
died on the cross, he did, of course have the power to resurrect himself from the
dead. And, of course, he also ruled from heaven while he was still dead in the grave.’
Is it any wonder that such blasphemy will be eradicated by God? (REV 19: 01-10)
It is enough to give you the shivers!
If you take the time to read all of this chapter, with consideration, Jesus all the time
tries to make the priests and the pharisees accept that he is God’s heavenly Son, the
promised Messiah whom the Jews had been waiting for over the centuries.
If Jesus had as much as hinted that he was God the Almighty, the Jews would, according to the law of Moses, have been in their full right when they executed him,
because it would have been the same as blasphemy. And it still is to this day!
THE PACT, JOH 08:28. ‘When the Son of Man has been lifted
up, —’
NIV: ‘So Jesus said, When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know
that I am the one I clam to be and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what
the Father has taught me.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then
134
shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath
taught me, I speak these things.’
NB! If Jesus here claims to be God the Almighty, then notice the great contradiction
when he says: ‘I do nothing on my own, but speak what my Father has taught me.’
NWT: ‘Therefore Jesus said: “When once you have lifted up the Son of Man, then
you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own initiative, but just as
the Father has taught me I speak these things.’
NB! Here we again see that NWT adds words that are not in the original text, such
as once, initiative and these things.
SHG: tote epo iesous hotan hupsoo huios anthropos oun ginosko eimi poieo
Trans.: then say jesus when lift up son man
then know I am do
oudeis emantou pater didasko laleo tauta
nothing myself father teach speak this
THE PACT: ‘At the same time Jesus said: “When the Son of Man has been lifted
up, you will understand that I am the one whom I say I am. Because I do nothing of
my own. But my Father has taught me to say this.’
NB! What did the Roman centurion say when Jesus died? ‘He really was the Son of
God!’ (MAR 15:39)
COMMENT: Here we are again presented with the unbiblical philosophy that Jesus
says that he is God the Almighty: ‘I am he.’
And again: Read all of this chapter, with consideration, and you will see clearly how
Jesus all the time strives to make this priesthood understand and accept that he is the
promised Messiah, God’s heavenly Son! And this is basic to all who want to have a
correct understanding of the Bible — just as basic as A, B, C is to one who is learning how to read.
THE PACT, JOH 08:31. ‘Then Jesus said to those —’
NIV: ‘To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold on to my teachings, you are really my disciples.”’
KJ-1611: ‘Then Jesus said to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in my
word, then ye are my disciples indeed; —’
NWT: ‘And so Jesus went on to say to the Jews that has believed him: “If you
remain in my word, you are really my disciples, —’
135
SHG: oun lego iesous ho ioudaos ho pisteuo ean meno logos mathetes alethos
Trans.: then say jesus who judean* who believe if keep word pupil
true
THE PACT: Then Jesus said to the Jews who refused to believe in him: “If you will
not keep my word, you really cannot be my disciples.”
COMMENT: In the previous chapter it says that many came to believe in Jesus
based on what he preached.
But in the next verse Jesus addresses those who will not believe in him. This is evident based on their reaction when he says that the truth would set them free. Then
they refer to Abraham and claim that they, as children of Abraham, are already free.
The conflict between Jesus and them becomes even more evident in verse 44 when
Jesus says to them: ‘You have the Devil for a father, and you follow the desires of
your father.’ Jesus would never have said anything like that to such who had come
to believe in him. Writing something like that is a total breach of logic! And his final
conclusion was: ‘You are not of God!’
NB! Remember that the word not is not being used in the ancient Greek language.
It has to be added based on the translator’s own understanding of the text. And that
demands constant awareness in relation to the total contents of the text. You cannot
just read verse by verse. Then you end up in the ditch like these translators have
done. Now read the translation of THE PACT of both this and the next paragraph
and compare THE PACT to any other translation. It is kind of strange that they all
have the same mistakes as King James.
THE PACT, JOH 08:46. ‘Who can deny his sin?’
NIV: ‘Can any prove me guilty of sin? If I am telling the truth, why don’t you believe
me?’
KJ-1611: ‘Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not
believe me?’
NWT: ‘Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it you do not believe
me?’
SHG: tis
elegcho hamartia ei
lego aletheia diati pesteuo
Trans.: who deny sin
when speak truth
why believe
THE PACT: ‘Who can deny his sin? But when I speak the truth, why do you not
believe me?’
136
COMMENT: The first sentence of this verse is being translated in so many different
ways, and at the same time NIV seems logical. King James and NWT, on the other
hand, seem meaningless. To me it seems as if none of them have studied the original
text, because that is basically clear. Jesus asks them if they will deny that they are
sinful when rejecting his truthful presentation of himself as the promised Messiah,
God’s only generated Son. Also remember that Christ is the Word, and he who
rejects the word, also rejects Christ, and vise versa. Does not that make sense?
THE PACT, JOH 08:58. ‘From before Abraham am I.’
NIV: ‘I tell you the truth,’ Jesus answered, ‘before Abraham was born, am I.’
KJ-1611: ‘Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was,
I am.’
NWT: ‘Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existense, I have been.’
Jehovah’s Witnesses reject the philosophy of Jesus Christ being God the Almighty.
They clearly reject the teaching of the trinity and eagerly adhere to the original Jewish teaching of God’s sovereignty. But It seems as if they are overreacting when they
write ‘have been’ instead of ‘am.’ They may not be grammatically correct in doing
so, but it still agrees with the contents of the text.
SHG: iesous epo amen amen lego prin abraam eimi
Trans.: jesus say truth truth say before abraham I am
THE PACT: ‘But Jesus answered: This truth I tell you: From before Abraham I am’
COMMENT: Jesus answered, THE PACT: ‘From before Abraham am I.’ This verse
is probably the most used by the proponents of the trinity as proof that Jesus says that
he is God the Almighty. That is a man made philosophy that borders on blasphemy.
Here Jesus says something that has become the basis of some extensive biblical fablings. ‘Before Abraham I am.’
I will explain this thoroughly: The word eimi means I am. The personal pronoun ego
is hidden in the conjugation of the verb eimi, I am. But if the ego is to be accentuated, it will read in Greek: ego eimi, I am, not you. The phrase I am can thus be written in both ways in Greek, either with or without the personal pronoun ego all according to what nuance you put into the sentence. But Jesus never accentuated himself, therefore the Greek text always, without exception, writes only eimi when referring to Jesus.
137
Some translations add a footnote to the text of this verse*:
*ego eimi, God’s name, Jesus’ claim that he is God the Almighty
Such a claim is not only incorrect; it is the worst of all biblical fablings. It is pure
blasphemy!
Correct translation and contents of this verse from ancient Greek to modern English
is: ‘From before Abraham was, I have been.’ This is based on U.S. English. Original
U.K. English would read: ‘From before Abraham am I.’ Why the difference?
In modern U.S. English, when referring to the future, but when the situation still remains, will write have been. But in traditional U.K. English they will write I am
when the situation still exists. Therefore it is correct grammar to use both versions:
I have been or I am, all according to the situation and the nuance you want to present.
I will use an example: If David Cameron wants to tell that he has been Prime Minister for two year, and still is Prime Minister, he will say: I am Prime minister for two
years (and still am). It is therefore also correct to use the same phrase about Jesus,
because he still is. But that does not make him into God the Almighty.
THE PACT, JOH 09:32. ‘From ages you have never heard of
anyone —’
NIV: ‘Nobody has ever heard of anybody opening the eyes of a man born blind.’
KJ-1611: ‘Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of
one that was born blind.
NWT: ‘From of old it has never been heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born
blind.’
NB! Note all the different wordings of this verse.
SHG: ek
aion akouo tis anoigo opthalmos gennea tuphlos
Trans.: from age hear any open
eye
bear blind
THE PACT: From ages you have never heard of anyone who has opened the eyes
of anyone who has been born blind.
COMMENT: Here you see that the word aion, which is usually translated eternal
or eternity, refers back in time. And then we all understand that is has nothing to do
with eternity, but with something that is long lasting, either forward in time or back.
This is one of many proofs that translating aion with eternal far from covers the contents of the word. The word eternal, in other words, does not cover a biblical concept.
138
I have mentioned before that the Greek language has may words to cover the concept
of time. Here are the three most commonly used: 01: Hora = moment, while, hour,
time. 02: hemera = day, ( a short period of time), 03: aion = age (a long period of
time). There are no good words in English to cover this concept, but age, time are
often applicable. But when in Greek the word aion is used as a adjective it is almost
impossible to find a perfect word to cover its meaning THE PACT then writes
ageous. This is one of many examples that translating aion with eternal far from
covers the exact meaning of the word.
THE PACT uses the word with its correct meaning and writes time or age. The word
refers to a very long time, but not necessary one without end.
THE PACT, JOH 09:38. ‘— And he bowed respectfully before
him.’
NIV: ‘Then the man said, Lord, I believe, and he worshiped him.’
KJ-1611: ‘And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshiped him.’
NWT: ‘Then he said: “I do put faith in the Lord.” And he did obeisance to him.’
SHG: phemi kurios pisteuo proskuneo
Trans.: confirm lord believe honor
THE PACT: ‘And he confirmed: “Lord, I believe!” And he bowed respectfully before him.
COMMENT: Here we again see that NIV an KJ-1611 wrongfully translate proskuneo with worship when it actually means to honor, show respect for. The confusion here is that when the word worship is used about Jesus, the reader will believe
that it is ok to worship Jesus, but the Bible says differently, also ref. Matthew 28:17
and 29:09. Read Romans 01:18-32. If you take what you read there, seriously, it is
scary reading!
THE PACT, JOH 09:39. ‘To this judgement I have come —’
NIV: ‘Jesus said, For judgement I have come into this world, so that the blind will
see, and those who see will become blind.’
KJ-1611: ‘And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which
see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.’
NWT: ‘And Jesus said: For this judgement I came into this world: that those not
seeing may see and those seeing might become blind.’
139
SHG: iesous epo krima
erchomai eis touton kosmos blepo blepo blepo
Trans.: jesus say judgement come
in this world see see see
ginomai tuphlos
become blind
THE PACT: ‘Jesus said: “To this judgement I have come into this world: He who
wants to see, will see, but anybody who does not want to see, shall be blinded.”’
COMMENT: I will not claim that any of there translations are directly wrong, but
they are quite unclear. And then I refer to the last sentence, because it is not so that
Jesus through his preaching will blind such who want to see. It is so that those who
until now have not seen, ref. the disciples, now will see. But such who will not see,
such who reject Jesus as God’s heavenly Son, will be blinded the way the priests and
the pharisees were. This directly reflects on the condition of a man’s heart. Just
imagine today’s ministers who preach that God laid himself in the womb of Virgin
Mary and let himself be born as Jesus Christ! They are such who will not see, and
thereby they have also become totally blinded.
Do you believe in Jesus? All Christians will automatically sa ‘yes.’ But when you
show them what the Bible says, they eagerly reject what does not suit their ovn
situation in life, such as when Jesus says it is fornication to take a left woman in
marrie which most people do in today’s society. This then becomes a Christian’s
greatest dilemma. They say they believe in Jesus, but reject much of what is written,
and often what Jesus says. I could give hundreds of examples!
But — are you not aware that if you reject any of the word of God, you also reject
Christ, because the Word is Christ?
THE PACT, JOH 09:40. ‘Are also we blind?’
NIV: ‘Some Pharisees who were with him heard him say this and asked, “What? Are
we blind too?”’
KJ-1611. ‘And [some] of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and
said unto him, Are we blind also?’
NWT: ‘Those of the Pharisees who were with him heard these things, and they said
to him: “We are not blind also, are wee?”’
SHG: pharisaios ho akouo tauta epo tuphlos kai
Trans.: pharisee who hear this say blind
also
THE PACT: ‘Some of the pharisees heard this and asked: “Are also we blind?”
140
COMMENT: Check this short original text of only seven words carefully. It says
nothing about the pharisees being there with him. It does not change much if it is
translated that way, but is it not strange that they have all added the same text even
if it is not part of the original Greek text, the last being just a little more elaborated
than the first?
Have they not even checked with the original text? Is this not solid proof that they
have all copied King James of 1611?
THE PACT, JOH 10:09. “I am the gate.”
NIV: ‘I am the gate. Whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and
go out, and find pasture.’
KJ-1611: ‘I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go
in and out, and find pasture.’
NWT: ‘I am the door, whoever enters through me will be saved, and he will go in
and out and find pasturage.’
SHG: eimi thura ean tis eiserchomai sozo eiserchomai heurisko nome
Trans.: I am door if any come in
rescue come in
find
pasture
THE PACT: ‘I am the gate. He who enters through me, shall be rescued. He shall
enter and find pasture.’
COMMENT: It is quite cozy sitting here reading this verse, especially seeing that
all these three translations are identical, word by word. Yes, even where it does not
agree with the original text, and even what is not included in the Greek text, have
been ‘translated’ word by word. Well, KJ-1611 and NWT write door, but even if it
says door in Greek, there are no doors into a sheep’s pen, but a gate. And the word
thura in Greek may mean door, gate, shelter.
So, besides this, what is wrong? It is as always when Jesus explains something, a
parable. He explains in pictures. And here the translators are showing that they have
not studied the pictures Jesus is using, because the sheep’s pen he is referring to, is
a picture of the heavens. And it is not so that you can go in and out of a heavenly
existence. And those who have originally translated this verse, have not realized that
the pen is a picture of the heavens. They imagine that a sheep standing in a sheep’s
pen must go out to find pastures. And that is factual seen from an agricultural point
of view. But these are pictures, and Jesus refer to those who will get a heavenly
resurrection. They will find pasture when they have entered into this pen, the heavens. And this pen they are not able to go out of! But it almost speaks for itself that
this pasture refers to the spiritual, heavenly glory.
141
In this verse who has copied whom? No, that is hard to say, but I still think I am on
solid ground when a say that again King James of 1611 is the basis of this translation
because all the other translations are of more recent dates.
By the way, in verse 16 who are the sheep that are not of God’s heavenly pen?
THE PACT, JOH 10:21. ‘Such words are not from one who is
demon-possessed!’
NIV: ‘But others said, “These are not the sayings of a man possessed by demons.
Can a demon open the eyes of a blind?”’
KJ-1611: ‘Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil
open the eyes of the blind?’
NWT: ‘Others would say: “These are not the sayings of a demonized man. A demon
cannot open blind peoples’ eyes, can it?”’
SHG: allos lego tauta rhema daimonizomai dunamai daimonion anoigo
Trans.: other say these word demon-possess manage demon
open
optalmos tuplos
eye
blind
THE PACT: ‘But others say: “Such words are not from one who is demon-possessed! Can one with a demon open the eyes of a blind?”’
COMMENT: NIV: ‘Can a demon open the eyes of a blind?’ No, they are so right!
A demon in biblical relation is definitely not a devil, as King James writes. A demon
is a quality that is of Satan, such as madness. At the time of Jesus it was a way of
speech referring to mental illnesses. And that is what they claimed Jesus to be: Mad!
In this verse they refer to Jesus, one who has a demon, and not the demon itself as
it is translated in all of these examples. This is repeated throughout all of the Bible.
Some translations also write an evil spirit where the original text writes demon, but
then the Greek text writes poneros pneuma. The Bible also speaks about unclean
spirits, akarthos pneuma. What is the difference?
An evil spirit refers to evil qualities such as the need to curse, steal and kill. An unclean spirit refers to unclean qualities such a various deceases, for instance gangrene
or leprosy.
THE PACT uncompromisingly follows the original text to the extent it is possible.
142
THE PACT, JOH 11:48. ‘If we allow this, we will also have accepted —’
NIV: ‘If we let him go on like this, everybody will believe in him, and then the
Romans will come and take away both our place and our nation.’
KJ-1611: If we let him thus alone, all [men] will believe on him: and the Romans
shall come and take away both our place and nation.’
NWT: ‘If we let him alone this way, they will all put faith in him, and the Romans
will come and take away both our place and our nation.’
NB! It is so easy to see that these are copies of King James, because they all write
the same even if it does not agree with the original Greek text, for instance, how
could the Romans have taken away their nation? That has to be a solid breach of
logic!
SHG: ean aphiemi houta aphiemi pas pisteuo eis rhomaios erchomai eiro kai
Trans.: if allow this allow all believe in roman
come
take also
topos ethnos
place etnisk
THE PACT: ‘If we allow this, we will also have accepted that everybody will believe in him. And then the Romans will come and let those of the peoples take over
this place.’*
*the sanctuary including the temple area
COMMENT: This verse, yes, all of this paragraph, needs a thorough going through,
because many things here cannot be correct. And first I refer to the very translation:
Remember that Judea and Jerusalem were occupied by the Romans. How could the
Romans then come and take away the country, or ‘our nation,’ as they all write? How
can an occupied nation ‘be taken away?’
Now go to the original text and note that it does not say nation there, but the ethnics,
those of the peoples. And if we consider the prevailing situation of Judea and Jerusalem at the time of Jesus, they were ruled by different deputy kings or governors.
But the temple and the temple area, the courtyard, were excepted. The Jews had full
sovereignty over the temple and the temple’s outer court.
And that was what those who wanted to kill Jesus, used as an argument, an argument
that worked. Because nothing meant more to the priest than preserving the temple
order, the very basic of their elevated position.
Referring to this it is also important to know that when a region or country were
occupied by the Romans, they were sensible enough not to meddle with a nation’s
religious customs. On the contrary, they stretched far to leave a people’s religious
143
customs to the people itself. One example is that when Christianity was introduced
as the state religion of the Roman Empire. Then there were many, especially the
Egyptians, that rioted against having to worship the one God of the Israelites, because all of their pagan religions consisted of three Gods. Or they had many gods,
one for each walk of life — one god of war, one god of fertility, etc. And the Egyptians rebelling against serving Jehovah, the One God of Israel, is understandable,
because they had also earlier experienced Jehovah, the God of Israel! And then they
did not do too well. You may read about the exodus from Egypt in Moses’ second
book, Exodus. And it was to satisfy these worshipers of pagan gods that Emperor
Constantin in the year 324 introduced the teaching of the trinity, God, Jesus and the
Holy Spirit as one godhead. Only then did the rioting subside.
But what was the pretext of the Jews to say that if Jesus was allowed to continue his
work, then the Jewish priesthood would lose the temple? Remember that Jesus presented himself as a King, and if his kingdom would be considered to be of this world,
it would have become a challenge to the Emperor. It was also this argumentation before Pilate that caused him to finally accept that the Jews would be allowed to execute Jesus. (JOH 19:12-13)
But what is the basis of these wrongly translated verses? And why are they all alike?
Ok, I have no proof to confirm this, but it may be of interest to know that the King
James translation of 1611, more that 400 years ago, has a corresponding text. And
this early translation has set the standard of most later translations. And many who
translate would rather take a closer look at King James than studying the Greek text.
But that I do not think any of them will acknowledge.
It is also so that many translators do not use the original text. For instance is the New
World translation by Jehovah’s Witnesses, also the American version, more or less
a true copy of the original King James version. Ok, it is not a true copy, because the
translators have simultaneously changed the verses that do not agree with the belief
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, such as the use of God’s name Jehovah. And it is my respectful claim that many of the changes Jehovah’s Witnesses have made to the original King James, are great improvements, such as writing soul in every verse where
it says soul in the original text.
International New World translations are again directly translated from their American version. The process is such that many preachers take part in the very translation. And then I thought that at least those taking part in the process, were experts
in English. But after a conversation with one who had taken part in the process, I was
informed that this was not the case. Almost anybody could take part in it, because
when they were divided into groups and allotted the part of the Bible they were to
translate, they received a list of words telling them how to translate with a particular
meaning.
144
It speaks for itself that this method has its weaknesses. So when you know this, and
read it with an open mind, it becomes easy to see that some of the sections are not
consistent with some of the other sections. But let me make it clear that this is not a
special criticism of the New World Translation, which in spite of weaknesses, I hold
to be a more honest translation than many of the others that are also based on King
James of 1611.
THE PACT, JOH 11:50. ‘Has none of you considered —’
NIV: ‘You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than
that the whole nation perish.’
KJ-1611. ‘Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the
people, and that the whole nation perish not.’
NWT: ‘— and you do not reason out that it is to your benefit for one man to die and
not for the whole nation to be destroyed.’
SHG: oude dialogizomai sumphero heis anthropos apothnesko laos
holos
Trans.: no one consider
better
one man
die
people whole
ethnos apollumi
ethnic destroy
THE PACT: Has none of you considered that it is better that one man must die for
the people, than that our whole people will be destroyed by those of the peoples?’
COMMENT: Here we again see that the Greek text does not refer to the Jewish
people, but to those of the peoples. The Jewish priesthood mostly worried about the
Romans, those of the peoples! And the Romans consisted of many different peoples.
THE PACT, JOH 11:51. ‘He did not say this of himself, —’
NIV: ‘He did not say this on his own, but as high priest that year he prophesied that
Jesus would die for the Jewish nation, —
KJ-1611: ‘And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; —
NWT: ‘This, though, he did not say of his own originality, but because he was hight
priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus was destined to die for the nation, —’
SHG: touto epo heautou on archiereus archiereus eniautos propheteuo
Trans.: this say self
be high priest high priest year
prophesize
iesous mello apothnesko ethnos
jesus must die
ethnic
145
THE PACT: ‘(He did not say that of himself, but because he was highest priest that
year, he prophesized that Jesus must die for those of the peoples.’
COMMENT: Here we again see that the text does not refer to the Jewish people, but
to those of the peoples, in previous translations referred to as heathens or gentiles.
And also this was a prophecy that later would prove to be correct.
THE PACT, JOH 11:52. ‘And not only for those of the peoples,
—’
NIV: ‘— and not only for that nation but also for the scattered children of God, to
bring them together and make them one.’
KJ-1611: ‘And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one
the children of God that were scattered abroad.’
NWT: ‘— and not for the nation only, but in order that the children of God who are
scattered about he might also gather together as one.’
SHG: ethnos monon kai sunago sunago heis teknon theos diaskorpizo diaskorpizo
Trans.: etnic only also gather gather one child god scatter
scatter
THE PACT: ‘And not only those of the peoples, but also to gather into one those
who are scattered about.)’
COMMENT: Here we see agin that this does not refer to the Jewish people, but to
those of the peoples, the ethnics, pagans, heathens or gentiles. When the Jews are
referred to as a people, it says laos in Greek, ref. verse 48. — But, who are those
who are scattered about?
THE PACT, JOH 12:20. ‘There were some Greek —’
NIV: ‘Now there were some Greek among those who went up to worship at the
Feast.’
KJ-1611: ‘ And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at
the feast:’
NWT: ‘Now there were some Greek among those that came up to worship at the
festival.’
SHG: tis
hellen ek
anabaino
Trans.: some greek among come up
proskuneo en heorte
honor
at feast
146
THE PACT: ‘There were some Greek among those who had come up to honor at the
Feast.’
COMMENT: Here we again see that the word proskuneo is translated worship, and
in this case also by NWT which mostly translates this word correctly, but then in relation to Jesus Christ. But here it refers to God. Still, the word means the same. And
this is another example of the inconsistency of the New World Translation.
THE PACT, JOH 12:31. ‘For now is the judgement of this
world, —’
NIV: ‘Now is the time for judgement on this world; now the prince of this world
shall be driven out.’ KJ-1611 and NWT have corresponding texts.
SHG: nun krisis
toutou kosmos nun archon toutou kosmos ekballo
Trans.: now judgement this world now prince this
world ekballo
THE PACT: ‘Now is the judgement on this world, and later the prince of this world
will be thrown out.’
COMMENT: here we hit that short word nun again. It does mean now, but often
refer to sometime in the future. In other words: From now on until some time in the
future. The work is ready. It has been done through Jesus’ death and resurrection.
But it will not take effect until later. And if you want to learn when this happened,
you must read Revelation 10:07:12. According to one of Daniel’s prophecies this can
be dated until about two thousand years after Jesus said this. Therefore Satan has
today been thrown out of the heavens and down to the earth!— If you have problems
accepting this, it is enough just looking around you.
Remember Adam. God said: ‘If you eat of that tree, you shall certainly die!’ But
Adam ate and lived until he became 950 years! But at the end he certainly did die!
THE PACT, JOH 12:32. ‘But when I am lifted up from this
earth, —’
NIV: ‘But I, when I am lifted up from this world, I will draw all man to myself.’
KJ-1611: ‘And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all [men] unto me.’
NWT: ‘And yet I, if I am lifted up from this world, will draw men of all sorts to
me.’
NB! Note how obvious it is that these are copies of King James!
147
SHG: ean hupsoo ge
helkuo pas
Trans.: when lift up earth pull
all
THE PACT: ‘But when I am lifted up from this earth, I shall draw all of you to me.’
COMMENT: Whom are those that Jesus will draw to him? All men? No, Jesus here
speaks to the disciples, and it is only those who get to take part in the first resurrection that Jesus will draw to him! (1TH 04:13-18)
NB! Check this short Greek text. It does not say anything about men there, but since
King James has it, the others write the same! So if you evaluate these texts, you will
see that none of them has understood this! And, when they do not understand, the
only safe way is to adhere to the text — if at all they have read it. Check how they
all write: But I, And I, And yet I. It is not in the Greek text! Also: ‘If I am lifted up
from the word —’ Was there ever any doubt that Jesus would be lifted up? Besides,
the Greek text says earth, not world. — Is it any wonder readers get confused?
THE PACT, JOH 12:36. ‘Believe in the Light —’
NIV: ‘Put your trust in the light while you have it, so that you may become sons of
light. >’
KJ-1611: ‘While ye have light, believe in the light, that ye may be the children of
light. >’
NWT: ‘While you have the light, exercise faith in the light, in order to become sons
of light. >’
SHG: heos echo phos pisteuo phos huios phos >
Trans.: while have light believe light son light >
THE PACT: ‘Believe in the Light while you have the Light, and you shall become
the sons of light.’
COMMENT: Do you think it makes any difference whether they write children or
sons in this verse? It may seem innocent, but writing children when the text says sons
is a gross falsification of the Bible, because this is done consciously throughout all
of the Bible. And thereby they are able to hide the fact that the Bible is mostly about
these sons, God’s adopted sons, those who get the sonship, those who are Jesus’
heavenly brothers, those who get to take part in the first resurrection. They are the
ones who make up the heavenly division of the Realm of God.
NB! The word huios can never mean child because the basic meaning of the word is
offspring of the male gender. So if it is about a horse or a donkey, it may be translated foal or colt, but never the gender neutral child.
148
Why is the Bible being falsified to this extent? First and foremost to adjust it to the
false teachings of the Pope and Luther ‘that all of God’s children go to heaven when
they die.’ But lately it is also done to underscore that it is not against the Bible that
women are appointed ministers. — Long live God’s faithful men — and women!
THE PACT, JOH 12:38. ‘That is so that Isaiah’s prophecy —’
NIV: ‘— Lord, who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord
been revealed?’
KJ-1611: ‘— Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the
Lord been revealed?’
NWT: ‘Jehovah, who has put faith in the thing heard by us? And as for the arm of
Jehovah, to whom has it been revealed?’
SHG: logos hesaias prophetes pleroo hos epo kurios pisteuo akoue tis
Trans.: word isaiah prophet fulfill when say lord
believe hear who
brachion kurios apokrupto
arm
lord
reveal
THE PACT: ‘This was so that the words of Isaiah’s prophecy would be fulfilled
when he says: Jehovah, who believed our message? To whom has the strength of Jehovah been revealed?’
ISA 53:01
COMMENT: Here it says Lord in the New Pact, but in the First it undoubtedly says
Jehovah. Writing Lord in a verse that has been translated from the First Pact where
it says Jehovah is not only a wrong translation, but a conscious and gross falsification of the word of God in order to hide that God’s proper name is Jehovah. This
is done throughout all of the Bible! But why? Is there no honesty among God’s socalled faithful servants?
THE PACT, JOH 13:07. ‘What I am doing now, —’
NIV: ‘Jesus replied, “You do not realize now what I am doing, but later* you will
understand.”’
*when?
KJ-1611: ‘Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but
thou shalt know hereafter.’*
*when?
NWT: ‘In answer Jesus said to him: “What I am doing you do not understand at present, but you will understand after these things.”*
*after what things?
149
NB! These verses are solid proof that they copy King James without checking the
Greek text!
SHG: iesous apokrinomai epo hos poieo eido arti ginosko meta -taphos
Trans.: jesus respond
say what do
see now know after tomb
THE PACT: ‘Jesus answered saying: “What I do, you will not understand now, but
you will understand after I have been in the tomb.”’
COMMENT: The last word in this sentence, taphos, is usually translated with later
or after this. NWT uses the empty phrase ‘after these things.’ But the word taphos
means tomb, burial chamber, and then is to be translated that way, even if it to begin
with may seem hard to understand. But in this case it is simple. Much of what Jesus
did, was symbolic, which the disciples did not understand until after they received
the Holy Spirit in the year 33 on the day of the Pentecost, consequently after Jesus
had been in the tomb and been resurrected.
NB! Many, especially the Adventists, claim that Jesus died in the year 31, not 33.
But then it does not agree with Luke when he in LUK 03:33 says that Jesus was
about 30 years of age when he started his work. Jesus was born in the year 01, in the
fall around the first to third of October. He died in Jerusalem in the year 33, 33 years
of age. His service on the earth lasted only 3,5 years, from the fall of 29 to the spring,
Easter, of 33. If Jesus had died in the year 31 his service would only have been 1,5
years, or he would only have been 28 years, not 30 as Luke says, when he started is
work. The basis of this misunderstanding we find in Nehemiah, second chapter. I will
explain in detail there – if God lets me live that long.
A little more: It is a historic fact that King Herod the Great died in the year 04 before
the official birth of Jesus. In addition Jesus was about two years of age when Herod
tried to kill him. And thereby Jesus was in reality born about 06 years before his
official birth. Does that mean that the Bible is wrong here? No, but it is a fact that
those who decided to use the birth of Christ as basis of a new timetable, must have
goofed thoroughly! But it has no influence when figuring timetables.
THE PACT, JOH 14:02. ‘My Father’s house is a dwelling —’
NIV: ‘In my Father’s house there are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have
told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you.’
KJ-1611: ‘In my Father's house are many mansions: if [it were] not [so], I would
have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
NWT: ‘In the house of my Father there are many abodes. Otherwise I would have
told you, because I am going my way to prepare a place for you.’
150
SHG: pater oikia pater polus mone
ei_de_me epo poreuomai
Trans.: father house father many dwelling if so no say go
hetoimazo topos
prepare
place
THE PACT: ‘My Father’s house is a dwelling for many. If not I would have told
you so. I go there to prepare a place for you.’
COMMENT: First: Where or what is ‘my Father’s house?’ Jesus here refers to the
heavens whereto he will take them to him. But why can he not take them to him at
once after they die? Why must he prepare a place for them before he can take them
to him?
There are many who do not have a clear understanding of this. And to get the explanation we must go to Revelation, in chapter 21, verse 27, THE PACT: ‘But there
will never ever come anything into it (the new Jerusalem) that is unclean or anyone
who commits abominations, and neither anybody who lies, but only those who are
inscribed in the book of life by the Lamb.’ And when Jesus dies, Satan and his demons had not yet been thrown out of the heavens, so that those who were full of lies
and abominations were still there. Therefore the first among the elect would have to
wait in the grave until Satan and his demons had been thrown out of the heavens
before Jesus could take them to him. And this was according to God’s plan and will.
— You may read about when Jesus rides out on the white horse to throw Satan and
his demons out of the heavens in Revelation 12:07-09.
‘Sit by my right hand until I have laid your enemies as footstool before your feet.’
This is an important happening, because it is quoted in Luke 20:43, Acts 02:35 and
Hebrews 01:13. In other words, Jesus did not get authority in the heavens right away
after his ascension, but had to wait until all unclean, Satan and his demons, had been
thrown out of the heavens. And it took almost 2000 years after Jesus’ ascension for
that to happen! Only then he could take them to him. And it was in that way he prepared room for them — by throwing Satan and his demons out of the heaves so that
the heavens would no longer be a dwelling place for anything unclean or deceitful.
How many rooms are there in the heavens? Just one, the entire spiritual universe
where there are no divisions. And it is imperative to understand the spiritual to also
realize that there can be nothing material in a spiritual existence! There will be no
Cadillacs driving on streets of gold!
If you now read First Thessalonians 04:15-16 you will see how it is going to take
place. But the bride, the 144.000 are not yet in full number. And verse 17 explains
about those who are elected after Jesus has taken to him those who have waited in
151
the graves. Then Jesus takes them to him as each of then dies bodily, but is immediately resurrected in the spirit. This is a very limited group; those of the bride who are
still lacking before they are all taken up in full number. This is the first resurrection
to a heavenly glory!
The great confusion among Christians lie in the fact that both the Pope and Luther
have, through all times, preached that this is about all who have died as Christians.
That is not correct. All others who die, go neither to hell nor come to heaven, but rest
in the grave until they are resurrected — on the earth! That is the second resurrection; that of the soul. And they are resurrected to the judgement whether they have
believed in God or not, the good with the wicked! (ACT 24:15) And the judgement
is the choice you make yourself after you have witnessed the greatness of God, ref.
Adam and Eve. This shows the true greatness of God’s plan, also for those who have
never heard of neither God nor Christ.
THE PACT, JOH 15:19. ‘If you were of the world, —’
NIV: ‘If you belonged to the world, it would loved you as its own. As it is you do not
belong to the world, but I have chosen you out of the world.’
KJ-1611: ‘If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are
not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth
you.
NWT: ‘If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own.
Now because you are not part of the world, but I have chosen you out of this world,
on this account the world hates you.’
SHG: ei kosmos kosmos phileo idios hoti kosmos eklegomai kosmos
Trans.: if world world love own but world
chosen
world.
dia
-touto kosmos miseo
therefore this
world hate
THE PACT: ‘If you were of the world, those who are of the world would have loved
you as their own. But you are not of the world, because I have chosen you from this
world. And therefore those of this world will hate you.’
COMMENT: The world itself cannot hate anybody, but those people who are of this
world will hate those who are not of this world. And it is frighteningly true! Jesus
has chosen the one hundred and forty-four thousand out of this world, and the rest
of the world hates them. And the worst of all are the so-called Christians. Even in
most biblical translations they have been eradicated! And if you explain this to many
Christians, their eyes turn darker then I can imagine the darkness of the eyes of the
Devil!
152
I once showed Revelation 14:01-05 to a staunch Christian, and her reaction was: “I
will forever hate you for this!” — A Christian?
THE PACT, JOH 16:01. ‘This I tell you so that you shall not
stumble.’
NIV: ‘All this I have told you so than you will not go astray.’
KJ-1611: ‘These things have I spoken unto you, that ye should not be offended.’
NWT: ‘I have spoken these things to you that you may not be stumbled.’
SHG: tauta laleo scandalizo
Trans.: this speak stumble
THE PACT: (16:03) ‘This I tell you so that you shall not stumble.’
COMMENT: The word scandalizo is being translated in many different ways. NIV
writes go astray and King James be offended. But the word scandalizo simply means
to stumble. And then it ought to be translated that way. I many times wonder why
words are not being translated by their exact meaning. Can you think why?
We often use this word in our daily speech: ‘It’s a scandal!’ Few then think about the
word’s original meaning. But if you have been exposed to a scandal, it means that
you have stumbled!
THE PACT, JOH 16:13. ‘When the Spirit of truth comes, —’
NIV, 16:13: ‘But when he, the spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all truth.
He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you
what is yet to come.’
KJ-1611, 16:13: ‘Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, [that]
shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.’
NWT, 16:13: ‘However, when that one arrives, the spirit of the truth, he will guide
you into all the truth, for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he
hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things coming.’
NB! Check all the times these translations turn the spirit of truth into he, a person.
This must be especially embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not believe in
the trinity, but this becomes the result when you copy from someone that does.
SHG: hotan pneuma aletheia erchomai hodego eis pas aletheia laleo heautou
Trans.: when spirit truth
come
guide to all truth
speak self
153
hosos -an akouo laleo anaggello erchomai
what that hear speak proclaim come
THE PACT: (16:15) But when the Spirit of truth comes, you will be guided to the
whole truth; not speaking of itself, but speaking only of what has been heard and proclaiming what is to come.
COMMENT: There is a terrible confusion about the Holy Spirit. Many claim that
this is a person, the third person of the trinity, or the third person of the godhead, as
the Pentecostals phrase it. And here you see how they have all added he, he, he to
their translations. But correct wording is the Holy Spirit, not he Holy Spirit. But their
presenting the Holy Spirit as a person is repeated throughout all of the Bible. That
has never been a biblical teaching!
THE PACT writes counselor simply because the Bible itself refers to the Holy Spirit
as a counselor, a guidance. And do not forget that all this is a parable. Jesus only explained in parables, ref. verse 27 (25). In addition Jesus here speaks directly to the
twelve, not you or me! Not everything in the Bible is applicable to all who at all
times read it! And if you want to be honest, at least to yourself, and read Acts chapter
01 and 02 you will see that only the twelve apostles received the Holy Spirit on the
day of the Pentecost in the year 33. And THE PACT sees no reason to create a different message than what the Bible originally presents. But all the fablings about this
are out of this world!
What is your spirit, besides your technical ability to breathe? Your spirit is your
personality — all that you represent as a human being, some good and some bad. It
is the same with God. God’s Spirit is identical to his whole personality and power,
and it is holy, set aside, because it consists of what is good only. And God’s spirit,
the Spirit and the Holy Spirit are identical! And the Spirit of truth is also identical.
It is ridiculous thinking it could be a person!
But right now Christianity is on a wayward path which God has wowed to put an end
to when his two great witnesses have been properly reestablished! (Revelation chapters 11, 17 and 18)
THE PACT, JOH 16:30. ‘Now we understand that you know
—’
NIV, 16:30. ‘Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need
to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God.’
KJ-1611, 16:30. ‘Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that
any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.’
154
NWT, 16:30. ‘Now we know that you know all things and that you do not need to
have anyone question you. By this we believe that you came out from God.’
SHG: nun eido eido pas echo -chreia tis erotao toutoi
pisteuo exerchomai
Trans.: now see see all have need any ask therefore believe come from
exerchomai theos
come from god
THE PACT: (16:32) ‘Now we understand that you know everything, and that you
do not need to ask anybody about anything. Therefore we believe that you have come
from God.’
COMMENT: Again a clear breach of logic in all three above translations. Think
yourself: If nobody needed to ask Jesus about anything, how could that be proof that
he had come from God? It has to be the other way around; that Jesus did not need to
ask anybody about anything because he had all necessary knowledge from God. It
is human to err, but for all three of them to present the same breach of logic in this
simple verse almost word by word when it not even says so in the Greek text, is almost unforgivable! It is again solid proof that they do not translate from the Greek
text, but copy from King James — while blindfolded!
THE PACT, JOH 18:16. ‘But Peter was left outside the gate.’
NIV: ‘— but Peter had to wait outside the door. The other disciple, who was known
to the high priest, came back, spoke to the girl on duty there, and brought Peter in.’
KJ-1611: ‘But Peter stood at the door without. Then went out that other disciple,
which was known unto the high priest, and spake unto her that kept the door, and
brought in Peter.’
NWT: ‘— but Peter was standing outside at the door. Therefore the other disciple,
who was known to the high priest, went out to the doorkeeper and brought Peter in.’
SHG: petros histemi pros thura exo
oun exerchomai allos mathetes hos
Trans.: peter stand before gate outside then come
other pupil
who
gnostos archiereus archiereus epo thuroros
thuroros eiago petros
know
high priest high priest ask gatekeeper gatekeeper let in peter
THE PACT: ‘But Peter was left outside the gate. The other disciple who knew the
high priest, came back and asked the gatekeeper if he would let Peter in.’
COMMENT: NIV refers to a door and a girl on duty there. Misinterpreting the gate
for door is understandable, but where does it say anything about a girl on duty? The
155
Greek text clearly refers to the gatekeeper. And only if you translate this verse directly from the Greek text, without checking with King James, will this verse make
sense. Read the Greek text and you will see that is says nothing about a girl on duty
there. It refers to the gatekeeper. Does not that make sense?
THE PACT, JOH 18:17. Then one of the maids asked —’
NIV: ‘You are not one of his disciples, are you?” the girl at the door asked Peter.
He replied: “I am not.”
KJ-1611: ‘Then saith the damsel that kept the door unto Peter, Art not thou also
[one] of this man's disciples? He saith, I am not.’
NWT: ‘The servant girl, the doorkeeper, then said to Peter: “You are not also one
of this man’s disciples, are you?’
NB! Here NWT has made the maid into the doorkeeper. A maid and a doorkeeper at
the same time. What a woman! There are not many of those!
SHG: oun lego paidiske thuroros
thuroros petros ei kai toutou anthropos
Trans.: then say maid
gatekeeper gatekeeper peter be also this man
methetes
pupil
lego eimi
say I am
THE PACT: Then the maid asked the gatekeeper about Peter: “Is not also that man
one of his disciples?”
COMMENT: Here we see that is was one of the maids who asked the gatekeeper
about Peter. Peter overhears this and answers with a denial. And then it corresponds
with the Greek text. Too bad that a 400 years’ old bad translation should have such
confusing consequences so many year later!
THE PACT, JOH 19:23. ‘When the soldiers had impaled Jesus, —’
NIV: ‘When the soldiers crucified Jesus, they took his clothes, dividing them into
four shares, one for each of them, with the undergarment remaining. This garment
was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and
made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also [his] coat: now the coat was
without seam, woven from the top throughout.
NWT: ‘Now when the soldiers had impaled Jesus, they took his outer garments and
made four parts, for each soldier a part, and the inner garment. But the inner garment
was without seam, being woven from the top throughout its length.’
156
SHG: oun stratiotes hote stauroo iesous lambano himation poieo tessares
Trans.: when soldier after impale jesus take
cloak
make four
meros hekastos stratiotes meros kai chiton de chiton arrhaphos arrhaphos
part
each
soldier
part also kirtle for kirtle seamless seamless
huohantos anothen dia -holos
knit
atop
as whole
THE PACT: ‘When the soldiers had impaled Jesus, they took his cloak and divided
it into four parts, one for each of the soldiers. But not his kirtle, because his kirtle
was without seams. It was knitted from above in one piece.’
COMMENT: There is such great confusion about the way this verse has been translated, the reason being that is has not been directly translated, but paraphrased to
modern relations. Most write clothes or garment when the Greek text write cloak.
And that causes confusion, because it is translated so that Jesus’ clothes were put in
four bundles, one for each of the soldiers. How many bundles of clothes did he have,
then?
At that time it was common to first bind up about oneself, to bind up his abdomen
with strips of linen, a form of swaddling oneself. Some among the more affluent also
had knitted underpants, ref. the priests. Then they put on an undergarment, a kirtle,
which usually also was the outer garment. But if it was cold, or they were soldiers
or high-ranking civil servants, they also wore a cloak. And it was this cloak the
soldiers tore in four pieces and shared between them, probably because the very cloth
was valuable. But his undergarment, the kirtle, which was knitted in one piece,
would have unraveled if they had cut it in pieces. You cannot divide a knitted
garment. Therefore they drew lots for it. John basically explains this very simply, but
it easily becomes difficult to understand if you do not translate, but paraphrase.
THE PACT, JOH 20:13. ‘— Why have you taken away —’
NIV: ‘They asked her: “Woman, why are you crying?” “They have taken my Lord
away,” she said, “and I don’t know where they have put him.”
KJ-1611: ‘And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them,
Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.’
NWT: ‘And they said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping?” She said to them:
“They have taken my Lord away, and I do not know where they have laid him.”
SHG: lego lego hoti airo kurios eido pou
tithemi
Trans.: say say why take lord
know where lay
157
THE PACT: ‘She said: “Tell me, why have you taken away my Lord without our
knowing where you have laid him!”’
COMMENT: Here the King James translators may have made an honest mistake
and added something from another verse at the beginning of this verse. As you see
the messengers did not ask Mary why she was crying. But two verses later, when she
met Jesus without recognizing him, he asks her that question. But in this verse, where
does it come from? It is definitely not in the Greek text. From the first who wrote
this, it could have been an honest mistake. But in this verse the messengers do not
say a word. It is Mary who speaks to them.
I will try to be careful with negative characteristics, but here there can be no doubt:
Somebody has copied somebody without checking the original text! And it is no valid excuse saying that is says differently in some original texts because their contents
is pretty much identical. But as shown earlier, Strong’s has included the added texts
from newer transcripts, and THE PACT follows Strong’s. But THE PACT clearly
shows which texts have been added by putting it in square brackets. Another way the
original texts my differ is if they have been modernized, such as adding personal pronouns and prepositions, etc. But right away the text may be exposed to human errors.
Therefore THE PACT has chosen to follow the oldest and most basic version to
make sure it has not been excessively tampered with.
THE PACT, JOH 20:23. ‘Whenever you forgive anyone’s sins,
—’
NIV: ‘If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them,
they are not forgiven.’
KJ-1611: ‘Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; [and] whose
soever [sins] ye retain, they are retained.’
NWT: ‘If you forgive the sins of any persons, they stand forgiven to them; if you
retain those of any persons, they stand retained .’
NB! Here all three versions translate this verse as if Jesus delegates the right to forgive sins and the right to deny forgiveness to the apostles. Could this be a slip of the
tongue by Jesus? No, most likely it is a slip of the pens of the translators of King
James. And then the others write the same without thinking. It is quite discouraging
realizing this.
This must be especially embarrassing to New World. They have got it wrong in this
verse, but they have got it right in previous verses, such as in Matthew 16:19. This
is a result of their translation being handled by different people in different sections
of the text.
158
SHG: tis hosos an hamartia aphiemi aphiemi tis hosos an krateo krateo
Trans.: any whose if sin
forgive forgive any whose if maintain maintain
THE PACT: ‘Whenever you forgive anybody’s sins, it shall be the one whose sins
are forgiven. And whenever you maintain anybody’s sin, it shall be the one whose
sins have been maintained.’
COMMENT: Here all three translations have a text that indicate that Jesus gives the
apostles their right to forgive, or deny forgiveness, of sin. That is of course not correct. What Jesus says now, in connection with symbolically giving the Holy Spirit,
is the same as he have told them before: If anybody has had his sins forgiven by God,
also they must forgive him. But those who have not gotten their sins forgiven by
God, neither the apostles shall forgive. And Jesus her especially refers to the priests
and the pharisees, and also Judas, who all have blasphemed the Holy Spirit. And then
it would be useless for the apostles to forgive them, because they have already been
judged by God!
New International and King James have this wrong in every verse. NWT, on the
other hand, has sometimes got it right, as in MAT 16:18 and 18:18. But at other
times, such as in this verse, they have it wrong. This shows the weakness of having
different persons translating various parts of the text. Not all are equally awake. Or
— in other words: They have not received the spirit by measure.
THE PACT, JOH 21:08. ‘The other disciple followed in the
boat.’
NIV: ‘The other disciples followed in the boat, towing the net full of fish, for they
were not far from shore, about a hundred yards.’
KJ-1611: ‘And the other disciples came in a little ship; (for they were not far from
land, but as it were two hundred cubits,) dragging the net with fishes.’
NWT: ‘But the other disciples came in the little boat, for they were not long away
from land, only about three hundred feet away, dragging the net of fishes.’
NB! New International has a clear translation of this verse, but both King James and
New World translate it as if there were two different boats. That was not the case.
SHG: allos mathetes erchomai ploiarion ploiarion makran ge diakosioi
Trans.: other pupil
come
boat
boat
short land two hundred
diakosioi
pechus suro diktuon ichtus
two hundred pecus
drag net
fish
THE PACT: ‘The other disciples followed in the boat. They were only a ways off
the shore, about two hundred cubits.* And they dragged the fish net after them.’
159
*pechus, armlength (from the elbow to the uttermost point of the long finger = 44,5
cm.) Two hundred pechus, armlengths, is exactly 89 meters
COMMENT: NIV has a clear translation of this verse, but both King James and
New World suddenly writes about ‘the small boat.’ This may mislead the reader to
think that there were two boats, one larger, verse 03, and one smaller, verse 08. The
first time I read it, I thought it was a large boat with a smaller helper. But that was
wrong, because there is only mention of one boat and one group of disciples. It was
only Peter who jumped out of the boat and swam ashore, or waded ashore, or both.
The others remained onboard the boat they went out in. But her it is easy to get confused, also for those who translate, because the text uses two different words for
boat, the neutral ploion in verse 03, but the word ploiarion in verse 08 indicating that
the boat was small. But it does not refer to a second boat. It only indicates that their
boat was rather small. And this you will easily understand when you read that a great
catch consisted of 153 fishes only! It was no more than a tub full.
THE PACT, JOH 21:09. ‘When they came ashore, —’
NIV: ‘When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on in, and
some bread.’
KJ-1611: ‘As soon then as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there,
and fish laid thereon, and bread.’
NWT: ‘However, when they disembarked onto land they beheld lying there a charcoal fire and fish lying upon it and bread.’
THE PACT: ‘When they came ashore, they saw a charcoal fire there to put the fish
on. And there was some bread.’
COMMENT: They all write that the fish was lying on the charcoal fire when they
came in. That might be the case, but most likely not. Jesus knew they were coming
in with fish, and he had made up a fire beforehand to fry the fish on. Because in the
next verse he said: ‘Bring some of the fishes you just caught.’ Evaluate the text. Did
the fire consist of fishes and bread? Or were there both fishes and bread on the fire?
I feel like quoting a fitting phrase: ‘With their heads under their arms and their arms
in a sling!’
THE PACT, JOH 21:11. Simon Peter jumped in and pulled the
net ashore.’
NIV: ‘Simon Peter climbed onboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large
fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.’
160
KJ-1611: ‘Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fishes, an
hundred and fifty and three: and for all there were so many, yet was not the net
broken.’
NWT: ‘Simon Peter, therefore, went on board and drew the net to land full of big
fishes, sone hundred and fifty three of them. But although there were so many the net
did not burst.’
SHG: simon petros anabaino helkuo diktuon ge mestos megas ichtus hekaton
Trans.: simon peter go in
pull
netn
land full
big fish hundred
pentekonta treis tosoutos tosoutos diktuon schizo
fifty
three this many this many net tear
THE PACT: ‘Simon Peter jumped in and pulled the net ashore. It was full of big
fishes, all together one hundred and fifty three pieces. But even with so many fishes,
the net did not tear.’
COMMENT: They all write that Peter went onboard (the boat) and pulled the net
ashore. The net was being pulled behind the boat, how could Peter drag it ashore
when being onboard the boat? NIV and NWT only write onboard, which may be
natural, but not agreeing with reality, because there was no way Peter could have
pulled the net ashore if he was still in the boat. And here it is all about the word
anabaino which in relation to a boat, means go onboard. But the basic meaning of
the word is to go in, and then it is not necessarily a boat you go into. It might as well
be a tub, a cart, or, as in this case, the sea. And to pull the net ashore so that he could
fetch the fishes Jesus asked for, Peter had to jump into the sea and pull the net
ashore. And then Jesus could fry the fishes he had asked for. The fire was already
made up.
THE PACT, JOH 21:25. ‘Jesus did many other great acts —’
NIV: ‘Jesus did many other things. If every one of them were to be written down, I
suppose that even the whole world not have room for the books that would be
written’
KJ-1611: ‘And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they
should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain
the books that should be written. Amen.
NWT: ‘There are, in fact, many other things also which Jesus did, which, if every
were written in full detail, I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls
written.’
SHG: kai polus allos hosos iesos poieo hostis ean grapho kata heis oiomai
Trans.: also much other that jesus do
so that if write after one think
161
oude kosmos autos choreo biblion grapho amen
no one world self receive scroll write amen
THE PACT: Jesus also did much more than these acts, so that if they were written
down, one after the other, no one in the world could receive the scrolls that then
would be written. [Amen.]
COMMENT: Again, how can they all have similar translations to this verse when
they are all miles away from a correct content? Because, if what they write would
have become a reality, John would have been writing still. Of course it is impossible
to write so many books that the world could not contain them. But as you see from
the Greek texts is says differently there. Because it is the people of this world that
would have been unable to receive what would then be written. And John is quite
right. Most are not even able to receive the short message that John has given us.
But that is not going to continue indefinitely. The original message of the Bible, the
First and the New Pact, God’s two witnesses, shall rise again and toward the end be
universal — without any preacher having any other purpose than presenting the word
of God in order to present the full and whole truth!
162
in Acts
THE PACT, ACT 01:01. ‘My first words to you, godlovers,
were about —’
NIV: ‘In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and
to teach —’
KJ -1611: ‘The former treatise I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus both began
to do and teach, —’
NWT: ‘The first account, O Theophilus, I composed about all the things Jesus
started both to do and to teach, —’
‘O Theophilus?’ Where did they get that from?
SHG: protos logos poieo theophilus pas iesous archomai te poieo didasko
Trans.: first word do
godlover all jesus begin
to do
teach
THE PACT: My first words to you, godlovers, were about all that Jesus began to do
and teach.
COMMENT: This is no big matter, but rather a curiosity. Here they all refer to a
man called Theophilus in the same way they also do in LUK 01:03. But Theophilus
is not mentioned one single time through all of the Bible! The Greek word theophilus when directly translated means godlover. And Luke dedicating his two writs
to everybody who loves God, is much more credible than his dedicating it to a totally
unknown unbiblical person.
The major reason for this misconception is that the father of all translations, King
James of 1611, writes Theophilus, even O Theophilus. And most translations indiscriminately follow the norm that this translation set more than four hundred years
ago! It is about time to give it a closer look!
163
Wrongly Translated Verses in Acts
THE PACT, ACT 03:25. ‘You are the sons of the prophets
and of the pact —’
NIV: ‘And you are the heirs of the prophets and of the covenant God made with your
fathers. He said to Abraham: ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be
blessed.’
KJ-1611: ‘Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made
with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the
earth be blessed.’
NWT: ‘You are the sons of the prophets and of the covenant which God covenanted
with your forefathers, saying to Abraham, ‘And in your seed all the families on the
earth will be blessed.’
SHG: huios prophetes diatheke hos theos diatithemi pater lego abraam sperma
Trans.: son prophet pact
that god make
father say abraham sperm
pas patria ge
eneulogeo
all people earth bless
THE PACT: ‘You are the sons of the prophets and of THE PACT God made with
your fathers when he said to Abraham: ‘Through your semen all peoples on the earth
shall be blessed.’’
GEN 26:04
COMMENT: This is repeated through all of the Bible: Almost all translations try
to hide the fact that all of the Bible is about these sons. Therefore they either write
children or heirs. And in that way they take away from the reader any possibility of
understanding that the Bible essentially is about a heavenly priesthood of men
without blemish, the one hundred and forty-four thousand who will reign with Jesus
during the thousand years. (LEV 21:16-24, REV 20:04, REV 14:01-05) It was this
priesthood Jesus started the election of when he chose the twelve apostles; twelve of
the twenty-four that will sit on the throne together with Christ during the thousand
years. And notice that there were no women among them!
The Lutheran Church has today gone far astray concerning this. And the same goes
for Jehovah’s Witnesses, because they preach that this election also apply to women,
but that they turn into men ‘on the way up.’ If so were the case, why do they then so
strongly oppose women preachers and ministers in the Lutheran Church as long as
they themselves are subject to the same misconception?
This interpretation has resulted in a woman from Kopervik, Karmoy, Norway, Othalia Mydland, being accepted as one of the 144.000. And for that reason she has been
allowed to spend her old age at the central compound of Jehovah’s Witnesses on
164
Enebakk outside of Oslo where they have an apartment set aside for the holy. Long
live their delusions! Because they will not change unless there is a decree from the
twelve holy in Brooklyn making up the so-called Governing Body! During the Lord’s
Supper it is only those who are of the 144.000 who are allowed to break the bread
and drink the wine. But how can they know that?
Yes, they claim to know it through the Spirit! (ROM 08:15-17) The others just let the
bread and the wine pass them by. And that is usually all of them!
Also note that NIV wrongly translates sperma with offspring where correct translation is sperm, semen or seed. And the semen that is from Abraham, refers directly
to Jesus Christ. (GAL 03:16) Why all these falsifications? No doubt it stems from
lack of respect of the Bible. It is not at all unusual to try and smarten up the word of
God a little. Where do they have such an authority from?
THE PACT, ACT 05:03. ‘How can Satan have filled your
heart —’
NIV: ‘Then Peter said, ‘Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you
have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you reeived for the land?’
KJ-1611: ‘But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the
Holy Ghost, and to keep part of the land?’
NWT: ‘But Peter said: “Ananias, why has Satan embolden you to play false to the
holy spirit and to hold back secretly some of the price of the field?
SHG: petros epo ananias diati satanas pleroo son kardia pseudomai hagios
Trans.: peter say ananias how satan fill
your heart lie
holy
pneuma nosphizomai nosphizomai time chorion
spirit
hold back
hold back
value land
THE PACT: ‘Then Peter said to Ananias: ‘How can Satan have filled your heart so
that you have lied by the Holy Spirit and held bach some of the value of the land for
yourself?’
COMMENT: There is a blasphemous misconception among Christianity that the
Holy Spirit is a person, and then they translate ‘lie to the Holy Spirit.’ But there is
no biblical basis to confirm that the Holy Spirit is a person. The Spirit, God’s Spirit
or the Holy Spirit are identical to God’s personality and power and is a way of spe-
165
ech of the power these first Christians were subject to directly from God. Therefore
he did not lie ‘to the Holy Spirit,’ but ‘by the Holy Spirit.’ It is sad how people are
confused about this.
New World has rewritten all of this verse without taking the original text into consideration . Expressions like embolden, play false and secretly are additions that
differ from the text, but not necessarily from the content.
THE PACT, ACT 05:21. ‘When they heard this, early in the
morning —’
NIV: ‘At daybreak they entered the temple courts, as they had been told, and began
to teach the people. When the high priest and his associates arrived, they called
together the Sanhedrin — the full assembly of the elders of Israel — and sent to the
jail for the apostles.’
KJ-1611: ‘And when they heard that, they entered into the temple early in the morning, and taught. But the high priest came, and they that were with him, and called the
council together, and all the senate of the children of Israel, and sent to the prison
to have them brought.’
NWT: ‘After hearing this they entered into the temple at daybreak and began to
teach. Now when the high priest and those with him arrived, they called together the
Sanhedrin and all the assembly of the older men of the sons of Israel, and they sent
out to the jail to have them brought.’
SHG: akouo eiserchomai eis hieron orthos
didasko archiereus
Trans.: hear enter
in temple early morning teach
high priest
archiereus paraginomai sugkaleo sunedrin sugkaleo pas gerousia
high priest go
gather
sanhedrin gather
all council member
huios israel apostolos desmoterion ago
son israel apostle
prison
bring
THE PACT: ‘When they heard this, early in the morning they entered the temple to
teach. But the highest priest went and gathered the Sanhedrin and all the council
members among the sons of Israel to bring the apostles before them from the prison.’
COMMENT: This is another example of what happens through all of the Bible: In
NIV the word son has been left out all together. And KJ-1611 again writes the gender neutral children instead of sons. Only NWT is consistently correct here. It is not
very strange that the Bible may seem confusing to an occasional reader. And now
166
they have come so far astray that they even refuse to accept the true meaning of the
word huios, but claim that it means child. That is far from the case! The word huios
can in no case mean child (gender neutral). Without exception it means son, actually
offspring of the male gender. Therefore it may also be translated colt, etc. But never
child. The Greek word for child is teknon. The expression ‘those who were with him’
do neither exist in the Greek text. Check it out. So why have they then included it?
It is originally in KJ-1611. NIV is a bit more fancy and writes associates, but neither
that is in the original text.
THE PACT, ACT 07:14. ‘Then Joseph sent message to his
father Jacob —’
NIV: ‘After this, Joseph sent for his father Jacob and his whole family, seventy five
in all.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then sent Joseph, and called his Father Jacob to him, and all his kindred,
threescore and fifteen souls.’
NWT: ‘So Joseph sent out and called Jacob his father and all his relatives from that
place, to the number of seventy-five souls.’
SHG: de apostello ioseph metakaleo pater iakob pas suggeneia hebdomekonta
Trans.: then send
josep message father jacob all relative
seventy
pente hebdomekonta pente psuche
five seventy
five soul
THE PACT: Then Joseph sent message to his father Jacob and all of his relatives,
seventy-five souls in all.
COMMENT: Here we again see that Stephen’s information does not agree with
Moses who in Exodud 01:05 tells that they were altogether seventy souls. Moses is
probably correct here. Many use this as proof that the Bible is unreliable. It is the
opposite. The Bible does not hide the fact that Stephen had this number wrong.
It becomes repetitious, but NIVs trying to hide the fact that each person is a soul, is
a devious way of supporting Satan’s lie about the invisible and immortal soul. NIV
is overdoing it by also making the soul invisible in their texts!
THE PACT, ACT 07:23. ‘Then Moses became forty years.’
NIV: ‘When Moses was forty years old, he decided to visit his fellow Israelites.’
167
KJ-1611: And when he was full forty years, it came into his heart to visit his brethern the children of Israel.’
NWT: ‘Now when the time of his fortieth year was being fulfilled, it came into his
heart to make an inspection of his brothers, the son of Israel.’
SHG: hos pleroo tessarakontates tessarakontates chronos anabaino epi
Trans.: when fill
forty year
forty year
time
enter
in
kardia episkeptomai adelphos huios israel
heart visit
brother son israel
THE PACT: ‘Then Moses became forty years. At that time it came over him that he
wanted to visit his brothers, the sons of Israel.’
COMMENT: The same willed mistakes are being repeated all the time. NIV writes
Israelites and King James children. NWT correctly writes sons.
The Greek text says: ‘Then Moses filled forty years.’ NWT writes in a pretty embellished text: ‘Now when the time of his fortieth year was being fulfilled.’ Why do
they not stick to the text? That is basically simple. Jehovah’s Witnesses’ translation
is mostly a copy of the King James text, which they themselves admit it their self
biography called Jehovah’s Witnesses. But on order not to make it look conspicuously identical, they keep embellishing the text by adding extra, meaningless words.
They claim that their translation in that way ‘gives a better religious feeling.’
King James writes that he wanted to visit ‘his brothers, the children of Israel.’ In this
case it should be unnecessary to falsify the text, because as long as it says brothers,
most reader will understand that they are sons. But some later translations have also
drifted so far away from the facts that they write siblings instead of brothers.
THE PACT, ACT 07:59. ‘As they stoned him, —’
NIV: ‘While they were stoning him, Stephen prayed, ‘Lord, Jesus, receive my spirit.’
KJ-1611: ‘And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, saying, Lord, Jesus, receive
my spirit.’
NWT: ‘And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said:
‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit’’
168
SHG: lithoboleo stephanos epikaleomai lego kurios iesous dechomai pneuma
Trans.: stone
stephen call on
say lord jesus receive spirit
THE PACT: ‘As they stoned him, Stephen invoked, saying: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit.’’
COMMENT: The way NIV translates this verse, they have left out the word call on,
invoke, and instead writes pray (to Jesus), which is against the teaching of the Bible.
King James seems to be aware of this and writes ‘calling upon God,’ although the
word God has been added. It is against the Bible to pray to Jesus, ref. Father in the
heavens. A prayer must always be directed to God, in the name of Jesus, that is
according to Jesus’ acts. But nobody can call on God by saying ‘Lord Jesus.’ But you
can call on anybody, and here Stephen called on Jesus.
NWT continues to embellish writing ‘casting stones’ and ‘make appeal.’ And this
they do consciously, for according to Jehovah’s Witnesses you can only call on God
while this verse refers to Jesus. It says so straight: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’
There is a lot of confusion here. But the correct conclusion is: You can call on, or invoke, anybody, but you can only pray to God — in the name of Jesus! And the name
is identical to his acts. It is no use praying for a brand new Cadillac even if you shout
‘in the name of Jesus’ until your face turns blue! Some people have tried!
THE PACT, ACT 09:15. ‘The Lord answered Ananias: —’
NIV: ‘But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry
my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel.’
KJ-1611: ‘But the Lord said unto him: Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me,
to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel.’
NWT: ‘But the Lord said to him: ‘Be on your way, because the man is a chosen vessel to me to bear my name to the nations as well as to kings and the sons of Israel.’
SHG: kurios epo poreuomai ekloge skeuos bastazo onoma enopion ethnos
Trans.: lord say go
choose tool
carry name before ethnic
basileus huios israel
king
son israel
THE PACT: ‘The Lord answered him: ‘Go, for he is a chosen tool. He shall carry
my name before the peoples, their kings and the sons of Israel.’
169
COMMENT: Here we again see that the expression ‘the sons of Israel’ is being consciously and consistently falsified!
NIV writes ‘the people of Israel’ in this verse, and then it is no use arguing that huios
means children when it is translated people. King James consistently writes children
when it says sons in the original text. The only honest exception is NWT that consistently writes sons when it says sons in the Greek text.
THE PACT, ACT 10:34. ‘Then Peter spoke, saying —’
NIV: ‘Then Peter began to speak: ‘I now realize how true it is that God does not
show favoritism.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is
no respecter* of persons.’
*difference
NWT: ‘At this Peter opened his mouth and said: ‘For a certainty I perceive that God
is not partial.’
SHG: de petros anoigo stoma epo aletheia katalambano theos ou
Trans.: then peter open mouth say truth
understand god no
prosopoleptes prosopoleptes*
discriminate discriminate
*treat faces differently
THE PACT: ‘Then Peter spoke, saying: ‘Now I truly understand that God does not
discriminate against anybody.’’
COMMENT: It is wrong claiming that God does not treat people differently. Based
on peoples’ abilities and personalities he chooses and rejects as he sees fit. In birth
some are strong, healthy and intelligent. Others are weak, crippled and dumb. Some
are born to riches, others to poverty. But the point in this verse is that God no longer
distinguishes between the peoples and the Jews in relation to God’s rescue which is
the election to his heavenly priesthood. In that respect he no longer discriminates.
This discrimination ended in the year 36 when the centurion Cornelius received the
Holy Spirit and was baptized by Peter. This is what Peter refers to.
THE PACT, ACT 10:36. ‘You know the word God sent —’
NIV: ‘You know the message that God sent to the people of Israel, telling the good
news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.’
170
KJ-1611: ‘The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by
Jesus Christ: he s the Lord of all.’
NWT: ‘He sent out the word to the sons of Israel to declare to them the good news
of peace through Jesus Christ: this One is Lord of all others.’
SHG: logos hos apostello huios israel euaggelizo eirene iesous christos kurios pas
Trans.: word that send
son israel message peace jesus christ lord all
THE PACT: ‘You know the word that was sent to the sons of Israel — a message
of peace through Jesus Christ, he who is everybody’s Lord.’* *refers to Isaiah 57:19
COMMENT: Here both NIV and KJ-1611 write children where the Greek text
writes sons. Like so many times before only NWT is honest enough to translate the
word huios correctly. Also the word God does not exist in the original text and neither does the word news.
THE PACT, ACT 11:16. ‘Then I recalled the word of the Lord
when he said: —’
NIV: ‘Then I remembered what the Lord had said: ‘John baptized with water, but
you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John baptized
with water, but you shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.’
NWT: ‘At this I called to mind the saying of the Lord, how he used to say: ‘John, for
his part, but you will be baptized in holy spirit.’
SHG: de mnaomai rhema kurios hos lego iohannes men baptizo hudor
Trans.: then remember word lord when say john
truly baptize water
baptizo hagios pneuma
baptize holy spirit
THE PACT: ‘Then he recalled the word of the Lord when he said: ‘John baptized
with water, but you shall truly baptize with the Holy Spirit.’
COMMENT: Here they all refer to their being baptized with the Holy Spirit. And
that happened on the day of the Pentecost in the year 33. But that is not what Peter
is referring to, because in this case it was the apostles themselves who baptized with
the Holy Spirit by laying their hands on the believers so that also they were filled
with God’s power and personality through receiving of God’s Holy Spirit.
171
It may be difficult to realize, because the grammar of the ancient Greek Koiné. gives
room for both translations. So here we must relate to what really happened: When
some of the apostles, for instance Peter, laid their hands on them, they received the
Holy Spirit. (ACT 08:17) And that is how he, through the power of God, baptized
with the Holy Spirit. This ability ended with the apostles, (1CO 13:08) and Paul was
the last who received this power directly from God. (THE PACT 19:17) This is not
included in KJ-1611, and therefore all the others have also omitted it. In other translations this verse is ACT 19:11.
Check them out and compare with the Greek text.
NB! Peter here refers to Acts 01:05 where Jesus tells the apostles that they will receive of God’s Holy Spirit in few days. Again: The Greek text gives room to translate this both ways, but it is important that the translation agrees with reality. The
word truly, has also been omitted in all other translations, and it is not coincidental,
because it is that word that underscores the extraordinary in this. And we see that
Peter, of course, has a correct understanding of it.
THE PACT, ACT 12:15. ‘But they answered: ‘This is madness!’
NIV: ‘You’re out of your mind, ‘ they told her. When she kept insisting that it was
so, they said, ‘It must be his angel.’
KJ-1611: ‘And they said unto her, Thou art mad. But she constantly confirmed it was
even so. Then they said, It is his angel.’
NWT: ‘They said to her: ‘You are mad.’ But she kept on strongly asserting it was so.
They began to say: ‘It is his angel.’’
SHG: epo mainomai diischurizomai diischurizomai houto de lego
Trans.: say madness insist
insist
this as say
THE PACT: ‘But they answered: ‘That is madness!’ But she insisted that it was as
she had said.’
COMMENT: Here they all have a strange addition that does not exist in any
original text: ‘It is his angel.’ We are exposed to enough angel confusion without
having to accept such nonsense as this! And again: How can they all include the
same text when it does not exist in any original text? Th is must be the final and
indisputable proof that they all copy from King James of 1611 or from somebody
who has copied from King James of 1611: And they said unto her, Thou art mad.
But she constantly confirmed it was even so. Then they said, it is his angel.’
172
Such satanic additions as this one no doubt puts the word of God in disgrace among
normally thinking people! Have you ever heard about the wayward princess who collects angel feathers?
But even if it would have said aggelos in this verse, it would have meant: ‘It must be
a messenger!’ And that is someone bringing a message, and in no way a heavenly
being with wings! There has got to be a limit!
THE PACT, ACT 13:26. ‘Men, brothers, sons of Abraham —’
NIV: ‘Brothers, children of Abraham, and you God-fearing Gentiles, it is so that
this message of salvation has been sent.’
KJ-1611: ‘Men and brethern, children of the stock of Abraham, and whosoever
among you feareth God, to you is the word of salvation sent.’
NWT: ‘Men, brothers, you sons of the stock of Abraham and those others among
you who fear God, the word of this salvation has been sent forth to us.’
SHG: aner adelphos huios genos abraam ho en phobeo theos logos tautei
Trans.: man brother son born abraham any who fear
god word those
soteria apostello
rescue send
THE PACT: ‘Men, brothers, sons born of Abraham and all who fear God — this
word of rescue has now been sent to you.’
COMMENT: When you read the different translations of this simple verse, they
make up a true confusion compared to the Greek text. Again NIV writes children
instead of sons as does also King James. And then they add the expression stock of
Abraham which neither is part of the text.
And now a picture must start appearing that shows that these are not coincidences,
but conscious falsifications.
King James refers to the stock of Abraham and writes children instead of sons. And
NWT keeps limping along with KJ as a team of two, but at least they are conscious
that it is correct to write sons. And genos means to bear, give birth too, and in this
case not in any way stock.
THE PACT, ACT 14:02. ‘But the disbelieving Jews —’
NIV: ‘But the Jews who refused to believe, stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their
minds against the brothers.’
173
KJ-1611: ‘But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles, and made their minds
evil affected against the brethern.’
NWT: But the Jews that did not believe stirred up and wrongly influenced the souls
of people of the nations against the brothers.’
SHG: apeitheo ioudaios epegeiro ethnos kakoo psuche kakoo kakoo
Trans.: unbelieve judean* stir up ethnic poison soul
poison poison
*one from or living in Judea
kate adelphos
against brother
THE PACT: ‘But the disbelieving Jews stirred up those of the peoples and poisoned
their souls against the brothers.’
COMMENT: Check the Greek text and see how simple this verse actually is. Yet
they manage to mess it up with translations that deviate from the text. NIV and KJ
write gentiles here, which is common, but outmoded. A Gentile is a heathen in
everyday speech referring to one who has not heard of the word of God. But in
biblical relation a heathen is one who is not a Jew, which is also covered by the word
gentile. But the word gentile is a construed word and ought not to be used in a biblical relation.
The Greek word is ethnos = people(s). We use the word correctly in our daily speech
when we talk about ethnic origin. And then it may be useful to know that the distinction between Jew and Gentile in the Bible is far from being as distinct as many translations make it, because also the Jews are in the Bible referred to as ethnics. And
then THE PACT writes people. But it is a bit unclear, because the Bible also refers
to the Jews as a people, but then the Greek word is laos. THE PACT avoids words
like gentile, heathen or pagan and instead writes people or those of the peoples.
NB! Note that the word souls is also used in the Greek text. But because soul refers
to the very persons, and not something immortal, invisible hanky-panky that we carry
around inside of us. NIV and KJ are not honest enough to include the word in the
translation. To hide the real meaning of soul from the reader they have omitted the
word in their translations. And of the 854 times soul is being used in t he original text
KJ uses it only 454 times and NIV as few as 129 times. This is also proof that with
each new translation we get further and further away from the original text. This is
done consciously to make is believe in Satan’s first lie that ‘you shall definitely not
die.’ (GEN 03:04) And to make that a reality we need something immortal inside of
us that cannot die! And therefore the wrong teaching of the invisible and immortal
soul! But in this verse NIV has omitted it altogether because they really know better.
They have understood that the soul in this case clearly refers to the brothers as per-
174
sons. A little bravo to Jehovah’s Witnesses here, who in spite of a strange text, still
present the soul in a correct way.
That of the soul in the Bible refers to that of the earth, the visible and tangible. The
spiritual in the Bible refers to that of the heavens, the invisible and untouchable. To
understand the spiritual it is imperative to realize that there can be nothing material
in a spiritual world, such as angel feathers. The Americans do not get to bring their
guns and the British will have to leave their fishing rods behind.
THE PACT, ACT 15:28 . ‘We have decided, by the Holy Spirit,
not to —’
NIV: ‘It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything
beyond the following requirements: —’
KJ-1611: ‘For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no
greater burden than these necessary things; —’
NWT: ‘For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden
to you, except these necessary things, —’
SHG: dokeo hagios pneuma epitithemi medeis pleion baros plen touton epanagkes
Trans.: think holy spirit
impose no
more burden but what necessary
THE PACT: ‘We have decided, by the Holy Spirit, not to impose any more burdens
on you than necessary.’
COMMENT: All three translations here present the Holy Spirit as a person: ‘The
Holy Spirit and we have —’ As you see from the Greek text that is not a biblical
teaching. This must be especially embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not
believe in the Holy Spirit as a person. Yet they do not manage to get it right even
when the original text and their own understanding correspond. Is this not a clear
proof of their copying from King James? Check it out. Compare.
THE PACT, ACT 16:33 (16:39). ‘At the same time in the night
—’
NIV: ‘At that hour in the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then
immediately he and all his family were baptized.’
KJ-1611: ‘And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes;
and was baptized, he and all his, straightway.’
175
NWT: ‘And he took them along in that hour of the night and bathed their stripes;
and, one and all, he and his were baptized without delay.’
SHG: paralambano ekeinos hora nux louo plege baptizo pas parachreme
Trans.: get
same hour night wash stroke baptize all at once
THE PACT: At the same time in the night they had their strokes washed. And they
were all baptized at once.’
NB! THE PACT’s separation of chapters and verses follow Paul’s missionary journeys. Therefore this verse is 16:39 in THE PACT, and not 16:33. Through all this
chapter you must add 06 verses to make the text agree with NIV, KJ and NWT. The
previous chapter is then 06 verses shorter, the last 06. Also note that THE PACT
presents Paul’s books in the order he wrote them.
COMMENT: This verse is often used by the Lutheran Church as a defense of child
baptism: ‘He was baptized with all his family.’ The interpretation is then that this
also must have included children. But babies of a few weeks only? In the middle of
the night? There has got to be a limit! But then a little work blemish from King
James: In verse 22 they write that they were beaten with sticks. But in verse 16:33
they write that ‘they had their wounds washed after the whip-lashing.’ It may be a
little confusing. NIV also says that ‘he and all of his family were baptized.’ It says
nothing about his family in the original text. The word all only refers to those present.
THE PACT, ACT 19:11 (19:17). ‘God made it so that no one
could perform —’
ACT 19:17 (19:11) GOD MADE IT SO THAT NO ONE COULD PERFORM
POWERFUL ACTS EXCEPT BY THE HANDS OF PAUL.
Strong’s Hebrew / Greek, SH / G:
SH / G: theos poieo ou
-paradechomai tugchamo dunamis cheir paulos
Trans.: god
make no one ability
happen power
hand paul
THE PACT: God made it so that no one could perform powerful acts except by
Paul’s hands.
KJ-1611: ‘And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul.’
NIV: ‘God did extraordinary miracles through Paul.’
176
NWT: ‘And God kept performing extraordinary works of power through the hands
of Paul.’
NB! Here they are all guilty of a great sin of omission! This must be especially embarrassing to the translators of NWT. Jehovah’s Witnesses believe what the text
says here, but have still not managed to get it right in their own translation!
COMMENT: In the messages we read that God did many powerful acts through
Jesus. And in verse 17 (11) we see that God also did powerful acts through the hands
of Paul. And it was only through Paul God did these powerful acts. And if you
evaluate the text of Acts soberly, you will see that nobody but Paul had the power to
perform such acts! But also earlier God performed such powerful acts through the
disciples, apostles, ref. Peter and John. Such abilities were proof that they had received of God’s spirit. They had become directly subjected to God’s power. But we
also experience that this power was beginning to diminish! Because when dealing
with those of the peoples, we see in verse 17 (11) that now it was only Paul who received this power from God — and nobody else, neither Barnabas nor Timothy.
NB! None of the translations have included this, and some have consciously left
it out! And therefore the preaching has also gone far astray in this respect!
NIV: ‘God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, —’
KJ-1611: ‘And God wrought special miracles by the hands of Paul: —’
NNV: ‘And God kept performing extraordinary works of power through the hands
of Paul.’
SHG: theos poieo ou
-paradechomai -tugchano dunamis cheir paulos
Trans.: god do
no one perform
work
powerful hand paul
THE PACT: ‘God made it so that no one could perform powerful acts except by
Paul’s hands.’
This is so important that I repeat the content in another COMMENT:
This is also a special verse because it becomes so clear that nobody has bothered to
check with the original text, or, if not so, they have consciously falsified this verse
to make it agree with the worst charismatics. But Jehovah’s Witnesses? Well, that
is the punishment for indiscriminately copying from King James! heck it out.
What is so wrong? Yes, they have omitted that it only was through Paul’s hands God
performed his powerful acts among those of the peoples. and that agrees with Paul’s
own explanation in First Corinthians 13:08. This power died out during the generation after the apostles, because it was only to the apostles Jesus said that they
would baptize with the Holy Spirit. There were many more who received the Holy
Spirit, but without getting the power to transfer the ability to others.
177
Half-hysterical charismatics are by far happy to read the correct translation of this.
That the translators have been aware of, and therefore some have chosen to turn the
other cheek. But right is right! So please do not jump into the open trap and believe
that it is possible for any Christian to perform the powerful acts Paul did. ‘The Spirit
is not given by measure.’ (JOH 03:34)
One more thing: It is so much easier for Christian leaders to believe the greatest fablers at the expense of the biblical truth, because so many of them walk around hoping
to become little Jesus’es!
THE PACT, ACT 20:10. ‘Paul ran down and threw himself —’
NIV: Paul went down, threw himself on the young man and put his arms around him.
‘Do not be alarmed,’ he said. ‘He is alive!’
KJ-1611: ‘And Paul went down, fell on him, and embracing him said, Trouble not
yourselves; for his life is in him.’
NWT: ‘But Paul went downstairs, threw himself upon him and embraced him and
said: ‘Stop raising a clamor, for his soul is in him.’’ ‘Stop raising a clamor, heh?’
SHG: paulos katabaino katabaino epipipto
epipipto
sumperilambano
Trans.: paul run down run down throw over throw over embrace
epo thorubeo psuche
say trouble soul
THE PACT: Paul ran down, threw himself over him, embraced him and said: ‘Do
not worry about his soul.’
COMMENT: Here both NIV and KJ has left out the word soul and replaced it with
alive or life. That may be correct, but is instrumental in hiding the fact that the soul
is the person himself, and not something hocus-pocus invisible and immortal that we
carry around within ourselves. NWT writes: ‘His soul is in him.’
Jehovah’s Witnesses have a correct understanding of the word soul. Yet they translate as if the soul was something we carry around within ourselves. Again that is the
punishment for copying King James. They have just exchanged the word life with
soul.
Check how how straight forward it is in the original text. There it is clear that the
soul is the very human being, in this case the young man who fell out the window.
178
THE PACT, ACT 20:24. ‘But no words can do anything —’
NIV: ‘However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race
and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me — the task of testifying to the
gospel of God’s grace.’
KJ-1611: ‘But none of these things move me, neither count I my life dear to myself,
so that I might finish my course with joy, and the ministry, which I have received of
the Lord Jesus, to testify the gospel of the grace of God.’
NWT: ‘Nevertheless, I do not make my soul of any account as dear to me, if only I
may finish my course and the ministry that I received of the Lord Jesus to bear
throughout witness to the good news of the undeserved kindness of God.’
SHG: oudeis logos logos -poieo oude echo psuche timios emoutou hos
Trans.: no
word word do
any have soul valuable myself if not
teleioo dromos chara diakonia hos echo lambano kurios iesous diamarturomai
finish course enjoy service that have receive lord jesus testify
euaggelion charis theos
message grace god
THE PACT: ‘But no word can do anything to me, because I do not consider my soul
valuable for my own sake, but to finish the course and the good service the Lord
Jesus has given me — to testify about the message of the grace of God.’
COMMENT: I do not know why it is so important to most translators to hide the
true meaning of the word soul — a creature of flesh and blood. They do everything
in their power to support the wrong teachings of the Pope, Luther and the charismatics howlers that we walk around with an invisible, immortal soul inside of us. That
is not a biblical teaching, but does, after all, have a biblical origin. It builds on Satan’s first lie: ‘You shall certainly not die!’ It is this Satan’s first lie Christian organizations keep alive through their falsifications of the word soul.
It may be of interest to learn that the word soul is being use 854 times in the First and
the New Pact. NIV only write soul 129 times in their translation and replaces it with
words such as life, creature, being, man, etc. In this verse they have all omitted it,
because here it would be clear that if Paul does not value his soul for himself, then
the soul is not important to get a heavenly resurrection. If so had been the case, Paul
would without doubt have valued his soul above everything else!
Again, New World is an honest exception. It writes soul in every verse where soul
is being used in the original text both in the First and the New Pact. What pleasure
179
can anybody have in translating the Bible when they keep falsifying it? How dishonest can people be? Do they also call themselves Christians? By the way, could it be
a form of satanism?
THE PACT, ACT 20:28. ‘Take therefore good care of —’
NIV: ‘Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has
made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God which he bought with his
own blood.’
KJ-1611: ‘Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which
the Holy Ghost hath made you overseer, to feed the church of God, which he hath
purchased with his own blood.’
NWT: ‘Pay attention to yourselves and to all the flock, over which the holy spirit
has appointed you overseers, to shepherd the congregation of God, which he purchased with the blood of his own Son.’
SHG: prosecho heautou pas poimnion en hos
hagios pneuma tithemi
Trans.: take care self
all flock
of which holy spirit set
episkopos poimaino ekklesia theos hos
peripoieomai idios haima
overseer shepherd church god which buy
own blood
THE PACT: Take care of yourselves and all the flock that you, through the Holy
Spirit, have been set as overseers of. Be shepherds of the church that the Lord* has
bought with his own blood.’
*Jesus
COMMENT: Word by word this verse is basically simple, but concerning the
content it may be more difficult getting all the details in the right place. The difficulty is not mostly part of the content, but because of the great differences between
Greek and English grammar.
First: Here all three translations write that they were set as overseers by the Holy
Spirit. They all, including Jehovah’s Witnesses who do not believe in the Holy Spirit
as a person, present the Holy Spirit as a person. If you check the original text, you
will se the little word en, a proposition meaning by or through. But not to get confused here, one must shy away from by and write through. In this case there should
therefore be no basis of misunderstandings.
So to the last line of the Greek text which may seem as if they were bought with
God’s own blood, and that is also how it has been translated by both NIV and KJ.
180
NWT has fixed the problem by adding Son, of course referring to Jesus. Therefore
when it says ‘his own blood, it does not refer to God’s blood, but to Jesus blood.
NWT has added Son here, which does not agree with the text, but which is still correct based on the content. Because we all know that it was Jesus, not God, who died
on the pole. Or do we?
Alt. 01: Be overseers of the church that God bought with the blood of his own Son.’
Alt. 02: Be overseers of the church that God bought, and that with his own* blood.’
*Jesus’
Alt. 03: Be overseers of the church that the Lord bought with his own blood.’
NB! In the very oldest handwritings of this verse, it does not say God, but Lord. And
the Lord is Jesus. And then it is correct! It is only those who believe in the blasphemous teaching of trinity who do not separate between God and Jesus.
In this verse KJ an NIV display a total lack of understanding, because God is of spirit
(JOH 04:24) and does not have a material substance such as blood.
THE PACT, ACT 21:11 (20:49). ‘When he entered, he took —’
NIV: ‘Coming over to us, he took Paul’s belt, tied his own hands and feet with it and
said, ‘The Holy Spirit says, in this way the Jews of Jerusalem will bind the owner
of this belt and will hand him over to the Gentiles.’’
KJ-1611: ‘And when he was come into us, he took Paul’s girdle, and bound his own
hands and feet, and said, Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem
bind the man that owneth this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the
Gentiles.’
NWT: ‘— and he came to us and took up the girdle of Paul, bound his own feet and
hands and said: ‘Thus says the holy spirit, The man to whom this girdle belongs the
Jews will bind in this manner in Jerusalem and deliver into the hands of people of the
nations.’’
SHG: erchomai airo paulos zone deo hautou cheir pous epo hode lego hagios
Trans.: come
take paul cord bind this
hand foot say thus say holy
pneuma houto ioudaios en hierousalem deo aner esti houtos zune paradidomi
spirit
thus judean in jerusalem bind man have this
cord hand over
eis cheir ethnos
in hand ethnic
181
THE PACT: ‘When he entered, he took Paul’s waistcord, bound his hands and feet
with it and said: ‘This I say by the Holy Spirit: In this way the Jews in Jerusalem will
bind the man who owns this waistcord, and they will hand him over to those of the
peoples.’
COMMENT: Here they have all made the Holy Spirit into a person, a soul. But the
person in this case was Agabus. And it is clear that he spoke through the power of
God as a true prophet.
The other translations write that he bound his own hands an feet with a belt. Try for
yourself and see if you can do that. The Greek text writes cord. The word houtou
means his or himself. If he had bound his own hands and feet the text would have
read seautou. This is an example that Koiné. uses a personal, a reflective, pronoun.
In other words, the language does have personal pronouns, but they are being used
to a very limited extent.
THE PACT, ACT 22:09. ‘Also those who were with me, —’
NIV: ‘My companions saw the light, but they did not understand the voice of him
who was speaking to me.’
KJ-1611: ‘And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid, but
they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.’
NWT: ‘Now the men that were with me beheld indeed the light, but did not hear
the voice of the one that was speaking to me.’
SHG: theomai men phos emphobos akouo phone laleo
Trans.: see
also light afraid
hear voice speak
THE PACT: ‘Also those who were with me, saw the light, but they became afraid
when they heard the voice that spoke to me.’
COMMENT: NIV and NWT have omitted that they were afraid, but that is how it
says in Strong’s original text. KJ and NWT also claim that they did not hear the
voice of him who spoke. But in verses 09:07 they write exactly the opposite:
KJ-1611: ‘’And the men which journeyed stood speechless, hearing a voice, but
seeing no man.’
NWT: ‘Now the men that were journeying with him were standing speechless,
hearing, indeed, the sound of a voice, but not hearing any man.’
182
NB! Check the original text and compare with THE PACT, and you will see how
simple it is! But here NWT has been taken for a ride by the wrong translation of 22:
09 by King James and write exactly the opposite of how they previously translated
09:07. It is easily done, but is yet another proof that they have not used the Geek text,
but copied from King James which took the same ride more than 400 years ago.
Many Muslims are aware of this discrepancy and use it as proof that the Bible is not
from God. They can, or will not, see that this is a mistake made during translation.
But they are aware that such may happen, and therefore they are reluctant to let the
Koran be translated to different languages, but only be read in Arabic. But to one
who has read the Koran and compares it to the Bible, it is easy to see that the Koran
is a shallow book written my man, in spite of their own claims that it is the world’s
only book written directly by God, or Allah. — How could that have happened?
The Bible, on the other hand, is so deep that it cannot possible have originated by
man!
THE PACT, ACT 24:17. ‘So, after many years —’
NIV: ‘After an absence of several years, I came to Jerusalem to bring my people gifts
for the poor and to present offerings.’
KJ-1611: ‘Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.’
NWT: ‘So after quite a number of years I arrived to bring gifts of mercy to my nation, and offerings.’
SHG: de deo pleion etos paraginomai poieo eleemosune ethnos prosphora
Trans.: so after many years comr
do
gift grace
ethnic offering
THE PACT: ‘So, after many years, I came to present a gift of charity from the peoples, and to sacrifice.’
COMMENT: Here they all refer to ‘my people’ or my ‘nation — the Jews. Fair
enough, but the Greek text refers to those of the peoples. What gift is Paul referring
to? It says that there was a famine under Emperor Claudius. And then those of the
peoples made a collection specifically to the holy in Jerusalem, and not to the people
in general.
And the collection of this gift you may read about in Second Corinthians chapter 09.
It was then not decided who would bring the gift to Jerusalem, but we later learn that
it turned out to be Paul and Barnabas.
183
THE PACT, ACT 27:12. ‘And because the harbor —’
NIV: ‘Since the harbor was unsuitable to winter in, the majority decided that we
should sail on, hoping to reach Phoenix and winter there. This was a harbor in Crete,
facing both southwest and northwest.’
NK-1611: ‘And because the haven was not commodious to winter in, the more part
advised to depart hence also, if by any means they might attain to Phenice, which is
an haven on Crete, and lieth toward the south west and the north west.’
NWT: ‘Now as the harbor was inconvenient for wintering, the majority advised
setting sail from there to see if they could somehow make it to Phoenix to winter, a
harbor on Crete that opens toward the northeast and toward the southeast.’
SHG: limen anentheos paracheimasia pleion boule -tithemi anago ekeithen
Trans.: harbor unsuitable overwinter
many advice give
sail therefrom
kakeithen ei_pos
pos
pos dunamai
katantao phoinix paracheimazo
thereafter if possible maybe maybe managevne reach
phoenix overwinter
limen krete blepo kata
lips
lips
choros
choros
harbor crete see
toward southwest southwest northwest northwest
THE PACT: And because the harbor was unsuitable to winter in, many advice that
maybe we would manage to reach Phoenix and winter there; a harbor on Crete that
is not open neither to the southwestern nor the northwestern.’
COMMENT: This verse is in no way important to acquire a mature biblical understanding, but some translations contain both an unclear and irritating breech of logic,
because the way it is translated it undeniably seems that they are trying to reach a
safer harbor on another island. But Fairhaven was situated in the middle of the southeastern coast of Crete.
What they wanted to do, was to sail around the western tip of the island and winter
in Phoenix, a harbor situated at the bottom of a bay further north. And this harbor
was not open neither toward the southwest nor to the northwest, like the harbor in
Fairhaven was. The harbor of Pheonix was situated at the end of a bay northwest on
Crete with good protection against the heavy winter storms from each and every
direction.
NB! The Greek text and all translations write southwest and northwest about the
direction of the winds, but NWT writes northeast and southeast. They have noticed
the breach of logic, but instead of just adding the word not to the text, they change
the direction of the winds.
184
THE PACT, ACT 27:37. ‘All onboard the ship — ’
NIV: ‘Altogether there were 276 of us onboard.’
KJ-1611: ‘And we were in all in the ship two hundred threescore and sixteen souls.’
NWT: ‘Now, altogether, we souls in the boat were two hundred and seventy-six.
GJE 27:37
SHG: pas ploion diakosioi
diakosioi
hebdomekonta hebdomekonta
Trans.: all boat two hundred two hundred seventy
seventy
hex psuche
six soul
THE PACT: ‘All onboard the ship were two hundred and seventy-six souls.’
COMMENT: Here NIV, in good tradition, has omitted the word soul. I am positively surpriced, though, that KJ has included it, because in this verse it is quite clear
that the souls are the very persons onboard the ship. But without the original text
NIV’s translation is a clear hinder to understand what a soul actually is: A person,
an animal, a fish or a bird.
In GEN 01:20 it says: ‘Then God created all the living souls that swim in shoals in
the sea.’ And of course the word soul has been omitted in most of the translations!
It has been replaced with creatures.
Am I then too harsh when I call such translations biblical falsifications?
185
THE PACT has chosen to present Paul’s 14 letters in
the order he wrote them:
01
First Thessalonians
about the year 51
02
Second Thessalonians
about the year 52
03
Galatians
about the year 54
04
First Corinthinans
about the year 55
05
Second Corinthians
about the year 55
06
Romans
about the year 56
Paul is now imprisoned in Rome.
07
Ephesians
about the year 60
08
Philippians
about the year 60
09
Colosseans
about the year 61
10
Philemon
about the year 61
11
Hebrews
about the year 61
Paul is now released from his imprisonment in Rome.
12
Titus
about the year 64
13
First Timothy
about the year 64
14
Second Timothy
about the year 65
Paul’s second and last letter to Timothy is Paul’s farewell letter. He was
supposedly executed on the command of Emperor Nero only few years
after his release.
186
in First Thessalonians
THE PACT, 1TH 02:07. ‘But we were considerate among you
—’
NIV: ‘— but we were gentle among you, like when a mother cares for her little
children.’
KJ-1611: ‘But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children.’
NWT: ‘To the contrary, we became gentle in the midst of you, as when a nursing
mother cherishes her own children.’
SHG: epois
en
-mesos trophos
thalpo
teknon
Trans.: considerate when among wet nurse breastfeed child
THE PACT: ‘But we were considerate among you, like when a mother breastfeeds
her children.’.
COMMENT: This is no big matter, but it becomes a bit irritating over time to see
how consciously the translators are trying to ‘smarten up’ the word of God. The way
it was written, is also how it is to be translated. Yes, it actually takes a greater effort
to translate wrongly than to follow the original text.
Here NIV writes cares for her little children. KJ-1611 writes as a nurse cherisheth
her children, and NWT writes ‘as when a nursing mother cherishes her own children,’ the standard set already as early as 1611. They have all taken away that she
breastfeeds her children. It is sort of too direct for them. But what can be better than
to translate to English exactly the same way it is written in the original text! Only
then will you get the correct details.
‘The Devil is in the details,’ they say, but here I am tempted to say that the Devil is
in the lack of details. But if you compare the translation of THE PACT with the
Greek text, you will see that they are identical. Here are used neither curse words nor
infamous expressions!
187
Wrongly Translated Verses in First Thessalonians
THE PACT, 1TH 02:08. ‘We have longed strongly —’
NIV: ‘We loved you so much that we that we were delighted to share with you not
only the gospel of God but our lives as well, because you had become so dear to us.’
KJ-1611: ‘So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted
unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear
unto us.’
NWT: ‘So, having a tender affection for you, we were well pleased to impart to you,
not only the good news of God, but our own souls, because you became beloved to
us.’
SHG: houto himeiromai himeiromai eudokeo metadidomi euaggelion theos
Trans.: so
long for
long for
authority deliver
message god
monon kai heautou psuche dioti
agapetos
only also your
soul
therefore dear
THE PACT: ‘We have longed strongly for the possibility to deliver the message of
God to you. And not only that, but for that reason we have also come to love your
souls.’*
*as individuals
COMMENT: This verse has turned out to be a confusion to them. This they clearly
show by using the same text as King James even if it does not agree with the Greek
text. But, at least both King James and NWT write soul the same way it says in
Greek. NIV is a dishonest exception. But they misunderstand that Paul wants to die
for these people in Thessalonica, although it does not say so in the Greek text — by
far! There it says that they had become fond of their souls, the very persons. Sometimes these translations reach over the boot-rim! It is no wonder God refers to his
word as ‘dead in the street,’ in other words among the common men. (REV 11: 08)
This part of Revelation may be difficult to understand, but honor to you if you see
that the two witnesses are Moses and Christ as God’s representatives of each their
pact, the First Pact through Moses and the New Pact through Jesus Christ — and
together they make up the complete word of God.
THE PACT, 1TH 02:19. ‘Because you are our hope, —’
NIV: ‘For what is our hope , our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes?’
KJ-1611: ‘For what is our hope, or joy, or crown of rejoicing? Are not even ye in he
presence of our lord Jesus Christ at his coming?’
NWT: ‘For what is our hope, or joy or crown of exultation — why, is it not in fact
you? — before our Lord Jesus at his presence.’
SHG: tis elpis e chara e
Trans.: who hope or joy or
188
stephanos
kauchesis kai emprosten
garland of victory boast
also before
kurios iesous en
parousia
lord jesus during presence
THE PACT: ‘Because who are our hope, and our joy, and our garland of victory
that we may boast of during the presence of the Lord Jesus?’
COMMENT: Both NIV and King James refer to Jesus’ presence in their translations, but just to be on the safe side they add something that is not part of the original
text — when he comes. And thereby they clearly show that they have not understood
this themselves, and then their translations suffer accordingly. Does it not say that
‘when a blind leads a blind, they both fall into the ditch?’ (LUK 06:39) But right is
right: This is far from simple to explain, and it becomes especially difficult because
of centuries of wrong teaching in this respect, because it is common teaching that
Jesus is to return in the flesh, as a human being, and then rule over the earth for thousand years before he returns to the heavens. That is not a biblical teaching! The Bible
tells that Jesus died in the flesh, but was resurrected in the spirit, as a spiritual person. And it is only those who get to take part in the first resurrection to the same spirituality who will experience Jesus’ presence, and definitely not his physical coming!
The example of this is the sons of Israel’s wanderings in the wilderness when God’s
foremost messenger, the Messiah, led the sons of Israel forward to the promised land,
in a column of cloud during the day and in a column of fire during the night. No one
could see him physically, but they all saw and felt his power and knew it was him.
And this is also how it will be after he has taken to him his heavenly brothers — they
will always be part of is presence!
NB! This is so intricate and controversial that I give a thorough explanation in The
First Resurrection on page 219.
THE PACT, 1TH 03:01. ‘When we could no longer endure —’
NIV: “So when we could stand it no longer, we thought it best to be left by ourselves
in Athens.’
KJ-1611: ‘Wherefore when we could no longer forbear, we thought it good to be left
at Athens alone.’
NWT: ‘Hence, when we could bear it no longer, we saw it good to be left alone in
Athens.’
SHG: dio meketi meketi stego eudokeo eudokeo kataleipo en athenai monos
Trans.: so longer longer endure determine determine continue to athens alone
189
THE PACT: ‘Therefore, when we could no longer endure, we determined that it
would be to the better that I went on to Athens alone.’
COMMENT: What was it in Athens they could not endure, and that made them
want to remain there alone? No, nothing whatsoever! They have got it all twisted, because they have all copied from King James. What they could no longer endure, were
all the persecutions in Thessalonica and Berea. Remember the introduction to this
book. It is from Paul, Silvanus and Timothy. The were together about the preaching
both in Thessalonica and Berea, but it was usually Paul the persecutors were out to
get. And therefore it was determined that Paul was to escape to Athens alone. He
brought with him some unknown guides, but no preachers like Silvanus and Timothy.
Nothing drastic happened during Paul’s stay in Athens — alone. (ACT 17:15-34)
The flight of the brothers from Thessalonica to Berea, and later Paul’s solitary flight
to Athens and arrival in Corinth, you may read about in Acts, chapter 17, verse 14.
It says, THE PACT: ‘The brothers right away sent Paul away to go down toward the
sea. (Athens and Corinth) But he left a message to Silas and Timothy to come to him
as soon as possible.’ But both Silas and Timothy stayed in Berea. Somewhat later
Timothy returned to the church in Thessalonica, and he returned to Silas and they
both continued to Corinth to meet Paul there. But it was Timothy who brought a letter from the church in Thessalonica to Paul in Corinth which inspired Paul to write
this letter. So, when Paul writes this, they were all reunited in Corinth.
The way this is translated by King James, and copied by NIV and NWT it is impossible to get a correct order of this, and I also had it all in a spin until I god hold of the
Greek text and read it there. And then I was not just a little irritated over such insane
translations! An inexperienced reader of the Bible deserves better!
Now some claim that these inconsistencies are a result of Luke writing Acts and Paul
First Thessalonians. But that is not correct, because it is only in the translations you
find these inconsistencies and not in the original text. Besides, it was also Luke who
wrote most of Paul’s letters while Paul dictated them.
In the Greek text I have until now not noticed a single inconsistency or contradiction
in all of the New Pact. But some translations are horrible!
THE PACT, 1TH 03:13. ‘And may he strengthen —’
NIV: ‘May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the
presence of our Gd and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.’
KJ-1611: ‘To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before
God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.’
190
NWT: ‘— to the end that he may make your hearts firm, unblamable in holiness before God and Father at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his holy ones.’
SHG: eis sterizo
humon kardia amomos hagiosune emprosthen theos kai
Trans.: to strengthen your heart flawless holiness before
god also
pater en
parousia kurios iesous christos pas hagios
father during presence lord jesus christ all holy
THE PACT: ‘And may he strengthen your hearts so that you may stand flawless and
holy before our God and Father during the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ among
all his holy.’
COMMENT: Here both KJ-1611 and NIV-1982 again write coming where the
Greek text writes presence. Those who write come support the belief that Jesus will
return to the earth as a man one more time. That is far from being a biblical teaching!
Jesus has descended to the heavens in a spiritual existence once and for all! (JOH
14:19, 1TH 04:17) In the Geek text it says presence, not coming. And that refers to
Jesus’ spiritual existence together with his holy, those who get to take part in the
first, the spiritual, resurrection!
NB! There are many zealous attempts at explaining this away, and because of both
wrong teachings and wrong translations in order to make it agree with their false
teaching, many are striving with getting a correct understanding of this. Therefore
I explain this thoroughly with references to, and text from, many other verses which
build this up to becoming a clear and correct understanding.
Read in detail about The First Resurrection from page 219.
Gr. parousia = presence
Gr. sunteleia = coming
THE PACT, 1TH 04:01. ‘In addition, brothers, we ask —’
NIV: ‘Finally, brothers, we instructed you how to live in order to please God, as in
fact you are living. Now we ask you ans urge you in the Lord Jesus to do this more
and more.’
KJ-1611: ‘Furthermore then we beseech you, brethern, and exhort you by the Lord
Jesus, that as ye have received of us how you ought to walk and to please God, so
you would abound more and more.’
191
NWT: ‘Finally, brother we request you and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, just as you
received the instruction from us on how you ought to walk and please God, just as
you are in fact walking, that you would keep on doing it more fully.’
SHG: loipon oun erotao adelphos parakaleo kurios jesus echo paralambano
Trans.: rest
then ask
brother encourage lord jesus have receive
pos dei peripateo aresko theos perisseuo mallon mallon
how must wander please god complete greater greater
THE PACT: ‘In addition, brothers, we ask you and encourage you by the Lord Jesus
after you have received from us how to live in order to please God, that you do so in
an even more complete way.’
COMMENT: Here a whole sentence has managed to sneak in both in NIV and in
the NWT, whish creates a not so little breach of logic. If they were already living
right lives, why would Paul need to ask them to live right lives? It is not included in
the Greek text, and not even in King James of 1611. How a whole sentence may be
added in that way, is a bit hard to understand. By one, maybe, as a mistake, but by
two identically? Where have they got it from?
Gr. peripateo = wander about, live your life. It does not refer to the way you walk,
but how you live.
THE PACT, 1TH 04:04. ‘Every one among you must know —’
NIV: ‘— that each should learn to control his own body in a way that is holy and
honorable, —’
KJ-1611: ‘That everyone of you should learn how to possess his vessel in sanctifiacation and honour; —’
NWT: ‘— that each one of you should know get possession of his own vessel in
sanctification and honor, —’
NB! Congratulations! All these translations have got this right! So what am I then
complaining about? I am not complaining. I am glad on their behalf! But I know from
before that many translations, in fact all major Scandinavian translations have got
this wrong! And it did not take me long to also find an American translation that had
it wrong. And I present the mistake that most translations are guilty of:
GNT = The Good News Translation of the Holy Bible by the American Bible Society
of New York. They write: ‘Each of you should know how to live with your wife in
a holy an honorable way, —’
192
Why? Who have they copied? Or is it free imagination. Or is it an honest lack of understanding?
SHG: hekastos eido ktaomai skeuos hagiasmos time
Trans.: each
know keep
body* holiness honor
*vessel
THE PACT: ‘Every one among you must know how to keep his body in holiness
and honor.’
COMMENT: Many translations refers to the vessel as a person’s own wife, which
is not the case. The vessel refer to a person’s own body and how he uses his own
body, vessel, rightly or wrongly in relation to sexual behavior. Also, the word wife
does not exist in the Greek text. It only speaks of woman. But it this cast it does not
refer to a wife or a woman, but to a vessel, a tool, metaphorically of the body.
In First Peter 03:07 Peter refers to the woman as ‘the weaker vessel.’ And then there
also have to be a stronger vessel, the man, and it is this vessel Paul refers to in this
verse. And it is metaphorical. A vessel is only an empty container, the soul, the very
person, without contents. But as the soul grows up, this vessel is filled with contents,
the development of a soul’s personality.
Do you have a problem with the correct use of the word soul? After centuries of
wrong teaching, most people do.
THE PACT, 1TH 04:15. ‘This we say with the Lord’s word —’
NIV: ‘According to the Lord’s own word, we tell you that we who are still living,
who are left to the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have
fallen asleep.’
KJ-1611: ‘For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive
and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them that are asleep.’
NWT: ‘For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who
survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen
asleep in death.’
SHG: touto lego logos kurios ho zao perileipo parousia kurios phthano
Trans.: this say word lord
who live remain presence lord precede
ho koimao
who fall asleep
THE PACT: ‘This we say by the word of the Lord: Those who live and are left
during the presence of the Lord, shall not come before those who have fallen asleep.’
193
COMMENT: To him who wants a fully mature understanding of the word of God,
this is one of the very most important paragraphs. It is abut the first, the spiritual,
resurrection to a heavenly glory as Gods adopted sons and Jesus heavenly brothers.
And these are the only ones who will be a firstfruit with Christ. (REV 14:01-05) This
resurrection will happen in two divisions. Those having waited in the graves that
Jesus will take them to him, will make up the first division. And that is the most of
them. But those who live until Jesus’ presence, and it does not say coming as most
translate it, Jesus will take to him as they die, one by one. They die in the flesh, but
are made alive in the spirit, as also Jesus did.
Paul who lived almost 2000 years ago will therefore be part of the first division of
this resurrection. Therefore it causes confusion when the translators write ‘we who
live and are left.’ Correct translation is ‘those who live and are left.’ If Paul were one
of these, he would be close to two thousand years of age.
The whole explanation of The First Resurrection you find on page 219.
If you study the Greek text you will see that it is almost free of personal pronouns.
They have to be added based on the translator’s own understanding, and this is a
clear example that the understanding of some translators is not very deep.
In this verse there is no reference to ‘the coming of the Lord,’ but to the Lord’s presence (in the spirit). Please be alert to the fact that it is not always the teaching of the
Bible that is being preached in the various churches, but the interpretations of the
Pope and Luther! Often God and Christ have a totally different teaching! Jehovah’s
Witnesses have come closest her, but they are far from being infallible the way they
subtly claim themselves through the so-called Governing Body in Brooklyn.
parousia = presence. Used 24 times in the Greek text.
sunteleia = coming. Used 06 times in Greek, 05 times in MAT and 01 in HEB.
telos = end, termination. Used 42 times in the Greek text.
THE PACT follows this slavishly even if most English translations write coming instead of presence. And this causes extreme confusion with the reader!
THE PACT, 1TH 04:17. ‘After that those who live —’
NIV: ‘After that, we who are still alive and are left will be caught up together with
them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And so we will be with the Lord forever.’
KJ-1611: ‘Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.’
194
NWT: ‘Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with the
Lord.’
NB! Not we, but those!
SHG: epeita
ho zao perileipo
Trans.: thereafter who live remain
harpazo hama
nephele apantesis
take
together cloud meet
kurios aer houto pantote kurios
lord air then always lord
THE PACT: ‘After that those who live and are left, will be taken up together with
us in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. Then we shall always be with the Lord.
COMMENT: Paul is part of the first group together with, for instance, the twelve
apostles. But he further explains what will happen with those who live and are still
on the earth during the presence of the Lord. It is a mistake to write ‘we who are
left.’ Correct use of personal pronoun is ‘those who are left.’ Then they will, as they
die one by one and have a spiritual resurrection, be taken up in the skies to be together with the others, those who were risen as part of the first group. And then we will,
both the first and the second group, always be together with the Lord.
NB! The very most Christians believe that this apply to all Christians when they die.
‘We are going to Jesus in the heaven.’ If so, who will then take part in the second
resurrection? (ACT 24:15) Again, you will find a complete explanation of The First
Resurrection on page 219.
THE PACT, 1TH 05:03. ‘But when some say ‘peace and —’
NIV: ‘While people are saying ‘peace and safety,’ destruction will come over them
suddenly, as labor pains on a pregnant woman, and they will not escape.’
KJ-1611: ‘For when they shall say ‘Peace and safety; then a sudden destruction
cometh upon them, as travail on a woman with child, and they shall not escape.’
NWT: ‘Whenever it is that they are saying: “Peace and security!” then sudden destruction is to be instantly upon them just as the pang of distress upon a pregnant
woman, and they will by no measure escape.’
SHG: hotan lego eirene asphaleia tote aiphnidios olethros
ephistemi
Trans.: when say peace security then sudden
destruction come over
odin
labor pain
en -gaster -echo ekpheuge
of womb have escape
195
THE PACT: ‘But when some say ‘peace and security,’ a sudden destruction comes
over them like the labor pains of a woman giving birth.’
COMMENT: Uff, what a confusion! NIV and KJ-1611 write ‘peace and safety.’
That is not necessary such a mistake, but at the same time important, because if you
translate this wrongly, you will not notice when it happens. And it has already happened without many taking any notice of it. All three translations correctly write
destruction here, but when translating to other languages NWT incorrectly writes
annihilation, and that is something totally different from destruction. What has been
destroyed, may be repaired, but what has been annihilated no longer exists. And still
in reference to NWT: When a woman is pregnant, does she then get ‘a pang of distress?’ All the time? — Hm.
By the way, who is it that will not escape — those exposed to the destruction or
those who causes it? That it happens to those exposed to the destruction, is self evident. Therefore this must apply to those who caused the destruction. And who was
that?
The explanation of when this happened, who was exposed to the destruction and who
caused it, you find on page 189 in 1TH — The First Resurrection with the title The
day of the Lord — the day of Jehovah. Check www.jordly.com / English.
THE PACT, 1TH 05:05. ‘For you are all sons of the light —’
‘You are all sons of the light ans sons of the day. We do not belong to the night or
to the darkness.’
KJ-1611: ‘Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not
of the night, nor of darkness.’
NB! IN good tradition KJ-1611 writes children were the Greek text says sons. And
thereby they take away from the reader every possibility of understanding it! Praise
to NIV for correctly writing sons this time. If only they would be consistent! In this
verse also NWT correctly writes sons.
SHG: pas huios phos huios hemera nux oude skotos
Trans.: all son light son day
night nor darkness
THE PACT: ‘For you are all the sons of the light and the day, and not of the night
or darkness.’
COMMENT: Here KJ-1611 again writes children where the Greek text writes sons.
And in that way they are hiding the fact that the Bible is all about a priesthood of
men, sons, without blemish. Actually, it is scary to observe how consistently they
196
manipulate the occasional reader away from a correct understanding of the word of
God. Also, the word we again show how personal pronouns are being used wrongly.
Paul writes to those in Thessalonica, so correct pronoun here would be you. But it
is only being used once in the Greek text, and there they have all got it correct.
THE PACT, 1TH 05:23. ‘Because then the God of peace —’
NIV: ‘May God himself, the God of peace, sanctify you through and through. ay
ypur whole spirit, soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus
Chr-ist.’
KJ-1611: ‘And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly, and I pray God your
whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless until the coming of out Lord
Jesus Christ.’
NWT: ‘May the very God of peace sanctify you completely. And sound in every respect may the spirit, and soul and body of you brothers be preserved in a blameless
manner at the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.’
SHG: autos theos eirene hagiazo
holoteles ho holokleros pneuma psuche
Trans.: self god peace make holy total
so totally
spirit soul
soma tereo amemptos parousia kurios iesous christos
body remain blameless presence lord
jesus christ
THE PACT: Because then the God of peace himself may make you totally holy in
your entire spirit, soul and body so that you will remain blameless during the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ.’
COMMENT: Here we again see examples of their writing coming when correct
translation is presence. And there can be no doubt that this is a conscious falsifications in order to adjust the word of God to agree with the Pope and Luther. You
will by no means need a super intelligence to understand that the word parousia does
not mean coming or reappearance, but presence. The word for coming is sunteleia,
but it is only being used 6 times in all of the Bible. The word for presence, parousia,
is being used 24 times in the Bible. Therefore it is not very strange that it leads to
confusion when both words keep being translated coming or return. And there is a
great difference between a physical return and a spiritual presence!
The Adventists have built much of their faith around Jesus’ second coming — in the
flesh. The exact meaning of the word advent is coming. So — an Adventist is one
who is waiting for Jesus’ second coming — in the flesh. They have a long wait ahead
of them. But the Jews are even worse off. They have an even longer wait ahead of
them, because they are still waiting for Jesus first coming — in the flesh.
197
in Second Thessalonians
THE PACT, 2TH 01:07. ‘For he who has been bothered —’
NIV: ‘— and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. That will happen
when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful
angels.’
KJ-1611: ‘And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be
revealed from heaven with his mighty angels.’
NWT: ‘— but, to you who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of
the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels.’
SHG: thlibo anesis en -hos kurios iesous apokalupsis ouranos dunamis
Trans.: bother relief then when lord jesus reveal
on high power
aggelos
messenger
THE PACT: For he who has been bothered, shall find relief when the Lord Jesus reveals himself in the heavens together with his mighty messengers.
COMMENT: I will not go into details about this one more time, but I will mention
one more time that the meaning of aggelos is definitely not angel, but messenger.
And the translators know this, because when the word aggelos refers to John the
Baptist, they do not write angel but the correct messenger. I find this dishonest, and
I feel certain that it is some sort of cowardice, because the word angel is so widely
used and accepted that if they should write messenger, the buying public will tale
offence and not buy the product. Actually, people should react when something in
the Bible is not correct, rather that support what tickles the ear.
It is also a fact that the word heaven is never used in the singular in the Bible.
Wrongly Translated Verses in Second Thessalonians
198
THE PACT, 2TH 02:01. ‘But we ask you, brothers —’
NIV: ‘Concerning the coming of out Lord Jesus Christ and out being gathered to
him, we ask you, brothers —’
KJ-1611: ‘Now we beseech you, brethern, by the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and by our gathering uno him —’
NWT: ‘However, brothers, respecting the presence of our Lord and our being gathered together to him —’
SHG: de erotao adelphos parousia kurios iesous christos episunago episunago
Trans.: so ask
brother presence lord jesus christ gathering together
THE PACT: ‘But we ask you, brothers, about the presence of our Lord Jesus Christ
and our gathering with him: —’
COMMENT: The teaching about Jesus’ second physical coming to the earth is basic
to the faith of most Christians. It is therefore frightening that this belief builds on
gross and willed wrong translations of the word of God. Jesus will never again return
to the earth as a man of flesh, bones and blood. But he shall through his spiritual
power again direct his attention to the earth to exterminate all the devilry there. The
messenger’s, the Messiah’s, leading the sons of Israel in and column of cloud and
fire through the wilderness, is a clear example of this. They witnessed his presence,
and they knew it was hin, but they did not see him with their eyes.
When this verse refers to a gathering with Christ, also that is of a spiritual character.
It happens as Jesus takes them to him, first those who have been waiting in their graves and then one by one as they die. This is the first resurrection of the members of
Jesus’ heavenly priesthood. They are resurrected as God’s adopted sons and Jesus’
heavenly brothers.
There will be no second coming of the Christ in the flesh. Jesus says so himself.
(JOH 14:19) The Bible, without exception, refers to his spiritual presence!
It is sad how false translations have caused such great misconceptions about this so
basic question to Christians. Some churches have built their entire existence on it!
It is also being claimed with strong conviction that Jesus will set his feet on Mount
Olive. Neither that is a biblical teaching, but it has stuck pretty fast with many charismatic Christians. The misunderstanding builds on Zechariah 14:03-04 where it says
that the Lord shall set his feet on Mount Olive. And to such who do not know the
difference between the LORD and the Lord, it is easy to believe that the Lord is Jesus. That is not correct. In the Hebrew text it unequivocally says Jehovah. It is a picture of God’s final order after the thousand years.
199
Here is part of the Hebrew text, THE PACT:
ZEC 14:01. yehovah yatsa’ yatsa’ lacham hem gowy yowm lacham yowm qerab
Transl.:
jehovah go out go out fight those people day fight day battle
THE PACT: Jehovah shall go out and fight against those of the peoples on that day.
It will be the fight on his day of battle.*
*after the thousand years
ZEC 14:02. regel ‘amad yowm har
zayith ‘asher ‘al -panyim yeruwshalaim
Transl.:
foot stand day mount olive when on face
jerusalem
quedem har
zayith baqa’ chetsiy mizrach yam me’od gadowl gay’
east
mount olive divide two parts east
west eager great valley
chetsiy har
muwsh tsaphown chetiy negeb
two parts mount depart north
two part negev
THE PACT: His* feet shall on that day stand on Mount Olive, situated east of Jerusalem, and Mount Olive will be divided into two parts from the east to the west,
clearly making a great valley where one of the two parts will move north and the
other part will move south.’
*Jehovah’s
NB! These two verses refer to Jehovah’s final battle after the thousand years are over
and Jesus has given the power back to Jehovah! I will give a detailed explanation
under Zechariah — if I live that long.
Again: Note that the Lord in most translations is Jehovah in the Hebrew text! And
this is one frightening example of how the translators cause misconceptions when
they start meddling with the word of God! And the howlers are quick to follow up
on it — indiscriminately!
THE PACT, 2TH 02:03. ‘Do not let yourselves be deceived —’
NIV: ‘Do not let anybody deceive you in any way, for that day will not come until
the rebellion occurs and the man of lawlessness is revealed.’
KJ-1611: ‘Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.’
NWT: ‘Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not come unless the
apostasy comes first and the man of lawlessness gets revealed.’
SHG: me tis exapatao medeis topos erchomai ean_me erchomai apostasia
Trans.: no any deceive no
way come
that no come
defection
200
apostasia proton anthropos hamartia apokalupto huios apoleia
defection first
man
sin
reveal
son destruction
THE PACT: Do not let yourselves be led astray in any way, because that will not
come without the great defection first having taken place. Then the man of sin shall
be revealed, he who is the son of destruction!
COMMENT: Many Christians believe that the defection is a sign of today’s indifference to the word of God. That is only partly correct, because the defection started
with Emperor Constantin and the Pope and has continued to this day. Only when the
two witnesses will rise again, (REV chap. 11) the defection will be over. In English
there is a good expression which explains the defection, ‘a defection from the truth.’
It is, sad to say, still so that this defection from the truth is today’s norm of Christian
teaching and preaching.
NIV: What rebellion are they talking about? In the Greek text there is no reference
to any rebellion, but defection, a falling away!
King James correctly writes falling away which is the same as a defection.
NWT refers to an apostasy which is also correct.
THE PACT, 2TH 02:07. ‘The mystery of the lawless —’
NIV: ‘For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now
holds it back, will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way.’
KJ-1611: ‘For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who letteth will
let, until he be taken out of the way.’
NWT: ‘True, the mystery of the lawlessness is already at work, but only until he
who is right now acting as a restraint gets to be out of the way.’
SHG: musterion anomia
ede
energeo monon arti katecho katecho
Trans.: mystery lawlessness already active only now hold back hold back
heos ginomai mesos
until happen away
THE PACT: The mystery of the lawlessness is already now at work. The only thing
is that he who is holding back until he* has been taken away.’
*the lawless
201
COMMENT: The presence of the lawless is far from being a secret. On the contrary. The power of the lawless is something millions of people have experienced
directly! It may be mentioned just as an example that the papal power is responsible
for the death of about 50 million people during the 400 years of the Jesuit inquisition, the persecution of those who refused to submit to the false teachings of the
Pope.
But even if the Pope may be a great lawless and is the very symbol of the concept,
he is far from being the only lawless. But what this lawlessness represents, the
miraculous lie, is indeed a mystery. Consider for instance the teaching of the trinity
which do not refer to a sovereign God, but a deity consisting of three equally great
gods, God the Almighty, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. And thereby this deity
consists not only of one God, and then three gods, but at the end only three thirds
gods This is no secret, but a mystery, yes, not only a mystery, but a miraculous lie!
And this lie originated with the Catholic Church.
But also the Lutheran Church represents this miraculous lie. And now I quote a woman minister of the Norwegian Church when she was asked who rose God from the
dead if it was so that it was God the Almighty who died on the cross.
This was her reply: ‘A question like that you would not have asked if you had been
a true Christ-ian! Of course God as the Almighty had the power to raise himself from
the dead! And of course he had the power to rule from the heavens at the same time
he lay dead in the grave!’
That is a miraculous lie, indeed! And a great mystery. But it is no secret. They preach
it all over every Sunday!
THE PACT, 2TH 02:08. ‘Then the lawless shall be revealed,
—’
NIV: ‘And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming.’
NB! When NIV keeps referring to Jesus’ coming, they willfully lead the readers
astray to believe that Jesus will once more come to the earth in the flesh. Jesus says
exactly the opposite on several occasions in the message after John. Read it!
KJ-1611: ‘And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.’
NB! If you belong to the increasing group of people who want a correct understanding of the Bible, these false translations are enough to make you lose your mind!
These confusing translations are a hindrance to a correct understanding.
202
SHG: tote anomos apokalupto hos kurios analisko pneuma stoma katargeo
Trans.: this lawless reveal
when lord destroy ånd
mouth abolish
epiphaneia parousia
make known presence
THE PACT: ‘hen the lawless shall be revealed, he whom the Lord will destroy with
the spirit of his mouth and exterminate when he makes his presence known.’
COMMENT: Almost all translations into English consistently wrote coming where
the Greek text write presence. This is done in all translations which build on the
Catholic Vaticanus LXX translation which also King James builds its translation on.
Therefore also those who build their translations on the Catholic King James version
of 1611, present to the same falsifications. In that way they have created the false
notion of Jesus’ second coming in the flesh. Instead of the coming of the Christ, the
Greek text refers to the spiritual presence of the Christ. This has by now become so
entrenched in Christianity that most refuse to accept a correct understanding of it,
and if you are dumb enough to tell them, you often become the subject of their hatred. One person that I have known for years and respected as a true Christian, almost
went at my throat because she had read some of what I had written. “I hate you!” she
screamed. No wonder Paul says that this work is of Satan!
Well, what is the difference between coming and presence? The very coming, Gr.
sunteleia, may be of a short duration, while a presence may last incessantly long, ref.
the Catholic Church. Its coming, establishment, did not take so long, but its presence
has lasted to this day. How long it will continue its presence until it is abolished, the
Bible says nothing about, except that Jesus shall abolish it with the spirit / breath of
his mouth. But this does not apply to the Catholic Church only, but to all who represent the lawlessness.
If you are a bit confused now, or even angry, read Revelation chapters 17, 18 and 19
and you will understand — if you accept what you read.
Jesus presence is identical to the time that passes from he takes power in the heavens
in 1913 and until he again hands over the power to God the Almighty after the thousand years are over. During this period he will exterminate all ungodliness from the
earth. And then starts the second resurrection. The end of Jesus direct spiritual presence on the earth is when he again hands over the power to God the Almighty. Then
Jesus position as the hourglass of this world has ended and the new world has been
created — without sin, need, death and misery. (1CO 15:20-28) This period of Jesus’
presence is also identical to what the Bible refers to as the age, or day, of the Lord.
And both in First and Second Thessalonians it is the presence of the Lord Paul consistently writes about the Bible also refers to Jesus’ coming, the period when Jesus
203
reveals his spiritual presence on the earth. (MAT 24:29-31) When Paul refers to Jesus presence, he refers to the first resurrection of those who are to be God’s adopted
sons and Jesus’ heavenly brothers. (2TH 02-08)
Gr. telos = end, termination
NB! They are in alphabetical order, p, s, t.
THE PACT, 2TH 02:09. ‘The presence of the lawless —’
NIV: ‘The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan
displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, —’
KJ-1611: ‘Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and
signs and lying wonders, —’
NWT: ‘But the lawless one’s presence is according to the operation of Satan with
every powerful work and lying signs and portents —’
SHG: hos
parousia kata energeia satanas pas dunamis semeion pseudos teras
Trans.: whose presence after work satan all power sign
lie
wonder
THE PACT: ‘The presence of the lawless is of Satan’s work with all his power, his
signs and miraculous lies.’
COMMENT: This is another example, but less grave than the others, that the translators change the contents of the Bible so that it will be impossible to an occasional
reader to understand it, because a coming is totally different from a presence. This
verse directly refers to the presence of the lawless, first and foremost represented by
the papal power, but in a wider content also apply to any one who is contrary to the
law of God. The Bible is like that. God’s rescue is not collective, but personal. And
based on this also systems are being personified, because also a system is the result
of what single persons represent. And their knowingly falsifying the content of the
Bible is a clear example of the presence of the lawless, whether he be the Pope or
Luther or Benny Hinn.
You ought to realize that neither the Pope nor Luther nor Hinn are teaching the true
content of the Bible, but their own wrong understanding and their own conscious
falsifications of the word of God. Where the Bible does not correspond with their
teaching, it is the Bible that gets rejected and the Pope, Luther and Hinn that get embraced. In countries with a Lutheran state church, such as in Norway, it is even
204
written in the constitution that is to be that way. They refer to the Lutheran teaching
— another good example of the presence of the lawless.
When Paul speaks about the miraculous lie, he refers to many of the unbiblical doctrines that were to come, the doctrine of trinity which states that God the Almighty,
his Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are three and the same person, the teaching
that the good go to heaven when they die and the evil to hell, etc., etc. almost endlessly.
205
in Galatians
THE PACT, GAL 01:05. ‘The glory is his in ages. Amen.’
NIV: ‘— to whom be the glory forever and ever.’
KJ-1611: ‘To whom be glory for ever and ever.’
NWT: ‘— to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.’
SHG: hos
doxa aion aion amen
Trans.: whose glory age age amen
THE PACT: ‘The glory is his in ages. Amen.’
COMMENT: I have mentioned it before that English and American translations are
often closer to the original text than many international versions. There the words
used are often eternal, eternity which are definitely not a biblical concept, but solidly
established in many Catholic and Lutheran translations. Eternal refers to a time that
is never ending, and the expression through all eternity is construes by translators.
The word in Greek is aion, which simply means time, age, but then to an age of long
duration. But definitely not forever or never ending.
So, what is correct? Then we need to check the original text, and therefore that is
included. The word that is being translated eternal or forever is aion which simply
means time, age, but of a long duration. As an adjective it is aionios. But we do not
have a corresponding adjective in English, but aionios is connected to the long time.
The closest I have come to this concept is ageous which in neither quite correct.
Here is an overview of correct translations of the Greek words aion and aionios:
Gr. aion = time, age (implicitly a very ling time or age, but yet not an age without
end.
Gr. aionios = that of time, of age, ageous
Wrongly Translated Verses in Galatians
206
Correct translation of aion is therefore age or ages, and not eternal, eternity. When
the word aion is used twice after each other, it is often translated through all eternity.
Correct translation is through ages, or through age and ages.
About aionios, the adjective that is tied to the long time, a good word would be
timous, but that already has a slightly different use. Therefore the word ageous is the
closest I can come to a correct translation, although it is not 100% correct. And therefore it is even more important having a correct understanding of the concept.
The construed word eternal has in the Bible developed the meaning of without end,
never ending or forever. But the word aion only refers to a time of long duration, but
does never contain the concept of never ending. This we understand even better
when we know that aion also refers back in time, but no longer than back that to
Adam. This is repeated throughout all of the Bible. The word eternal is not as widely
used in English and American translations as for instance in Danish and Norwegian
translation, but it is still being used.
KJ-1611 writes eternal 47 times in 47 verses and eternity only 1 time.
NIV writes eternal 81 times in 80 verses and eternity 3 times in 3 verses.
In the Greek text the adjective that refers to the long time, aionios, is being used 71
times in 69 verses. The substantive that refers to the long time, aion, is being used
129 times in 103 verses. The word aion is being used twice in a row 22 times in 22
verses. Then some translators write through the eternity of eternities.
The fact that the number of time these words are being uses, shows that the translators are not so careful how they transfer word compared to the original text.
THE PACT write the words aion and aionios as many times as they are being used
in the Greek text. That has been done so that the translation will not seem confusing
to an occasional reader, but clarifying. THE PACT follows a clear principle in its
translation: ‘Right is right.’ Tampering with the word of God is of Satan.
THE PACT, GAL 01:24. ‘And they praised God for it.’
NIV: ‘And they praised God because of me.’
KJ-1611: ‘And they glorified God in me.’
NWT: ‘So they began glorifying God because of me.’
SHG: doxazo theos
Trans.: praise god
THE PACT: And they praised God for it.’
207
COMMENT: It may very well be that the Galatians praised God because of Paul.
And it may well be that they glorified him. But it does not say so in this verse.
The word doxa is special. It may mean glorify, praise, honor, etc. But how can it at
the same time it may mean heaven, ocean and gold? The original meaning is: that
which it shines from. And then you understand. Can it also mean silver? That is
possible, but then it must not be confused with gold. Silver in Greek is argon, which
a little by little has developed to mean money.
THE PACT, GAL 02:09. ‘When Jacob, Caiphas and John, —’
NIV: ‘James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the
right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed
that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.’
KJ-1611: ‘And when James, Caiphas , and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived
the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the riht hand of
fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.’
NWT: ‘ — yes, when they came to know the undeserved kindness that was given to
me, James and Caiphas and John, the ones who seemed to be pillars, gave me and
Barnabas the right hand of sharing together, that we should go to the nations and
they to those who are circumcised.’
NB! The wrong use of names and words have been enhanced.
SHG: iakobas kephas ioannes ho dokeo stulos ginosko didomi didomi
Trans.: jacob cephas john
who think column learn
receive receive
barnabas dexios dexios koinonia ethnos peritome
barnabas right right fellowship ethnic circumcise
NB! Note that the Greek text write Jacob about Jesus’ half brother, and not James.
In King James of 1611 Jacob’s name was changed to James in honor of King James
who supported this translation. Again: Tempering with the word of God is of Satan.
THE PACT: As Jacob, Caiphas and John, who were considered to be among the
pillars, realized what I had received, they gave Barnabas and myself the right hand
of their fellowship. We were to preach to those of the peoples and they to the circumcised.
COMMENT: The Greek word ethnos has entered into everyday speech. We often
hear talk about ethnic origin, which refer to what group of people some belong to.
208
This word had through the centuries been wrongly translated heathen in the Bible.
But a heathen is someone subjected to idolatry who know neither God nor Christ.
Peoples is correct here, not Gentile or heathen or nation. Maybe it would be advantageous to write ethnics, and we would see that the Bible does not separate distinctively between the peoples and the Jews, because also the Jews are an ethnic group,
and are as an exception also referred to as an ethnic group, and then it would be insane to translate heathen. Translators then mostly write people referring to the Jewish people. And that agrees with the facts, because also the Jews have an ethnic origin. But this is being translated confusingly different in the various translations.
King James write heathen as many as 150 times in 145 verses. NIV writes heathen
only one time, and then referring to such who do not know God. They write Gentile
11 times in 11 verses. — I have often wondered about the origin of the word Gentile.
NWT wrongly writes nations here, but there is a great difference between a nation,
a political unit, and a people, an ethnic unit.
THE PACT consistently writes peoples where the Greek text writes ethnos, also
when ethnos refers to the Jews. And then we understand that by writing heathens, we
paint ourselves into a corner.
THE PACT, GAL 02:18. ‘If someone wants to rebuild, —’
NIV: ‘If I rebuild what I destroyed, I prove that I am a lawbreaker.’
Uff da! What a silly translation. What was destroyed, was the law, and it was not
Paul who did that, but Jesus through his sacrifice!
KJ-1611: ‘For if I build again things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.’
Uff da! Same confusion. But now at least we know where NIV has its text from.
NWT: ‘For if the very things that I once threw down, I build up again, I demonstrate
myself to be a transgressor.’
Uff da! So also NWT has its text from King James. And King James has it from the
Bible of the Pope, LXX, which also has exactly the same text, but in Latin.
NB! You will see this clearly if you read this verse in context with the rest of the
contents.
GAL 02:18
SHG: ei oikodomeo palin hos kataluo sunistao emautou parabates
Trans.: if build
again what tear down turn
self
lawbreaker
209
THE PACT: If someone wants to rebuild what has been torn down, does he not then
make himself into a lawbreaker?
COMMENT: What has been torn down, is the old law of Moses. And he who tries
to rebuild what has been torn down, ref. the Jews, becomes a lawbreaker in relation
to the law of Christ, the only law that applies after Jesus’ resurrection.
And who was it that tore down the entire temple order in three days? Was it Paul?
No, here each has translated ‘with his head under his arm, and his arm in a sling.’
(Oystein Sunde) No, he who did this, was Jesus Christ! Claiming it was Paul, becomes insane.
THE PACT, GAL 02:19. ‘Under the law I was dead, —’
NIV: ‘For through the law I died to the law so that I might live for God.’
KJ-1611: ‘For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.’
NWT: ‘As for me, through law I died toward law, that I might come alive toward
God.’
SHG: dia nomos apothnesko nomos zao theos
Trans.: by law
dead
law
live god
THE PACT: Under the law* I was dead, but under the law** I shall live for God.
*Moses’ law **Christ’s law
COMMENT: This about the law confuses many, because when they hear the word
law, they think about Moses’ law. That is not how it is. The Bible refers to the law
in three basic phases:
01. From Adam til Moses the chosen, ref. Adam and Abraham, were directly subjected to God’s law.
02. After Moses received a more extensive and detailed law, the descendants of
Israel became subjected to Moses’ law. And that is how it was until Christ.
03. After Christ we were all subjected to Christ’s law, also the Jews who stand nodding their heads at the wailing wall. They are trying to preserve what has been torn
down. Yet, every law is from God, but all in its right time.
The law that Paul was dead under, was the law of Moses, but the law that he shall
life under for God, is the law of Christ. And therefore, the way Paul writes this,
becomes a game of words. There are many of those in the Bible, and many of them
are complicated. But we must understand them to translate them correctly.
210
THE PACT, GAL 03:06. ‘This is how it was with Abraham:
—’
NIV: ‘Consider Abraham: ‘He believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’
KJ-1611: ‘Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.’
NWT: ‘Just as Abraham ‘put faith in Jehovah, and it was counted to him as righteousness.’
SHG: kathos abraham pisteuo theos logizomai dikaiosune
Trans.: how abraham believe god* consider righteousness
*Jehovah in the Hebrew text
THE PACT: This is how it was with Abraham: ‘He believed in Jehovah and was
therefore counted as righteous.’
GEN 15:06
COMMENT: This is a direct quote from Genesis 15:06. I include it in Hebrew:
SHG: aman yehovah chashat tsedaqak
Trans.: believe jehovah consider righteousness
English: He believed in Jehovah and that was considered as righteousness.
We see that in the original text it says Jehovah while in the translations they write
God even if it is a direct quote. We are very gullible if we believe this is just a mishap. It is so consistently carried through in all of the Bible that the only correct expression is conscious falsification.
What could be the purpose of that? — To prove that they are dishonest?
THE PACT, GAL 03:07. ‘Understand, therefore, that he —’
NIV: Understand, then, that those who believe are children of Abraham.’
KJ-1611: ‘Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children
of Abraham.’
NWT: ‘Surely you know that those who adhere to faith are the ones who are sons of
Abraham.’
SHG: ginosko
ara
pistis houtos huios abraam
Trans.: understand therefore believe this
son
abraham
THE PACT: Understand, therefore, that he who believes, is a son of Abraham.
211
COMMENT: Here both KJ-1611 and NIV write children where the text says sons.
This is also a conscious falsification to hide the fact that the major message of the
Bible is about the establishment of a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish,
(LEV 21:17-24) the heavenly division of the Realm of God.
Gr. huios = son. The basic meaning is offspring of the male gender and may also
be used about, for instance a foal, a colt, etc. Huios can never mean child, children,
but in defense of such falsifications that is claimed by an increasing number.
Gr. teknon = child. This word is gender neutral and may be used about both sons
and daughters.
Again and again you see that the translators write children where the original text
says sons. And this is done consciously from beginning to end. And not even the
original text is totally free of this falsification. And do not believe in such who try
to explain this away by claiming that huios may mean both child and son. That is a
bluff! The word for child is teknon. Huios, on the other hand, can only means son,
whether of man or animals, because the basic meaning of this word is offspring of
the male gender. And thereby it may also mean foal, colt, etc., but never child.
Why is this so important? Hold on to something solid, because the Bible is mostly
about a priesthood of men without blemish. These are Jesus’ heavenly brothers and
God’s adopted sons, the holy, the elect, the bride, members of the Melchizedec
priesthood, those whom God has set his seal on, etc. These are the ones that God has
chosen to a heavenly existence and who will take part in the first, the heavenly, resurrection. Jesus explains this in detail to Nicodemus in John, chapter 03. The Bible
is crystal clear here, by Satan, how eager the power people of Christianity are to
explain this away. And when they go so far that they consciously falsify the word of
God ti hide God’s truth, we understand that they will not shy away from any means
to hide this fact!
Be aware that Abraham received two promises, and only one with an oath. This you
may read about in Genesis, chapter 22. There it is all the time referred to the Semen,
whicg is Christ.
Also be aware that this oath applies to the members of God’s heavenly priesthood
who are to rule over the earth together with Christ. (REV 05:10) But Abraham also
got another promise that was given without an oath, and also these shall be blessed
through the Semen, Christ. That you may read about in Genesis 13:14-15. There it
says, THE PACT: ‘After Lot had left him, Jehovah said to Abra-ham: ‘Lift your eyes
from the place where you stand to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west.
For all the earth that you now see, I will give to you and those of your semen in
ages.’
212
Many claim that this is the promise of the land Israel. That is not correct. Neither
Israel nor any other country has borders such as those described in this verse. This
is God’s promise to Abraham, that those who are of his semen, those who believe in
Jesus, shall inherit the earth and live on it in ages.’ (PSA 37:11, PSA 37:29, MAT
05:05, EPH 01:10, with many, many more.)
THE PACT, GAL 03:16. ‘To Abraham and those of his semen
—’
‘The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. The Scripture does not say
‘and to his seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.’
KJ-1611: ‘Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not And
to seeds, as of many, but as of one, and to thy seed, which is Christ.’
NWT: ‘Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. it says not ‘And
to seeds,’ as in the case of many such, but as in the case of one: ‘And to your seed,
which is Christ.’
SHG: de abraam sperma epaggelia rheo lego sperma polus heis sperma
Trans.: now abraham semen promise speak say sperm many one semen*
hos christos
who christ
*actually, sperm
THE PACT: To Abraham and those of his semen the promises were spoken. But he
did not say ‘semens,’ as if to many, but to one: ‘To those of your semen,’ which is
Christ.
COMMENT: This verse may confuse a little, because many believe that God’s
promise to Abraham and those of his semen, refer to his becoming the father of many
nations, both the Jews and the Arabs, and also to the sons of the East by Keturah. But
the way some of these nations oppose each other as enemies, that would have been
more a curse than a blessing.
The promises to Abraham show directly to Christ and the righteous who shall have
a life in ages — a few in the heavens, the rest on the earth.
NB! Be aware that of the promises God gave Abraham, Abraham has not himself
received a single one. Because the promises to Abraham were through Christ, and
he has not yet taken control over the earth. (DAN 02:44) Only after his resurrection
on the earth God’s promises to Abraham will be fulfilled.
213
Oh, by the way, Abraham did get one promise fulfilled while on the earth. Which one
was that?
THE PACT, GAL 03:17. ‘What I mean is: The pact, which —’
NIV: ‘What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the
covenant previously established by God, and thus do away with the promise.’
KJ-1611: ‘And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before by God in
Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that
it should make the promise of none effect.’
NWT: ‘Further, as to the covenant previously validated by God, the Law that has
come into being four hundred and thirty years later does not invalidate it, so as to
abolish the promise.’
SHG: touto lego diatheke prokuroo prokuroo theos christos nomos tetrakosioi
Trans.: this say pact
confirm confirm god [christ] law
four hundred
tetrakosioi triakonta etos mete ou akuroo katargeo apaggelia akuroo katargeo
four hundred thirty year after no invalid liquidate promise invalid liquidate
THE PACT: What I mean is: The Pact, which was establishes by God [through
Christ],* the law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, cannot make it invalid or liquidate it.
*added
COMMENT: We again see that the translators refer to the promise in the singular,
whicch then refer to the Semen, which is Christ. Transcribers have even been so
eager to include this that they wrongfully have added [through Christ] in the text —
even in the original text! And let it be clear once and for all: When the promise refer
to the Semen, which is Christ, it is of course to be in the singular. But the very promises do not directly refer to Christ They refer to what will be the result of Jesus’ acts:
A heavenly priesthood of men without blemish, the 144.000, the Realm of God, (the
promise given with an oath), who together with Christ are to help reestablish what
Adam destroyed through his disobedience, a life in ages on the earth to righteous
people (the general promise). These are the two promises God gave Abraham, and
when the text refers to them, they are of course to be presented in the plural, the
promises, ref. also verse 29.
THE PACT, GAL 03:18. ‘Because, if the inheritance —’
NIV: ‘For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on a promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.’
214
KJ-1611: ‘For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more a promise: But God gave
it to Abraham by promise.’
NWT: ‘For if the inheritance is due to law, it is no longer due to promise, whereas
God has kindly given it to Abraham through a promise.’
SHG: ei kleronomia nomos ouketi eti epaggelia theos charizomai abraam
Trans.: if inheritance law
longer be promise god by grace abraham
apaggelia
promise
THE PACT: ‘Because if the inheritance was by law, it can no longer be a promise.
But through his grace God gave Abraham the inheritance through the promises.’
COMMENT: How many promises did god give Abraham? In addition to the promise of Isaac he got two, one with an oath, the other was just a promise. The promise
confirmed by an oath was about those who were to get a heavenly resurrection as
God’s adopted sons and Jesus heavenly brothers. This oath God gave Abraham after
he had been willing to sacrifice his only son Isaac, ref. Jesus. He had then proven his
faithfulness. This you may read about in Genesis 22:14-15.
But Abraham also got another promise from God — a promise to inherit the earth.
This promise you find in Genesis 13:14-15. It says: ‘Then Jehovah said to Abraham
after Lot had left his: ‘Lift your eyes from where you stand and look to the north, to
the south, to the east and to the west. All the earth that you now see I will give to you
and those of your semen in ages.’ Think now: What country has such borders —
from horizon to horizon in every direction? It shows as much of the earth as Abraham could see from where he stood. And this is the promise that Abraham himself
will enjoy after his resurrection.
This promise most Christians do not want to hear so much about. And therefore the
Christians concentrate on God’s heavenly promise, and not the promise that is about
the earth. It is also repeated in most translations that they write the land here, and not
the earth, and they also write the promise instead of promises. Fait enough, when the
promise refer to Christ, it is correct to write the promise, but when referring to
Abraham’s promises, the only correct text is to present it in the plural.
THE PACT, GAL 03:24. ‘In that way the law became a schoolmaster —’
NIV: ‘So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified
in Christ.’
215
KJ-1611: ‘Wherefore the law was a schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith.’
NWT: ‘Consequently the law became our tutor leading us to Christ, that we might
be declared righteous due to faith.’
SHG: hoste nomos paidagogos christos dikaioo pistis
Trans.: so
law
child raiser christ
justify faith
THE PACT: ‘In this way the law became like a schoolmaster for us* until Christ,
so that we would be justified by faith.’
*who are us?
COMMENT: The word paidagogos means child raiser, but is being translated in
so many ways. Well, translations become of lesser importance if we know what the
text says in Greek, for instance gehenna, which refers to the garbage dump south of
Jerusalem, and not hell.
THE PACT, GAL 03:26. ‘We are all sons of God —’
NIV: ‘You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ, —’
NB! Honor to NIV. They got it right this time. But why not do it right all the time?
KJ1611: ‘For ye are all children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.’
NB! Uff da! Here you have the same falsification as before. It is done consciously
and consistently!
NWT: ‘You are all, in fact, sons of God through your faith in Christ Jesus.’
SHG: pas huios theos pistis christus iesous
Trans.: all son
god faith christ jesus
THE PACT: We are all sons of God through our faith in Christ Jesus.
COMMENT: So many translations write children here when the original text writes
sons. There is no doubt that this is conscious biblical falsification. Two honest
exceptions here are both NIV and NWT. They write sons where the Greek text writes
sons.
The Bible os crystal clear that those who are to inherit the Realm of God are sons.
The major heir have always been sons, ref. heirs to the throne. And the Bible is clear
that those who shall inherit the Realm of God, will be a priesthood without blemish.
(LEV 21:17-24) And when Jesus began the election of his this priesthood, he
confirmed it by choosing twelve men. And it you carefully evaluate who received the
Holy Spirit, the members of this priesthood, you will see that not one of them was
a woman. Then the Holy Spirit was given in a stronger measure on the day of the
216
Pentecost on the year 33, only eleven of the apostles, plus Matthias, present. (ACT
01:26, ACT 02:01)
But then there is a verse that seem to contradict all this, because already two verses
later, THE PACT, it says: ‘Then it is not Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female,
because then we are all one in Christ.’
This is a good example of how detailed the Bible is, because when it comes to the
election of God’s heavenly priesthood, they are without doubt men, sons. But we
have already seen that Abraham had two promises, and one of these was about those
who are to inherit the earth. (MAT 05:05) Therefore, if both promises are seen as one
under Christ, (EPH 01:10) it is equal for men and women, except that the women are
not included as members of God’s priesthood, the promise given with an oath.
They are only included in the general promise that applies to those who get a life in
ages on the earth. And in that way also women become heirs. if not God would have
been unjust, at least seen by those who are in the flesh.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have misunderstood this and claim that also the election to the
priesthood is the same for men and women. But they always write sons in the text,
and claim that even if it says sons in the text, it also include women, because they
will have a change of gender ‘on the way up!’
A woman from Kopervik on Karmoy, Norway, Othalia Mydland, is by Jehovah’s
Witnesses considered as one of the 144.000 heavenly priests. Therefore she was
given her own apartment at the Jehovah’s Witness’ complex outside of Oslo where
she lived until her death. If this were the case, why are then Jehovah’s Witnesses
such intense adversaries of female ministers in the Lutheran Church?
NB! In verse 26 it is correct to include female if it refers to Abrams promise only.
But Paul only writes about those who are included in the first promise that God gave
with an oath, so therefore it is much more probable that ‘male or female’ have been
added during copying the way also daughter has been in Second Corinthians 06:18.
But there it is easier to prove because it is a direct quote from Second Samuel 07:14
in the First Pact where it only says sons, while in the Greek translation it says ‘sons
and daughters’ the way it is being presented in all translations. THE PACT consistently writes sons where it says sons in the original text, which is also the case with
Second Samuel 07:14 — originally.
Long live God’s faithful men — and women, in their quest for gender equality! Soon
God will be presented as a woman and men are to bear children! In some Norwegian
translations brothers have already become siblings, and sons have already been children for a long time. And you will see the dark in their eyes if you try to tell them!
217
Oh, I feel like telling a joke: One minister of the Norwegian government belonging
to the Socialistic Leftist Party recommended that the teaching about reproduction
should be left out from classes about sexual education, because the teaching of reproduction was discriminatory against lesbians and homosexuals — yes, against lesbians
and homosexuals!
THE PACT, GAL 03:29. ‘And if you are of Christ, —’
NIV: ‘If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to
the promise.’
KJ-1611: ‘And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to
the promise.’
NWT: ‘Moreover,* if you belong to Christ, you are really* Abraham’s seed, heirs
with reference to a promise.”
*Here NWT adds moreover and really which are not from the Greek text. It seems
a bit fetched.
SHG: ei christos ara
Trans.: if christ be
abraam sperma kleronomes kata epaggelia
abraham semen heir
after promise
THE PACT: And if you are of Christ, you are of Abraham’s semen and heirs according to the promises.
COMMENT: Many believe that when it says ‘if you are of Christ,’ that it refers to
them. But it is not so that whatever the Bible says applies to he who at any time may
read it. Jesus, and here Paul, keeps referring to ‘those who are of Christ,’ and then
it only applies to each and every one who have been chosen as members of God’s
heavenly priesthood. And here Paul confirms that they are heirs to the Realm of God.
All of these will take part in the first, the spiritual, resurrection in the same way also
Jesus did. The rest of us, men and women, will have a resurrection on the earth. In
other words we will not be part of the promise God gave Abraham with an oath. We
will be part of God’s general promise of a life in ages on the earth the way God’s original plan was with Adam. We will be part of the second resurrection, the earthly,
that of the soul.
THE PACT, GAL 04:01. ‘What I can say with pleasure, is —’
NIV: ‘What I am saying is that as long as a heir is a child, he is no different from a
slave, although he owns* the whole estate.’ *not at the present, but in the future
KJ-1611: ‘Now I say, That the heir, as long as he is a child, differeth nothing from
a servant, though he be lord* of all; —’
*not at the present, but in the future
NWT: ‘Now I say that as long as the heir is a babe he does not differ at all from a
slave, lord of all things though he is,* —’
*not at the present, but in the future
218
SHG: hedista lego kleronomos chronos nepios diaphero oudeis doulos
Trans.: pleasure say heir
time
infant difference no
slave
kurios pas
lord all
THE PACT: ‘What I can say with pleasure is that as long as the heir is an infant,
there is no difference between him and a slave, even if he is to become* master over
them all.’
*refers to the future
COMMENT: Here Paul talks about an infant, and not a child or a babe. He who is
an infant as a slave, does not separate much from the infant of the heir, but they do
as they grow up, because at the right time the heir is inaugurated as the master of all.
And Paul refers to those who are to be Jesus’ heavenly co-rulers.
They have all omitted that Paul says this with pleasure? Why?
As infants, with reference to their earthly existence, they have no preference over any
of the others who are in the flesh. But as heirs they will all become rulers with Christ
after they become inaugurated, when Jesus takes them to him. And this is a pleasure
to Paul. This is all he lives for!
THE PACT, GAL 04:04. ‘When time had been fulfilled, —’
NIV: ‘But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born
under the law, —’
KJ-1611: ‘But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made
of a woman, made under the law, —’
NWT: ‘But when the full limit of the time arrived, God sent forth his Son, who came
to be out of a woman, and who came to be under law, —’
SHG: hote pleroma chronos erchomai theos exapostello exapostello huios
Trans.: when fulfill time
come
god send out
send out
son
ginomai ginomai hupo nomos
happen happen under law
THE PACT: When time had been fulfilled, God sent his Son. And it happened
under the law.
COMMENT: KJ-1611 and NIV, as well as NWT, have all included the sentence
‘born of a woman,’ in one form or another. As you can se, that has not been included
in the Greek text. So, where have they got it from? Yes, old King James of 1611 has
219
of course included it: ‘Made of a women, made under the law.’ And then it is fair to
conclude that also the Pope has included it in his Latin translation, the Vaticanus or
the LXX.
I see this as solid proof that both NIV and NWT have indiscriminately just copied
the text from King James. If not, they would not both have added the same sentence
in the same position. Such coincidences do not occur! It may seem logical, but totally
unnecessary to include such an addition, because what alternative is there to a man
in the flesh being born by a woman? Uff da! Some times — Well, it should strengthen the respect of the Greek text that it is not included there.
THE PACT, GAL 04:05. ‘But he was to buy free those under
the law, —’
NIV: ‘— to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.’
KJ-1611: ‘To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.’
NWT: ‘— that he might release by purchase those under law, that we, in turn, might
receive the adoption as sons.’
SHG: exgorazo hupo nomos apoplambano huiothesia huiothesia
Trans.: buy free under law
take part in sonship sonship
THE PACT: ‘But he was to buy free those under the law so that we would get the
sonship.’*
*adopted as sons
COMMENT: Praise to all three translations in English for having got this correct.
I have said it before, and I repeat: English translations are closer to the original text
than most Scandinavian texts which all write, with an honest exception of the New
World Translation by Jehovah’s Witnesses, childship, being adopted as children. But
I did not have to look far to find an English translation that writes the same. The
Good News Translation says: ‘— to redeem those who were under the law, so that
we might become God’s children.’ This is all inclusive, and with a translation like
this, nobody can understand its real meaning! And that’s the purpose!
THE PACT, GAL 04:14. ‘And my weakness in the flesh, —’
NIV: Even though my illness* was a trial to you, did not treat me with contempt or
scorn. Instead you welcomed me as if I were and angel of God, as if I were Christ
Jesus himself.’
*what illness?
KJ-1611: ‘And my temptation* which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor reject,
but received me as angel of God, even as Christ Jesus.’
*what temptation?
220
NWT: ‘And what was a trial* to you in my flesh, you did not treat with contempt or
spit at in disgust; but you received me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus.’
*what was a trial to them in Paul’s flesh?
SHG: peirasmos sarx exoutheneo oude ekptuo dechomai aggelos theos christos
Trans.: suffering flesh despise
or
reject receive messenger god christ
iesous
jesus
THE PACT: And my weakness* in the flesh you neither despised nor rejected me
for, but you received me as a God’s messenger — as if I were the Christ Jesus.
*what was Paul’s weakness?
COMMENT: A new example of an endless angel-confusion! Paul does not here
refer to himself as a heavenly being, but to himself as an intermediary of the message
about Christ — an earthly messenger. He shows that his reception among them was
so overwhelming that it was as if he were the Crist Jesus. How does this agree with
his beeing a heavenly being, an angel? It is sad, but when the translators thing it is
about a heavenly being, they write angel. But when they know it is about an earthly
messenger, they correctly write messenger. But in Greek the word is the same, aggelos.
Gr. aggelos = messenger. And this applies whether the aggelos is a heavenly or an
earthy messenger. It is never correct to translate aggelos with angel! But it makes it
more exiting and it does tickle the ears! (2TI 04:03)
By the way, what suffering in the flesh did Paul refer to? Paul had such an impaired
vision that he was barely able to read and write. Therefore he has only written one
of his fourteen letters, this very one to the Galatians! (GAL 06:11) The fact that
Paul’s letters were written by scribes, one of them being Luke, another was Tertius,
you will have confirmed in Romans 16:22. Paul write that he on several occasions
had asked Jesus to rid him of this handicap, but then Jesus had answered: ‘My grace
is enough for you.’ (2CO 12:07-10)
Jesus was indeed aware that Paul had tendencies to become haughty or blown up —
much because of his fantastic election directly by God through Jesus, and all the
revelations he received, also directly from God through Jesus. Such experiences
might go to the head of anybody.
Remember that he had previously been a pharisee.
‘I will show him how much he will have to suffer because of my name.’ (ACT 09:16)
221
THE PACT, GAL 05:19. ‘The acts of the flesh are obvious: —’
NIV: ‘The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; —
KJ-1611: ‘Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanliness, lasciviousness , —’
NWT: ‘Now the works of the flesh are manifest, and they are fornication, uncleanliness, loose conduct, —’
SHG: de ergon sarx phaneros hosti moicheia porneia
akatharsia
Trans.: then act
flesh obvious like fornication sexual immorality unclean
aselgeia
indulgence
THE PACT: The acts of the flesh are obvious: They are such as fornication, sexual
immorality and unworthy indulgence.
COMMENT: The word sarx is used 150 times in 129 verses in the Greek text. Paul
writes sarx as many as 16 times in his short letter to the Galatians. NIV then transtate this word with many different explanations, in this verse sinful nature. THE
PACT consistently writes flesh, and strangely this word cause offence with many
Christians. It sort of becomes too direct. On a few occasions I have been thoroughly
corrected because of this. But why is it so offensive to use the word flesh instead of
different expressions such as sinful nature? After all, flesh has a closer meaning to
the text than sinful nature, and the goal of THE PACT is to present the word of God
as correctly as possible, but in a modern, readable English. I include the 16 times
Paul writes sarx in Galatians: GAL 01:16, 02:16, 02:20, 03:03, 04:13, 04:14, 04:23,
04:29, 05:13, 05:16, 05:17, 05:19, 05:24, 06:08, 06:12, and 06:13. He who wants to
know what is correct , may check it out there. They sometimes overdo it, because not
all that man represents, is sinful. The word sarx, flesh, refers to a man, or a woman,
of flesh and blood, but does not always refer to what is sinful.
THE PACT, GAL 06:17. ‘Finally, may no one be bothered —’
NIV: ‘Finally, let no one cause me trouble,* for I bear on my body the mark of Jesus.’
*what was this? A threat?
KJ-1611: ‘From henceforth let no man trouble* me: for I bear in my body the mark
of the Lord Jesus.’
*wow! The same threat, heh?
NWT: ‘Henceforth, let no one be making trouble* for me, for I am carrying on my
body the brand marks of a slave of Jesus.’
*the same threat as before
222
SHG: loipoy medeis medeis kopos -parecho bastazo soma stigma kurios iesous
Trans.: rest no one no one bother weakness carry body mark lord jesus
THE PACT: Finally, may no one be bothered by my weakness, for I carry the Lord
Jesus’ mark on my body.
COMMENT: Why was nobody to bother Paul because of his mark? No, the way
they write makes no sense. Paul refers to his impaired vision and the fact that he
writes unclearly and with big letters. And the mark of Jesus that he carried on his
body, is his very impaired vision that Jesus gave him as a result of Paul being blinded
on the road to Damascus. Paul had asked Jesus many times to be freed from this
handicap, but then Jesus had answered: ‘My grace is enough for you!’ (1CO 12:0710) He then refers to his election as a member of God’s heavenly priesthood, which
indeed was more than Paul deserved!
‘I will show him how much he will have to suffer because of my name.’ (ACT 09:16)
Besides, Jesus knew how blown up Paul could be at times, which Paul himself refers
to in 2CO 12:07.
And then about NWT that has given in to the desire of sprucing up the text a little,
and actually not so little either. Paul’s impaired vision was not a brand mark. Also
the word slave has been added. It says nothing about ‘the brand mark of a slave’ in
the text. And neither does it agree with reality!
What could be the purpose of this? Sprucing it up so that it will not be so recognizable when compared to King James? It is hard to say, but it is regrettable no matter
who does it. It even makes the text less readable.
223
in First Corinthians
THE PACT, 1CO 01:18. ‘For the word about the pole —’
NIV: ‘For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but
to us who are being saved it is the power of God.’
KJ-1611. ‘For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto
us which are saved it is the power of God.’
NWT: ‘For the preach about the torture stake is foolishness to those who are
perishing, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.’
SHG: logos stauros apollumi moria
sozo dunamis theos
Trans.: word pole
lose
foolishness rescue power god
THE PACT: ‘For the word about the pole* is a foolishness to those who are lost, but
to those who are rescued, it constitutes the power of God.’
*Gr. stauros = pole
COMMENT: Here it is first and foremost the expression to be perishing that does
not agree with the teaching of the Bible, both the word and the concept. Because
among Christians the word perdition identical to the invisible and immortal soul’s
everlasting torture in a burning hell. It is not a biblical teaching!
The message of the Bible is basically about those who get to take part in the first resurrection to a heavenly glory as God’s adopted sons and Jesus’ heavenly brothers,
the one hundred and forty-four thousand, those who are to be a firstfruit with Christ.
(REV 14:04) These are to make up a priesthood of men without blemish, (LEV 12:
17-24) the heavenly, the Melchizedec, priesthood. Jesus was the first who was chosen by God as a member of this priesthood. He was to become the very High Priest.
And it is the election of the rest of this priesthood Jesus began to fulfill when he
elected the twelve apostles — all of them men. Judas was also among those who
were originally chosen as a member of this priesthood, but he failed and the membership was taken away from him. He was lost, not ending up in hell, but he lost the
election to the priesthood. In John 17:12 they all write that ‘no one was lost except
Wrongly Translated Verses in First Corinthians
224
the one doomed to destruction.’ Correct text is that ‘no one has been lost except he
who is the lost son.’ And that is something totally different, because this does not
refer to his ending up in hell, as most of then claim, but simply that he lost his election!
Have you ever heard of sheep of perdition?’ In the parable of the lost sheep nobody
writes perish, but lost. In the parable of the lost son, on the other hand, they write
perdition with such eagerness that you can almost feel the flames. But it is the same
Greek word, apollumi, lose, that is being used in both cases.
But in addition Judas has also blasphemed the Holy Spirit through willingly sinning
while being directly exposed to God’s power through Jesus. And therefore he has
already suffered the second death without getting a resurrection, ref. Adam and Eve.
And it is in that relation Jesus calls him the son of destruction and refers to his fate
as already dead in ages. If Judas had not been directly subjected to God’s power
through the Holy Spirit when he surrendered Jesus, he would have continued living
on the earth until his death and later resurrection to the judgement — on the earth,
ref. the rich, young man that Jesus sent away from him. (MAT 19: 16-22)
The confusion, that which does not build on direct falsifications, is in the word
apollumi. It means to lose, be lost, become destroyed. If you lose the election, you
become lost, but if you also lose the possibility to a resurrection to a life on the earth,
then you go into destruction. And that is why Jesus calls him the son of destruction
— not the son of perdition. Correct translation of the verse is then: ‘— no one has
been lost (lost the election) except he who is the son of destruction, —’ (he who is
an example of those who will not be resurrected). Neither the word nor the concept
of perdition has a biblical origin.
Gr. sozo = save, rescue
Gr. stauros = pole, stick, (not cross or torture stick), ref. the Greek text to this
verse. It is not a major matter, because Jesus acts remain the same whether he died
on a pole or a cross — or on a torture stick! But why not get it right?
THE PACT, 1CO 02:14. ‘A man of the soul does not —’
NIV: ‘The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because
they are spiritually discerned.’
KJ-1611: ‘But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for
they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually
discerned.’
225
NWT: ‘But a physical man does not receive the things of the spirit of God, for they
are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined
spiritually.’
SHG: psuchikos anthropos dechomai pneuma theos moria
kai -ou dunamai
Trans.: of soul
man
receive spirit god folishness also no power
ginosko hoti
pneumatikos anakrino
know
because spiritual
judge
THE PACT: A man of the soul* does not accept the spirit of God, because it is foolishness to him. Neither can he know its power, because it must be judged spiritually.
*a man of this world
COMMENT: The Greek text writes of the soul, that of man. KJ-1611 writes the natural man, NWT a physical man and NIV writes the man without the spirit. — How
dishonest!
Why all this confusion when in reality it is so simple and logical? The heavenly is
the spiritual and the earthly is the soully, or that of the soul. When King James writes
‘the natural man’ it is a conscious twisting of the text of a simple and easily understood word. it also creates a confusion of concepts, because even if a natural or
physical man receives the word of God, he still remains ‘of the soul.’
it is my contention that this has been done consciously so that we will believe the
horrible wrong teaching of the Pope and Luther of the invisible and immortal soul’s
eternal torment in an ever burning hell! And this they do at the expense of a correct
understanding of the word soul as an earthy being of flesh, blood and bones. And the
translation of NWT does not make us much wiser, either.
This must be especially embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses New World Translators who write soul every time the word soul, psuche, is being used as a substantive.
But when used as an adjective, psuchikos, of the soul, they still mess it up for the reader. And this is repeated through all of their translation!
THE PACT, 1CO 02:16. ‘Because who has known the mind —’
NIV: ‘For who has known the mind of the Lord that we may instruct him? But we
have the mind of Christ.’
KJ-1611: ‘For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But
we have the mind of Christ.’
226
NWT: ‘For who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?
But we do have the mind of Christ.’
SHG: tis
ginosko nous kurios sumbibazo echo nous christos
Trans.: who know mind lord teach
have mind christ
THE PACT: ‘Because who has known the mind of Jehovah so that he can teach
him?’ But we have the mind of Christ.
ISA 40:13
COMMENT: This verse is a quote from the First Pact, from Isaiah 40:13. And as
we know the First Pact is written in Hebrew while the New Pact is written in Greek.
Here is the same verse in Hebrew:
SHG:
miy takan rovach yehovah ‘etsah yada
Trans.: who know spirit jehovah may teach
THE PACT: ‘Who understands the spirit of Jehovah, so that he may teach him.’
Here we see that the Hebrew text writes Jehovah while the Greek translations say
Lord — except for the honest exception of NWT. But we also see that where the
Hebrew text writes spirit, the Greek text writes mind, nous that is, not pneuma.
Why? There are many examples that the translation is not quite identical to the
original text. It is therefore reasonable to believe that the quotes of the men of God
have been taken from their memory without being a direct copy of the text. Paul here
writing nous instead of spirit is an example of that, because the thought is the same.
What then about Lord instead of Jehovah? Could it be for the same reason? it is quite
unthinkable that God’s men who spoke both Hebrew and Greek as part of their
upbringening, avoid using the name Jehovah in their writs. The fact that the name
Jehovah was not pronounced at the time of Paul, but replaced with God or Lord, is
a matter of its own, but it was all the time used in writing. God’s name Jehovah is
being used more than 7000 times in the Hebrew text. It cannot be confused with Lord
unless it is done on purpose!
In First Corinthians the Greek text writes Lord where the text refers to the Hebrew
text that writes Jehovah. God is a title, but Jehovah is God’s proper name. Why so
many translators have a problem with this I do not know. 1CO 01:31, 1CO 01:16,
1CO 03: 20, 1CO 04:04, 1CO 04;19, 1CO 07:17, 1CO 10:09, 1CO10:21,* 1CO
10:22, 1CO 10:26, 1CO 11:32, 1CO 14:21, 1CO 16:07, and 1CO 16:10. *twice
Here you also have a clear proof that the spirit is not the very person, but that which
emanates from a person. The Holy Spirit never has been, and never can be, a person,
but God’s power and personality.
227
THE PACT, 1CO 03:16. ‘Do you not know that you are a
sanctuary —’
NIV: ‘Do you not know that you yourselves are God’s temple and that God’s Spirit
lives in you?’
KJ-1611: ‘Know ye not that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God
dwelleth in you?’
NWT: ‘Do you not know that you people are God’s temple, and that the spirit of
God dwells in you?’
SHG: eido naos
theos pneuma theos oikeo
Trans.: know sanctuary god spirit
god live
THE PACT: Do you not know that you are a sanctuary for God and that the Spirit
of God lives in you?
COMMENT: This verse I have in many ways have problems understanding. How
can How may a person, even if it applies to the one hundred and forty-four thousand,
be a temple for God? And then it appears like so many times before that a verse that
I am struggling with, has been wrongly translated. And although not a deliberate
falsification this time, it is still irritating.
Here are two words, hieron and naos, that NIV and King James and NWT shuffle as
they see fit.
Gr. hieron = temple. When this word is being used in the Greek text, it consistently refers to the entire temple area including the outer court. And when the outer
court s included, it is without exception going to be translated tempel. NIV, King
James and NWT also translate the word outer court, which it does not actually mean
even if the outer court is included. Then it is correctly going to be translated temple,
and then the outer court is also included.
The word hieron is being used as many as 71 times in 67 verses. And this is so
important to get a correct understanding of the Bible, that I include all verses from
Matthew to Revelation:
MAT 04:05, 12:05, 12:06, 21:12, 21:14, 21:15, 21:23, 24:01 og 26:55. MAR 11:11,
11:15, 11:16, 11:27, 12:35, 13:01, 13:03 and 14:49. LUK 02:27, 02:37, 02:43, 04:09,
18:10, 19:45, 19:47, 20:01, 21:05, 21:37, 22:52, 22:53 and 24:53.JOH 02:14, 02:15,
05:14, 07:14, 07:28, 08:02, 08:20, 08:59, 10:23, 11:56 and 18:20. ACT 02:46, 03:01,
03:02, 03:03, 03:08, 03:10, 04:01, 05:20, 05:21, 05:24, 05:25, 05:42, 19:27, 21:26,
21:27, 21:28, 21:29, 21:30, 22:17, 24:06, 24:12, 24:18 and 25:08. ICO 09:13.
228
Gr. naos = sanctuary. And this is the ord that is being used in this verse. And
when this word is being used in the Greek text, it consistently refers to the building
that represented God’s sanctuary, that og the heavens. Buth the inner court, the holy,
and the very most holy are called naos in Greek.
The word naos is being used 46 times in the following 40 verses in the Greek text:
MAT 23:16, 23:17, 23:21, 26:61, 27:05, 27:40 og 27:51. MAR 14:58, 15:29 and
15:38. LUK 01:09, 01:21, 01:22 and 23:45. JOH 02:19, 02:20 and 02:21. ACT
07:48, 17:24 and 19:24. 2TH 02:04. 1CO 03:16, 03:17 and 06:19. EPH 02:21. REV
03:12, 07:15, 11:01, 11:02, 11:19, 14:15, 14:17, 15:05, 15:06, 15:08, 16:01, 16:17
and 21:22.
NB! The word naos may never correctly be translated temple, and the word hieron
may never correctly be translated sanctuary.
THE PACT, 1CO 03:17. ‘If anybody wants to destroy —’
NIV: ‘If anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him; for God’s temple is
sacred, and you are that temple.’
KJ-1611: ‘If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy, for the temple
of God is holy, which temple are you.’
NWT: ‘If anybody destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple
of God is holy, which temple you people are.’
SHG: ei ei_tis phtheiro naos
theos theos phtheiro naos
theos
Trans.: if so any destroy sanctuary god god destroy sanctuary god
hagios hostis
holy such
THE PACT: If anyone wants to destroy God’s sanctuary, God will destroy him, for
God’s sanctuary is holy, and it is of such as you!
COMMENT: This shot paragraph, verses 16 and 17, cause confusion among Christians, because the very most believe that is applies to anyone who reads it. That is not
the case! it only applies to the holy who are to make up God’s heavenly priesthood,
and they are the ones whom God’s Spirit lives in to the extent that they are subjected
to the Holy Spirit, God’s direct power, ref. Peter and Paul. The fact that only the
twelve apostles received of the Holy Spirit on the day of the Pentecost in the year 33,
speaks a clear language about this.
229
Also: After God has taken to him the one hundred and forty-four thousand in a spiritual resurrection, these, the bride, are the ones who make up god’s sanctuary. And
being holy before God simply means that they have been set aside for God. And
indeed, yes, amen, these whom God gives a spiritual resurrection, are being set aside
in the real meaning of the word.
Gr. naos = sanctuary. And the sanctuary of the temple is the very building that
contains both the holy and the very holy place. The word naos you find 46 times in
forty verses:
MAT 23:16, 23:17, 23:21, 23:55, 26:61, 27:05, 27:40 and 27:51. MAR 14:58, 15:29,
15:38 and LUK 01:09, 01:21, 01:22 og 23:45. JOH 02:19, 02:20 and 2:21. ACT
07:48, 17:24, and 19:24. 2TH 02:04. 1CO 3:16, 3:17 and 06:19. EFE 02:02. REV
03:12, 07:15, 11:01, 11:02, 11:19, 14:15, 14:17, 15:05, 15:06, 15:08, 16:01, 16:17
and 21:22
NB! Note that the word for sanctuary, naos, is being used in both 1CO 03:16 and
1CO 03:17. Translation sanctuary with temple is way off the target! And this is just
an example. It is being repeated in all the translations! Have they not even looked
into the Greek text. it is so clear there!
THE PACT, 1CO 06:04. ‘Therefore, if you have court cases
—’
NIV: ‘Therefore, if you have disputes about such matters, appoint as judges even
men of little account in the church!’
KJ-1611: ‘If then you have judgements pertaining to this life, set them to judge who
are least esteemed in the church.’
NB! Both these versions are basically good and correct translations.
NWT: ‘If, then, you have matters of this life to be tried, is it the men looked down
upon in the congregation that you put in as judges?’
NB! NWT takes a different approached to this by also referring to those being looked
down upon in the church.
SHG: ean oun echo kriterion biotikos kathizo exoutheneo
exotheneo
Trans.: if then have judement this life set
little influence little influende
ekklesia
church
230
THE PACT: Therefore, if you have court cases concerning that which is of this life,
then elect one from the church with little influence to judge between you.
New World Translation refer to such who are being looked down upon. Do they have
many in their church that they look down upon? No, it is supposed to be so among
true Christians that all are being looked up to as brothers of Christ. But it is still so
that many in the church have little influence in worldly relations, in that way referring to matters of this world. Therefore Paul recommends, instead of being judged
by those of the world, that the members of the congregations decide such matters
among themselves. And why choose such who have little influence? It almost speaks
for itself, because it is always so that people with a strong influence also have special
interests, and they will therefore easily try to twist a decision in their favor even as
judges, maybe to the advantage of a business partner. One with little influence need
not take such matters into consideration. And thereby they are more inclined to pass
neutral sentences. Many translators write this verse in pact with the principles of this
world, ref. NWT, but the text refers to a more righteous Christian principle. If you
read a little bit around this verse, you will see the logic in what Paul suggests. But
right is right: To one working on the Greek text, this verse is not easy to translate,
also because some words that have been left out, must be added in based on a correct
understanding. And in this case some translators have added words contrary to the
basic principle.
THE PACT, 1CO 06:12. ‘Of all that is permissible, —’
NIV: ‘“Everything is permissible for me” — but not everything is beneficial.
“Everything is permissible for me,” — but I will not be mastered by anything.’
KJ-1611: ‘All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things
are lawful to me, but I will not be brought under the power of any.’
NB! Both these translations are way off, but it is quite evident that NIV has copied
King James.
NWT: ‘All things are lawful for me, but not all things are advantageous. All things
are lawful for me, but I will not let myself be brought under authority by anything.’
Uff! This was not much better, and also a true copy of King James.
SHG: pas existi pas sumphero pas existi exousiazo huper exousiazo tis
Trans.: all allow all useful
all allow get power over get power any
THE PACT: Of all that is permissible, not everything is beneficial. But of all that
is permissible, nothing must get power over any one.
COMMENT: Oh, so Paul is allowed to do anything, heh? — I guarantee you one
thing: Anything like this Paul has never written, because it is directly contrary to the
rest of the Bible. When was it okey for Paul to kill? Commit fornication? Steal? Lie?
231
No, there has to be a limit! But, do I have an example of something that might be
allowed, but still not useful? — What about a glass of liquor? Or even one too many?
Proverbs 31:06-07, NIV: ‘Give beer* to those who are perishing, wine to those who
are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no
more.’ *Silly. The Hebrew text says ‘strong drink,’ liquor! Not beer and wine, but
liquor and wine. Many hate this, but right is right!
Prepositions are usually none-existent in the Greek text, so they have to be added
during translation, but based on correct English grammar. And then a translator must
also be aware that in English it is not unusual to start a sentence with a proposition,
such as in this case. — This text is also repeated in verse 10:23.
THE PACT, 1CO 06:19. ‘Do you not know that your body —’
NIV: ‘Do you not that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you,
whom you have received from God.’
KJ-1611: ‘What? Know you not that your body is a temple of the Holy Ghost which
is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?’
NWT: ‘What! Do you not know that the body of you people is the temple of the
holy spirit within you, which you have from God? Also, you do not belong to yourselves.’
SHG: e eido heautou soma naos
hagios pneuma hos echo theos humon
Trans.: or know your
body sanctuary holy spirit that have god your
heautou
you
THE PACT: Or do you not know that your body is a sanctuary of the holy spirit,
that which is from God and which you have in you?
COMMENT: This verse is almost identical to First Corinthians 03:16. Paul finds
this so important the he feels the need to repeat it. And then they have messed it all
up during translation! This is indeed confusion galore!
U01. NIV keeps writing temple instead of sanctuary. Well, at least they are consistent. And then they also present to the Holy Spirit as a person by referring to the
Holy Spirit as a who or whom. When you know and understand what the Bible says
about this such a translation not only becomes ridiculous, but borders on pure blasphemy!
232
U02. Four hundred years ago Christians were not quite as far astray as they are today. True, King James wrongly writes temple instead of sanctuary, but seemingly
they do not preset the Holy Ghost, as they write, as a person by writing which instead
of who. But it may not be certain, because four hundred years ago which also reflected on persons the same way who does today. At the end they add the meaningless phrase ‘ye are not your own.’ What does that mean in this relation? At that time
it was also common to write the Holy Ghost instead of the Holy Spirit, which the
Mormons are doing to this day.
U03. Also NWT has a weak translation of this verse, first by adding you people and
the by wrongly writing temple instead of sanctuary.
And now: Check this out! King James starts this verse with a question mark: What?
NWT does exactly the same, only they make it an exclamation mark: What! And this
must be directly copied from King James, because it is not in the Greek text! It feels
pathetic! And on top of it, they have also added that meaningless sentence at the end
of the verse, also identical to King James without being part of the Greek text!
THE PACT, 1CO 07:04. ‘For the woman does not alone —’
NIV: ‘The wife’s body does not belong to her alone, but also to her husband. In the
same way the husband’s body does not belong to him alone, but also to his wife.’
NB! Correct translation!
KJ-1611: ‘The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise
also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.’
NB! Terrible translation!
NWT: ‘The wife does not exercise authority over her own body, but her husband
does; likewise, also the husband does not exercise authority over his own body, but
his wife does.’
NB! Terrible translation! Here they fell into the King James trap again! Compare.
SHG: gune exousiazo idios soma aner homoios kai aner exousiazo idios
Trans.: woman rule
own body man same
also man rule
own
soma gune
body woman
THE PACT: For the woman does not alone rule over her own body, but together
with her man. In the same manner neither does the man rule over his body alone, but
together with his woman.
233
COMMENT: Translations of this verse are confusing, because if the translations of
King James and NWT were correct, then in practice there could be no such thing as
rape in marriage. But it is actually the opposite Paul says, that they are to constitute
a community — not in submission, but in mutual respect.
The words alone and together are two adverbs, they are attached to the verb. Such
words the Greek text has only a limited use of, and therefore they must be added to
the English text so that it will get a correct meaning. The word with is a preposition,
and also prepositions must be added based on the contents of the Greek text, but with
a correct English grammar. If you set in the wrong preposition, the verse may get a
totally different meaning than originally intended. It may be even worse of you add
the wrong personal pronoun, ref. 1CO 14:36. Compare. Also the word not is not used
in Greek, and if you add the word not in the wrong part of a sentence, the content
gets the exact opposite meaning.
THE PACT, 1CO 07:09. ‘But if you are unable to restrain —’
NIV: ‘But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to
marry than to burn with passion.’
KJ-1611: ‘But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than
to burn.’
NWT: ‘But if they do not have self-control, let them marry, for it is better to marry
than to be inflamed with passion.’
SHG: ei ou egkrateuomai gameo
kreitton gameo
e
puroo
Trans.: if no restrain
give marriage better give marriage than burn
THE PACT: But if you are unable to restrain yourself, you shall give in marriage,
because it is better to give in marriage than to burn with desire.
COMMENT: I will not go into details about this, but the expression to marry is not
translated from the Greek text. It is a direct re-writing into modern relations.
The Bible does not separate between married or unmarried, but between virgin and
woman. Also note that the previous verse is about those who have not given in marriage, virgins, and those who have given in marriage, the widows.
The arrangement of church weddings is a Western tradition. You will not find it in
the Bible. And neither are any of today’s priesthoods of God, but of mundane states
or people with sharp elbows. Therefore, hold on to something solid, because the
234
arrangement of church weddings is condemned in the message of the Bible, ref. the
prostitute’s* ride on the beast.** *A picture of all false religious activity **every
political power. The false preaching is being sustained by the mundane state.
Read Revelation chapters 18-19.
THE PACT, 1CO 07:27. ‘Are you bound to a woman?’
NIV: ‘Are you married? Do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for
a wife.’
KJ-1611: ‘Art thou bound to a wife: seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a
wife? seek not a wife.’
NWT: ‘Are you bound to a wife? Stop seeking a release. Are you loosed from a
wife? Stop seeking a wife.’ ‘Stop seeking?’ This must be free imagination.
SHG: duo gune zeteo luo lusis
gune zeteo gune
Trans.: bind woman seek loose loosen woman seek woman
THE PACT: Are you bound to a woman? Do not try to be loosened from her? And
if you are free from relation to a woman, do not try to find a woman.
COMMENT: Here they all consistently write wife although the Greek text has no
such word. It writes woman. NIV also write divorce, which is not from the Greek
text, but rather builds on Western traditions.
The Greek word gune means woman. And if you play a little with the sound picture
of this word, you may also see that it is the basis of two other English words, cow
and queen.
THE PACT, 1CO 07:29. ‘This I tell you, brother, because —’
NIV: ‘What I mean, brothers, is that the time is short. From now on those who have
wives should live as if they had none; —’
KJ-1611: ‘But this I say, brethern, the time is short. It remaineth that both they that
have wives be as though they had none; —’
NWT: ‘Moreover, this I say brothers, the time left is reduced. Henceforth let those
who have wives be as though they had none, —’
235
SHG: touto phemi adelphos kairos sustello ho -loipon kai echo gune
Trans.: this say
brother time narrow as rest
also have woman
echo me
have no
THE PACT: This I tell you, brothers, because the times are difficult. From now on
also those who have women, must be as if they did not have any.
COMMENT: Which time is it that is short or have been reduced? No, that is definitely hard to say. Some say it refers to the second coming of the Christ, others the
end of the world. But none of these have happened yet, and this was written almost
two thousand years since the time was short, or reduced. Uff, it is not so strange that
the Bible becomes a confusion to many readers when they are being presented with
translations such as these. In the Greek text it says that the times are narrow, difficult. And we use the word in the same way in English when we speak of a narrow
escape or a narrow birth or delivery. And I do not think there are many who will not
understand the expression that ‘these are narrow times.’
What Paul directly refers to is the famine that prevailed at that time. He further
encourages them to show frugality in relation to this famine, and this applies whether
you have a woman to feed or not! So simple.
Read in First Corinthians 16:01-04 about the collection to the needy in Jerusalem.
THE PACT, 1CO 08:11. ‘Shall a brother through your —’
NIV: ‘So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge.’
KJ-1611: ‘And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom
Christ died.’
NWT: ‘Really, by your knowledge, the man that is weak is being ruined, your brother for whose sake Christ died.’
SHG: epi
gnosis
astheneo adelphos apollumi hos christos apothnesko
Trans.: through knowledge weak
brother lose
who christ die
THE PACT: Shall a weak brother through your knowledge be lost — one whom
Christ has died for?
COMMENT: The expression to perish is not from the Bible. The Bible relates to
two concepts only; you are either lost or you are destroyed, going into decay.
236
T01. He who is lost, loses the election as a member of God’s heavenly priesthood.
T02. He, or she, who are destroyed or go into decay, are such who will suffer the
second death and not get a resurrection to a life in ages on the earth.
A person who refuses to accept God’s order with Jesus as the Highest Priest of
both that which is of the heavens and that which is of the earth (EPH 01:10) has no
chance of understanding the message of the Bible. This definitely applies to most cocalled charismatic or church-Christians. Also check Matthew 05:03 and 05:05! But
do not interpret it away like most do. Read it again and again until you understand
it! But read the text, not your own mind!
Gr. apollumi = lose, be lost
Gr. olethros = destroy, go into decay
THE PACT, 1CO 10:09. ‘But we will not tempt the LORD —’
NIV: ‘We should not test the Lord, as some of them did — and were killed by snakes.’
KJ-1611: ‘Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were
destroyed of serpents.’
NWT: ‘Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test,
only to perish by the serpents.’ Praise! It definitely says Jehovah in the Hebrew text!
SHG: mede ekpeirazo christos NB! tis
kai peirazo apollumi ophis
Trans.: neither tempt
christ NB! some also tempt destroy snake
THE PACT: But we will not tempt* the LORD*** the way some of them tempted
him. And therefore they were killed by snakes.**
*jfr. EXO 17:02, EXO 17:07 ** NUM 21:0 ***JHVH
COMMENT: Strong’s original text writes that they tempted Christ in this verse.
Through some consideration we understand that those who wandered about in the
wilderness, could not possibly have tempted Christ. NIV writes the Lord, also referring to Christ. And that is how far astray they get when they do not know the difference between Father and Son. Jehovah has become the Lord, and to the most eager
proponents of the trinity the Lord is Christ, ref. also the claim that Jesus is again to
set his feet on Mount Olive. (ZEC 14:01-04) That is a rough misinterpretation of the
Hebrew text which all the time refers to Jehovah, but which is consistently translated
the Lord. And to the worst biblical fablers the Lord then becomes Jesus. This shows
how important it is to know the difference between the Lord and the Lord.
New World Translation by Jehovah’s Witnesses correctly writes Jehovah in this
verse.
237
THE PACT, 1CO 11:10. ‘Therefore they owe to have a sign —’
NIV: ‘For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign
of authority on her head.’
KJ-1611: ‘For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the
angels.’
NWT: ‘This is why the woman ought to have a sign of authority upon her head because of the angels.’
NB! With translations like there it is no wonder that there is a lot of angel-hysteria
out there!
SHG: touto dia opheilo echo exousia epi kaphale dia
aggelos
Trans.: this by owe
have dignity on head
because of messenger
THE PACT: Therefore they owe to have a sign of dignity on their heads because
of the messengers.
COMMENT: This verse creates confusions in more ways than one: First Paul refers
to God’s order of creation: The man first, then the woman. And that is why the woman ought to wear I sign of dignity of the messenger on her head. But here the translators mess up for anyone who reads this by referring to angels, heavenly beings. The
messenger that is being referred to has nothing to do with heavenly beings. He is the
very leader of the church — the one who is presenting the message.
The messenger in the church is he who at all times has a message to present.
Making him a heavenly being, ‘an angel,’ is ridiculous!
Gr. euaggelion = message
Gr. aggelos = messenger
NB! THE PACT consistently writes message.
NB! THE PACT consistently writes messenger.
All this angel-hysteria that has been caused by ignorant or dishonest translators, is
unworthy in relation the total message of the Bible. In this case it is insane referring
to heavenly beings!
One more thing: He who has the power, is the foremost — here the man, the messenger. He who has authority is subject to he who has the power. And here a woman
is supposed to have hair on her head, or use a cover, in recognition of the messenger’s worthiness in relation to her.
Even one more thing: In relation to the power of a motor we use the word exhaust,
an English version of the Greek exousia. The exhaust is what comes out through a
238
pipe, or somewhere else on a motor. The exhaust is then a bi-product of the motor’s
original power.
In the Bible the power that Jesus possess in relation to God, is referred to as an exousia, a bi-product in relation to God’s original power, ref. the Great Commission,
THE PACT:
‘I shall receive all authorities in the heavens and on the earth.’ If you have a problem
with this, as I know some do, just check the Greek text. There you will see it clear
as crystal! But even then some bloated Christians refuse it!
THE PACT, 1CO 12:02. ‘You know, you of the peoples, —’
NIV: ‘You know that when you were pagans, somehow or other, you were influenced and led astray to mute idols.’
KJ-1611: ‘Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even
as ye were led.’
NWT: ‘You know that when you were people of the nations, you were led astray
to those voiceless idols just as you happened to be led.’
SHG: eido ethnos apago apago ho aphonos eidolon hos ago
Trans.: know peoples draw draw who mute
idols who before
THE PACT: You know, you of the peoples, how you were drawn toward those mute
idols which you presented yourselves before.
COMMENT: The last sentence in NWT is pretty meaningless, but it does agree with
King James of 1611. Also, part of NIV seems like being taken out of the blue. Read
the translation of THE PACT and you will see how simple and easily understood it
becomes when you build on the Greek text and not King James of 1611.
A sentence is not to consist of words only, but must have a content!
NWT writes ‘when you were people of the nations.’ Are they not so still? The Greek
word ethnos means ethnic, an often used word in modern-day debates. The word
ethnic actually means group of peoples, but is so often used in the English language
that we might as well have written ethnics also in a biblical relation.
Besides, there are not as clear divisions between those of the peoples and the Jews
as many Christians try to make it, because also Jews are in the Bible referred to as
ethnics. But that is never being translated.
239
THE PACT, 1CO 13:01. ‘If I speak with the tongue —’
NIV: ‘If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only
a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.’
KJ-1611: ‘Tough I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not charity,
I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.’
NWT: ‘If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love, I have
become a sounding piece of brass or a clashing cymbal.’
SHG: ean laleo glossa anthropos aggelon
echo agape ginomai echeo
Trans.: if speak tongue man
messenger have love become resound
chalkos e alalazo kumbalon
brass
or jingle cymbal
THE PACT: If I speak with the tongue of a man or that of a messenger, but am without love, I am like a resounding of brass or like a jingling cymbal.
COMMENT: Did you know that Paul was able to speak angel language? Some
preach just that, and this is the verse they refer to. In the beginning I was not able to
contradict them, because that is how it says in the translations. But what does Paul
actually say? The ‘angel’ he writes about, is far from being a heavenly being, but an
earthly messenger, a preacher. What Paul refers to, is that whether he speaks as a
man, a regular human being, or if he even speaks more seriously as a messenger of
the church, everything he says becomes empty talk, like the sound of brass, if he at
the same time is without love.
So simple and factual. But, oh, how they fable! My mother has a fixed comment to
such fablings: ‘There are four hooves on a mare even it they keep hitting the
ground!’ At least now you know that Paul never claimed to be able to speak ‘angel’
language! He, he. Yes, it is tragicomic. But there has to be a limit!
THE PACT, 1CO 13:10. ‘However, when the complete —’
NIV: ‘—, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears.’
KJ-1611: ‘But when that which is perfect is come, then that in part shall be done
away.’
NWT: ‘— but when that which is complete arrived, that which is partial will be
done away with.’
240
SHG: hotan teleios
erchomai tote meros
katargeo katergeo
Trans.: when complete come
then fragment end
end
THE PACT: However, when the complete comes, then that which is in fragments,
will end.
COMMENT: This verse confuses many because they believe that the wrong translation of perfect refers to Jesus’ second coming, and that then all that is in fractions
will come to an end. Even when people who are locked to this understanding of the
text, are informed that the original Greek text does not say perfect, but complete, they
hold on to this and say that the perfect is Christ. Yes, but it says ‘that which is complete,’ and Jesus have never been of the neutral gender.
At the time of Jesus it was so that God’s total plan was unknown to people, and the
knowledge of it was only fractional. And this was the reason of some of the contentions Jesus’s new teaching created among the well established. But as this developed,
man received an ever deeper understanding of the word of Gd’s total plan and will,
for instance through Paul’s extensive explanations of the first, the heavenly, resurrection and also of the second resurrection, that of the soul. In addition, think of all the
information John has given us in Revelation! Then, and only then, did that which was
in fractions, come to an end!
And again it is strange that they do not consider the content when they translate,
because what is fractional shall neither disappear, come to an end or done away with.
Then for instance the First Pact would be abolished. That is far from being the case,
because everything builds on the First Pact. But that which is coming to an end, is
that what before was in fractions, will no longer be in fractions, but become complete. And today we have received all the information we need to understand all of
God’s plan and will. What people are striving with today, is understanding it! And
the major reason that people do not understand God’s basically simple and clear
plan, is that we have for centuries been subjected to an extensive wrong teaching by
the papacy and so-called peoples’ churches trying to prevent people from learning
the truth and teaching gullible Christians that the good go to heaven when they die,
but the bad end up in a burning hell. And those who have been both good and bad
end up in purgatory until God gets to decide what to do with them. These are nothing
but cock and bull stories compared to the true teaching of the Bible.
What the Bible teaches is that the very, very most, righteous and unrighteous, (ACT
24:15) lie dead in their graves until there will be a resurrection toward the end of the
thousand years — on the earth! This is crystal clear in the Bible, but when so may
people do not understand it, it is because so many powerful leaders try to prevent the
reader from understanding this. If so, the power of systems such as the papacy and
Lutheran state churches over Christianity would come to an end, ref. the Pope’s sel-
241
ling of letters of absolution. And if the Bible is correct, and I think it is, and I build
my faith on the fact that all of the Bible’s prophecies have come true so far, it is only
a matter of time until this system will come to an end.
This is the second resurrection. But there will also be a first, a spiritual, resurrection
that very few will take part in — a resurrection to a heavenly priesthood as God’s
adopted sons and Jesus’ heavenly brothers.
Read Revelation chap. 18 and 19 over and over again until you have this nailed into
your brain for the rest of your days. It may determine our future — whether it will
be short or very, very long. ‘Come out from her, my people.’ (REV 18:04)
THE PACT, 1CO 14:36. ‘Or was it from them the word —’
NIV: ‘Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has
reached?’
KJ-1611: ‘What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?’
NWT: ‘What? Was it from you that the word of God came forth? , or was it only as
far as you that it reached?’
These three translations are equally ridiculous because also NIV ans NWT build on
the halfwit text of King James. NWT even copies the exclamation ‘what,’ which is
not part of the Greek text.
SHG: e exerchomai logos theos e kantantao monos
Trans.: or go out
word god or reach
only
THE PACT: Or was it from them the word of God went out? And is it only them it
has reached?
COMMENT: In the previous verse Paul asks that the woman must ask her man if
there is anything she wants to know about the word of God. And women are not to
speak in the church. The text in this verse follows the same line of thought as Paul
started in the previous verse. And here you again see how important it is to present
the correct pronouns in the right place. And in order to explain about the Bible, you
first need to understand it.
In the next verse Paul says that he has received this as a commandment from the Lord
Jesus. And when did Paul receive this command from Jesus? Paul was by far the only
one who received this command from Jesus, because when he sent out the twelve to
preach, how may of them were women? None! And when Jesus sent out the twelve
to preach, that was a picture of the future preaching to the twelve tribes of Israel,
242
even if only the tribe of Judah and Benjamin were left of them. And the twelve tribes
of Israel is again a picture of that which is total. (LUK 09:01-06) After this Jesus also
sent out seventy, all men, to preach the Realm of God. (LUK 10:01-12) And this
preaching was a picture of the preaching to those of the peoples, ref, the symbolic
meaning of the numbers 07 and 10 which both symbolize what is total on the earth.
Through these two examples Jesus has made it quite clear that the spreading of the
message, both to the Jews and to those of the peoples, were to take place by men.
Many claim that to be discriminating against women. Not so. It is symbolic of the
election to the heavenly priesthood consisting of men without a blemish. (LEV 21:
17-24)
NB! Note that in verse 33 it says that this applies to ‘the churches of the holy.’
Which are the churches of the holy?
THE PACT, 1CO 15:44. ‘There is sown a body of the soul, —’
NIV: ‘— it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural
body, there is also a spiritual body.’’
KJ-1611: ‘It was sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.’
NWT: ‘It is sown a physical body, it is raised up a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual one.’
NB! NIV and NWT: ‘If there is a natural, physical, body there is also a spiritual
body.’ That may not always be the case!
SHG: speiro psuchikos soma egeiro pneumakikos soma psuchikos soma
Trans.: sow of soul
body rise
in spirit
body of soul
body
pneumatikos soma
in spirit
body
THE PACT: There is sown a body of the soul, but it is risen as a spiritual body. It
was a body of the soul, but it becomes a spiritual body.
COMMENT: There is a true confusion of the understanding of the word soul, much
because of the wrong teachings of the Pope and Martin Luther in this area. A soul
is neither invisible nor immortal. A soul is a man of flesh and blood, or every living
creature on the earth needing blood — red, white or blue, to live. For instance are
every fish, shrimp or herring that swim in shoals, in the Bible referred to as living
souls. — Have you ever heard of an invisible herring or seen an immortal shrimp?
243
The alternative to that of the soul, is that of the spirit, the heavenly. And everything
in a heavenly existence is of the spirit. Nothing is physical! There can exist nothing
material in a spiritual existence. You will have to leave your computer behind!
NB! Also be aware of the wrong translation of Genesis 01:20! The only alternative
to that of the soul, the earthly, is that of the spirit, the heavenly!
THE PACT, 1CO 15:45. ‘So it is written: ‘The first man, —’
NIV: ‘So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being; the last Adam
a life giving spirit.’ Uff! How dishonest!
KJ-1916: ‘And so it is written: The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last
Adam was made a quickening spirit.’
NWT: ‘It is even so written: “The first Adam became a living soul. The last Adam
became a life-giving spirit.’
SHG: houto grapho protos anthropos adam ginomai zao psuche eschatos adam
Trans.: this write first man
adam become living soul
last
adam
ginomai zoopoieo pneuma
become life-giving spirit
THE PACT: ‘So it is written: ‘The first man, Adam, became a living soul. The last
Adam* became a life-giving spirit.’
*Christ, GEN 02:07
COMMENT: Most translations, such that NIV here is a good example of, are making
strong efforts to hide the true meaning of the word soul, and instead of soul they
write ‘being.’ Some write creature, others even man. Why it has come to this, I have
no way of knowing. The first time the word soul is being used in the Bible, is in
Genesis 01:20. There it says: ‘And so God created all the living souls that swim in
shoals in the ocean.’ If a herring is a soul, can it then be immortal or invisible? There
has got to be a limit! But when it comes to dishonesty against the word of God, it
seems to me that no such limits exist!
THE PACT, 1CO 15:46. ‘Consequently that of the —’
NIV: ‘The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.’
KJ-1611: ‘Howbeit that was not the first which is spiritual, but that which is natural, and afterword that which is spiritual.’
244
NWT: ‘Nevertheless, the first is, not that is spiritual, but that which is physical, afterwards that which is spiritual.’
SHG: alla proton pneumatikos psuchikos epeita pneumatikos
Trans.: so first spiritual
of soul
then spiritual
THE PACT: Consequently that of the spirit did not come first, but that of the soul.
After that came the spiritual.
COMMENT: Paul here refers to those who will take part in the first resurrection to
a new creation together with Christ — a man of flesh, blood and bones who is being
risen to a spiritual existence. Such a creation has never been before. And it is in this
limited meaning Paul says that of the soul, the body that dies, came first, and then,
after the resurrection, the spiritual.
Some claim that the Bible is self-contradictory here, but this must not be confused
with the very creation, because during that process the heavenly, that of the spirit,
existed long before the earthly, that of the soul.
Gr. psuche = soul
Gr. psuchikos = soully, that of the soul
THE PACT, 1CO 15:48. ‘The way the one became, —’
NIV: ‘As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man
from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven.’
KJ-1611: ‘As the earthly, so are they also that are earthly: ans as is the heavenly,
such are they also that are heavenly.’
NWT: ‘As the one made of dust is, so those made of dust are also, ans as the heavenly one is, so those who are heavenly are also.’
SHG: choikos toioutos kai choiokos epouranios toioutos kai epouranios
Trans.: dust
like
also dust
heavenly like
also heavenly
THE PACT: The way the one became, he who was of dust, the same way will also
the others be who are of dust. And the way the Heavenly was, so will also the other
heavenly become.
COMMENT: It is no big matter that NIV ans KJ write ‘the earthly’ instead of ‘those
who are of dust,’ because it agrees with the contents. But at the same time it may be
okay to know.
245
THE PACT, 1CO 15:55. ‘And: Death where is your sting? —’
NIV: ‘Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting.’
KJ-1611: ‘O death, where is thy sting?
O grave, where s thy victory?
NWT: ‘Death, where is your victory?
Death, where is your sting?’
SHG: thanatos pou kentron haides pou nikos
Trans.: death
where sting grave where victory
THE PACT: And: ‘Death, where is your sting? Grave,* where is your victory?’
*Gr. haides, HOS 13:14
COMMENT: Both NIV and NWT write death two times here and have omitted the
grave. And this is done for a reason: How to translate haides here? But of all things:
KJ-1611 has got this right! And they also correctly translate haides with grave in this
case! The most common word for grave in Greek is mneion, which refers to the
place, a place to remember, where the body has been dug down.
Both Greek and Hebrew have two words and two concepts for the grave:
Gr. mneion = grave, the very hole or tomb where the dead has been buried.
Gr. haides = grave, the common fate of all who have died.
As you see haides does not refer to the very place of burial, but the place that all the
dead have in common, the grave. And this is reasonable and easy to understand
because it is always so that the grave follow in the footsteps of death. After death,
the funeral. And about such who perish at sea, it is said that the received a wet grave,
not a place to remember, but a common fate with all who have died, haides.
King James of 1611 has a correct translation of haides here, but that is not always
the case. Haides is being used 11 times in the following verses in Greek. First the
verse, then the translation:
Verse
Mat 16:18
LUK 10:15
LUK 16:23
ACT 02:27
KJ-1611
hell
hell
hell
hell
NIV
Hades
depths
hell
grave
NWT
Hades
Hades
Hades
Hades
ACT 02:31
1CO 15:55
REV 01:18
REV 06:08
REV 20:13
REV 20:14
hell
grave
hell
hell
hell
hell
grave
death
Hades
Hades
Hades
Hades
246
Hades
death
Hades
Hades
Hades
Haides
NB! King James almost consistently translates grave with hell, except in 1CO 15:55.
Why do they translate haides with hell when they know it means grave? In ACT
02:31 KJ-1611 even claims that the soul of Jesus was in hell, but that his soul was
not left there! Uff, there has got to be a limit — but sadly, I guess there is not!
NB! NIV is a true confusion writing Hades, depth, hell and grave alternatively! They
juggle the word of God as they see fit!
NB! With the exception of 1CO NWT consistently writes Hades, but why with a
capital H? In that way it indicates more than just a neutral grave. Scandinavian versions translate haides with the kingdom of the dead, equivalent to the Pope’s purgatory, fire of torture.
This verse actually refers to the situation after both the first and the second resurrection have taken place. Then death no longer has a sting, power, and the grave has
been defeated. This will not be the situation until after the thousand years.
247
in Second Corinthians
THE PACT, 2CO 02:15-16. ‘Before God we are the scent —’
NIV: 15 ‘For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved
and to those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the smell of death; to the other
the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task?’
KJ-1611. 15 ‘For we are unto God a sweet savor of Christ, in them that are saved,
and in them that perish. 16 To the one we are the savor of death unto death; to the
other the savor of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?’
NWT: 15 ‘For to god we are a sweet odor of Christ among those who are being
saved, and among those who are perishing, 16 to the latter ones an odor an odor issuing from death to death, to the former ones an odor issuing from life to life. And who
is adequately qualified to these things?’
SHG: theos euodia euodia christos sozo apollumi
Trans.: god scent scent christ rescue destroy
THE PACT: ‘To God we are the scent of Christ both to those who become rescued
and to those who will be destroyed.’
SHG: men osme thanatos thanatos hos osme zoe zoe tis hikanos tauta
Trans.: true aroma death
death
who aroma life life any worthy this
THE PACT: ‘Truly, to the one we are the stench of death, to the other the fragrance
of life. — Who are qualified to this?’
COMMENT: This may seem complicated, much because of confusing translations.
For instance they cannot be a sweet smell to those who perish (King James). To them
they represent the stench of death. The content is actually simple. Paul shows that
their message leads to rescue for some, and to them their massage is a fragrance, an
aroma of life. But to those who will become destroyed, their message is a stench of
death. Yes, Paul uses colorful pictures!
Wrongly Translated Verses in Second Corinthians
248
NB! In Greek this text is 17 words. NWT uses 50 words to translate. THE PACT
uses 28. Greek also uses the neutral scent in both cases, but here THE PACT follows
modern English and separates between them. I hope this makes the content clearer.
THE PACT, 2CO 03:07. ‘For the service of death —’
NIV: ‘Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone,
came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses
because of its glory, fading though it was, —’
KJ-1611: ‘But if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of Moses
for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away: —’
NWT: ‘Moreover, if the code which administers death and which was engraved in
letters in stones came about in a glory, so that the sons of Israel could not gaze
intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face, a glory that was to be
done away with, —’
SHG: ei diakonia thanatos en gramma entupoo lithos en -doxa hoste
Trans.: for service death in letter
engrave stone that glory so that
huios israel dunamai atenizo atenizo prosopon moseus doxa prosopon ho doxa
son israel manage see
see
face
moses glory face
this glory
katargeo katargeo
take away take away
THE PACT: For the service of death, engraved with letters on stones, had such a
glory that the sons of Israel could not see Moses in the face because of this glory —
a glory that was to be taken away.
COMMENT: Note that NIV writes Israelites and KJ-1611 writes the children of
Israel where the original text writes the sons of Israel. An honest exception is NWT.
It may look innocent, but it actually is a grave falsification that hides the fact that the
Bible is mainly about a priesthood of men without blemish. (LEV 21:16-24) In addition they bow their knees to those who unrighteously fight for gender equality. It
also clearly reveals that those who are behind such translations, have not understood
much of this, or they deliberately try to hide it.
But when you get this in place, you will see that the Bible is in no way discriminating
against women. In the Bible even all genealogies are counted through the woman.
249
Besides, if a journalist is to write a report about two soccer teams of twelve men
each, is it then discriminatory against women not to include some women among
them?
NB! In the last sentence NIV writes: ‘—, fading though it was.’ At that time Moses’ glory was not at all fading. This was actually at the top of his glory. But it refers
to the First Pact which was to be taken away, and that did not happen until Jesus’
death hundreds of years later.
Also: They all write steadily, steadfastly or intently. If you check the Greek text,
you will see that this has been added, and they all write the same even if it does not
say so in the Greek text. That is because they all copy King James. The proof is in
the mistakes.
THE PACT, 2CO 03:13. ‘But Moses laid a veil —’
NIV: ‘We are not like Moses who would put a veil over his face to keep the Israelites from gazing at it while the radiance was fading away.’
KJ-1611: ‘And not as Moses, which put a veil over his face, that the children of Israel could not steadfastly look to the end of that which is to abolish.’
NWT: ‘— and not doing as when Moses would put a veil upon his face that the sons
of Israel might not gaze intently at the end of that which was to be done away with.’
SHG: moseus tithemi kaluma epi prosopon huios israel atenizo atenizo telos
Trans.: moses lay
veil
over face
son israel see
see
end
katargeo
take away
THE PACT: But Moses laid a veil over his face so that the sons of Israel were unable to see that which was to finally be taken away.
COMMENT: It would have been enough just referring to this verse, because the
falsification is the same here as in the previous verses. Yet I have chosen to include
it to show how extensively and consistently these falsifications are being presented
through all of the Bible.
But there is more confusion here. It says that they ‘could not look to the end of that
which is to abolish.’ Of course not! If they were to do that, they must have lived for
more than 1500 years! These translations are all presenting such a breach of logic
that it is beyond comprehension! No wonder people do not understand the Bible.
250
THE PACT, 2CO 03:16. ‘It is when they convert to —’
NIV: ‘But whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away.’
KJ-1611: ‘Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the veil is taken away.’
NWT: ‘But when there is a turning to Jehovah, the veil is taken away.’
SHG: de henika epistrepho kurios kaluma periairo periairo
Trans.: so when convert
lord veil
take off take off
THE PACT: It is when they convert to the Lord* the veil is taken away. *Jesus Christ
COMMENT: Here Jehovah’s Witnesses have been a bit too eager when presenting
the Lord as Jehovah. Here the Lord refers to Jesus Christ. It is when the Jews convert
to the Lord Jesus Christ the veil is taken away. It is easily understood that it is that
way, because all the Jews who have a veil before their faces, are already converted
to Jehovah. But the Jews have this veil to this day just because they have refused to
convert to the Lord Jesus, and not because they have not converted to Jehovah, as
New World wrongfully writes. The sooner they correct this, the better — for them.
THE PACT, 2CO 05:14. ‘Our love of Christ forces us —’
NIV: ‘For Christ’s love compels, because we are convinced that one died for all, and
therefore all died.’ (What? Did all die because of Christ?)
KJ-1611: ‘For the love of Christ constraineth us; because we all judge, that if one
died for all, then were all dead.’
NWT: ‘For the love the Christ has compels us, because this is what we have judged,
that one man died for all, so then all had died.’
SHG: agape christos sunecho touto krino ei heis apothnesko pas ara
pas
Trans.: love christ force
this judge if one die
all because all
apothnesko
dead
THE PACT: Our love for Christ forces us, because we are convinced that one died
for all, for we were all dead.
COMMENT: The way NIV has translated this verse, we are all dead because Jesus
died. It has to be the opposite: Jesus died because we were all dead, ref. God’s judgement: ‘From dust you were taken, and to dust you shall return!’ (GEN 03:19) That
was all he said. And if not for Jesus’ acts, we would all have been dead in ages without a possibility of a resurrection.
251
THE PACT, 2CO 05:16, ‘And because of this, no one —’
NIV: ‘So from now on we regard no one from a worldly point of view. Though we
once regarded Christ in this way, we do so no longer.’ (Did you understand any
of this? I did not.)
KJ-1611: ‘Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh, though we have
known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we him no more.’ (We are closing
in. The last line confirms that from now on no one shall see Christ in the flesh, as a
person of flesh, blood and bones.)
NWT: ‘Consequently from now on we know no man according to the flesh. Even if
we have known Christ according to the flesh, certainly we now know him so no
more.’ (Will they no longer know anybody in the flesh, as human beings?)
SHG: hoste apo -ho -nun
eido oudeis oudeis kata sarx de ei_kai
Trans.: so
that what from now know no one no one after flesh so if also
ginosko christos kata sarx alla nun
eti
ginosko ouketi eti
know christ after flesh yet from now longer know longer any
THE PACT: And because of this, no one shall from now on know him in the flesh.
For if anyone also have known Christ in the flesh, yet from now on nobody shall any
longer know him in the flesh.
COMMENT: The word sarx means flesh in English, and to many the word gives unChristian connotations. Many translations avoid using the word flesh, and instead
write ‘man’s evil or sinful nature.’ It may be correct in some instances, but as you see
from this verse, the word flesh only in a neutral way refers to a human being, whether good or evil. In this verse Paul reminds us that some have even seen Jesus in the
flesh, as a man, and then it would be pretty far-fetched referring to his ‘evil or sinful
nature.’ It is often like that when you try to explain rather than translate. But this
verse is special, because here Paul confirms what Jesus himself said, that those of
this world would not longer see him. And in the next verse Paul refers to those who
have become new creations, those resurrected in the spirit after their death. They
shall see him.
Why all these falsifications? It is basically simple, but discouraging, because it is
such a grave example of Christian dishonesty. Most large organizations such as
Catholics, Protestants, Pentecostals, and especially the Adventist (advent referring
to Jesus’ second coming) teach in various ways that Jesus will return to this world
as a human being. So, instead of adjusting their faith to the Bible, they keep falsifying the Bible to agree with their own twisted beliefs!
It is a biblical fact that Jesus was resurrected in the spirit, and he will remain
in the spirit in ages!
252
THE PACT, 2CO 06:18. ‘I will be a Father to you, —’
NIV: ‘I will be a Father to you, and you will be my sons and daughters, says the
Lord Almighty.’
(NIV writes LORD when the Lord is Jehovah. But here they write Lord, a proof that
they think the Lord Almighty is Jesus Christ. In addition NIV does not refer to which
verse in the First Pact this is a quote from.)
KJ-1611: ‘And will be a Father unto you, and you shall be my sons and daughters,
saith the Lord Almighty.’ (This is exactly the same as NIV, or vice versa.)
NWT: ‘And I shall be a Father to you, and you will be sons and daughters to me,
says Jehovah the Almighty.’
SHG: pater huios [thugater] lego kurios pantokrator
Trans.: father son [daughter] say lord almighty
THE PACT: ‘I will be a Father to you, and you shall become my sons,’ says the
LORD,* the Almighty.
2SA 07:14 *JHVH
COMMENT 01: NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB! NB!
In this verse every modern English translation have added daughter. And it is the
same in the Greek text. It has also been tampered with. But this is a grave falsification in relation to the original and true contents of the word of God! How can I say
so when it also says so in the Greek text? That is simple! This verse is a direct reference, a direct quote, from Second Samuel 07:14, and it says nothing about daughters in that verse! It has been added in the translation from Hebrew to Greek. And
thereby it becomes a grave falsification. And this is just one, but one that is easy to
prove, example of how far the translators are willing to go to hide the fact that the
Bible is mainly about a priesthood of men without blemish, God’s people, God’s
Israel, God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec. (LEV 21:17-24)
In Revelation 11:07 John writes: ‘When they (the holy) had fulfilled their testimony,
the beast (Emperor Constantin of the Roman Empire) rose from the abyss (became
active) to go to battle against them (the holy), and to win over them and kill them.’
And that is how it has been to this day! They still lay dead in the street! (REV 11:08)
Almost every single so-called Christian rejects them! I once asked a very charismatic
Pentecostal who wanted me to become a member of his church, what relation he had
to the one hundred and forty-four thousand. Then he looked at me with dismay,
waved his arms in the air and exclaimed: ‘Oh, those guys! Them, heh, heh — I just
let them sail along on their own!’ — Yes, this verse is special! Again: If you study
the translation of THE PACT, you will see that the word daughter has been left out.
How may that be defended? Is not also that a falsification?
253
Not so. This is a translation from Second Samuel, verse 07: 14, and here follows the
Hebrew text translated word by word:
2SA 07:14
SHG: ‘ab
ben (‘asher ‘avah ‘avah yachach shebet ‘enovsh nega’ ben ‘adam)
Trans.: father son (when wrong wrong punish staff man
beat son man)
COMMENT 02: ‘I shall be a father to you, and you shall become my sons —’
NB! Again: Note that it does not say daughter in this verse! It is a direct falsification,
also in the Greek text. And I only refer to the first two words of this verse. The rest
is irrelevant as far as the falsification goes. But God shows that he will punish them
if they do something wrong according to God’s plan.
This is again a devious attempt at robbing the reader of a possibility of understanding
that the Bible is basically about ‘a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish.’
And you will have this confirmed if you read Leviticus 21:16-24 — with consideration. These are the ones whom Jesus will take to him as his heavenly brothers and
God’s adopted sons in the first, the spiritual, resurrection. The first who were chosen
to this priesthood, were the twelve apostles. And all were men! But twelve more are
to sit on God’s throne together with Christ. And the throne is a picture of where the
power originates from.
This must be especially embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses who cannot see that
this priesthood consists of men only! Based on falsifications such as this throughout
the Bible, they maintain that those who get to take part in the first resurrection, the
144.000, become gender neutral ‘on their way up.’ It is also so that if this priesthood
were to consist of daughters also, then it would not have been contrary to the word
of God having female priests or ministers.
THE ACT, 2CO 10:17. ‘Let him who wants to boast, —’
NIV: ‘But let him who boasts boast in the Lord.’ (What a confusion. Here they believe that the Lord is Jesus Christ.)
KJ-1611: ‘’But he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.’ (Here it is difficult to say
wheter they believe whether the Lord is God or Jesus, because they write Lord about
both of them.)
NWT: ‘But he that boast, let him boast in Jehovah.’ (Congratulations to Jehovah’s
Witnesses. They got this one right!)
SHG: kauchaomai kauchaomai kurios
Trans.: boast
boast
lord
254
THE PACT: For: ‘Let him who wants to boast, be boasting about Jehovah.’
JER 09:24
COMMENT: There are so many explanations away regarding the name Jehovah,
but one thing is for sure: This is a quote from Jeremijah 09:24, and the Hebrew texr
undeniably says Jehovah. Then it becomes a direct falsification replacing God’s proper name Jehovah with the title God, meaning mighty.
Here is the short Hebrew text of this verse:
SHG: ‘el’leh chaphets ne’um yehovah
Trans.: that boast
say
jehovah
English: He who boasts, say that of Jehovah
NB! Paul quotes from memory, and he uses somewhat other words than in the Hebrew text. But the content is the same. And — you do not need to understand much
Hebrew to see that the Hebrew text writes Jehovah, not Lord, or LORD.
Also in verse 18 the text refers to Jehovah, but that is not a quote from the First Pact,
and therefore it is not as easy to prove that the correct word is Jehovah, not Lord.
This mix of LORD, Lord and lord in the Bible, has caused many Christians to believe that God and Christ, Father and Son, origin and offspring, are one and the same
person. What stupidity. Can father, origin, and son, offspring, ever be the same?
THE PACT, 2CO 11:02. ‘For I am jealous of you —’
NIV: ‘I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband,
to Christ, so that I may present you as a pure virgin to him.’
KJ-1611: ‘For I am jealous of you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to
one husband, that I may preset you as chaste virgin to Christ.’
NWT: ‘For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, for I personally* promised
you in marriage to one husband that I might present you as a chaste virgin to the
Christ.’
*added
2CO 11:02
SHG: zeloo kata -theos zelos harmozo heis aner paristemi hagnos
Trans.: jealous of god jealousy promise one man* present
pure
parthenos christos
virgin
christ
*ref. the bride
255
THE PACT: ‘For I am jealous of you with a godly jealousy. Because I have promised you to a man, and I want to present you as pure virgins before Christ.’
COMMENT: This verse is presenting more a confusion of words than a wrongful
content. And to many, God being presented as jealous, is hard to swallow. But so is
the message of the Bible. ‘I am a jealous God!’
Gr. zeloo = jealous
The word husband is not of biblical origin, but builds on Western traditions. Also,
the last sentence is to be presented in the plural: As pure virgins before Christ. Paul
here addresses the church in Corinth, but their total number is one hundred and fortyfour thousand. They are God’s adopted sons and Jesus’ heavenly brothers, the holy,
the elect, the sealed. Together with Jesus they become the new creation — men of
flesh, blood and bones being resurrected as spiritual heavenly beings.
And after having become a spiritual, heavenly being there is no return, ref. JOH
10:09 which in most translations such as NIV based on King James wrongfully write
‘go in and come out,’ but in the Greek text it only says ‘enter.’ Their heavenly rescue
will last in ages.
256
in Romans
THE PACT, ROM 02:11. ‘For no one is favored by God.’
NIV: ‘For God does not show favoritism.’
KJ-1611: ‘For there is no respect of persons with God.’
NWT: ‘For there is no partiality with God.’
ROM 02:11
SHG: ou
prosopolepsia prosopolepsia theos
Trans.: no
favoritism
favoritism god
THE PACT: ‘For no one is favored by God.’
COMMENT: Both King James and NWT are here directly opposite to the rest of
the Bible. God is partial to individuals all the time based on their righteousness or
unrighteousness, ref. the election to the Melchizedec priesthood. Also consider the
different gifts or curses some people are exposed to from birth.
But what Paul refers to in this verse, is that God’s rescue now also applies to those
of the peoples no matter what ethnic group you belong to. And then it is mainly the
election to the first resurrection Paul refers to. It is no longer limited to the Levite
priests only, but now applies to every individual regardless of ethnicity.
This is both factual and easy to understand, but as a result of centuries of biblical
falsifications many Christians have a problem with this. And then they take the easy
way out. The common refrain is: ‘Hold on to the faith of your childhood!’ Yes, they
also say the same in Iran.
THE PACT, ROM 02:12. ‘In that way all who sin —’
NIV: ‘All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who
sin under the law will be judged by the law.’
257
Wrongly Translated Verses in Romans
KJ-1611: ‘For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and
as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.’
NWT: ‘For instance, all those who sinned without law will also perish without law;
but all those who sinned under law will be judged by law.’
SHG: hosos hamartano anomos kai apollumi anomos anomos hosos
Trans.: who sin
lawless also be lost lawless lawless who
hamartano nomos krino nomos
sin
law
judge law
THE PACT: In that way all who sin without law, shall be lost without law. But all
who sin under law, shall be judged according to the law.
COMMENT: Here they all refer to the perdition, and then they believe in the immortal soul’s ageous torment in a burning hell. It is guaranteed not a biblical teaching! When the Bible talks about being lost, it refers to losing the election to God’s
heavenly priesthood. It was the beginning of this election Jesus started when he
chose the twelve apostles. And they were all men! But was not that terribly bad? It
has to be a discrimination against women! Should he not rather have followed the
equal gender policies and chosen at least 40% women?
Norwegian translations write children where it says sons and add daughters where
it does not say so in the text! And lately they have started to write siblings where the
text says brothers.
All this must be good examples for everybody to follow! No! Jesus was not preoccupied with mundane gender policies. He followed God’s plan of the election of a
priesthood of men without blemish! And Paul states that this election does not depend on whether you have been under the law or not, but whether you have been a
righteous person in relation to God’s plan and will.
Read the parables of the lost sheep and the lost son and you will see that none of
them were exposed to ageous torment. But when they translate abut the sheep, they
write loose the way it says in the text. But when they translate about the son, they
write perdition which is definitely not from the Greek text. —
Long live God’s righteous men — and women!
A question: When a journalist writes a report about a soccer match with two teams
of twelve men each, is it then discriminating against women not to include a few
women among them?
258
THE PACT, ROM 05:07. ‘Hardly anybody will die for a righteous man. —’
NIV: ‘Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die.’
KJ-1611: ‘For scarcely for a righteous man will one die: peradventure for a good
man some would even dare to die.’
NWT: ‘For hardly will anybody die for a righteous man, indeed, for the good man
perhaps, someone even dare to die.’
ROM 05:07
SHG: molis dikaios tis apothnesko gar tacha agathos tis tolmao apothnesko
Trans.:hardly just
any die
but maybe good any dare die
THE PACT: Hardly anybody will die for a righteous man, even if some good ones
maybe would dare to die for him.
COMMENT: Check the texts! What is the difference between dying for a righteous
man and dying for a good man? No, that is exactly the same! Here they are again
guilty of a silly breach of logic all based on the translation of King James. It is no big
matter, but at the same time irritating. The Greek text says that maybe some good
men would be willing to die for someone who is righteous!
THE PACT, ROM 06:07. ‘Because he who has died, —’
NIV: ‘— because anybody who has died has been freed from sin.’
KJ-1611: ‘For he that is dead is freed from sin.’
NWT: ‘For he who has died, has been acquitted from his sin.’
SHG: apotnesko dikaioo hamartia
Trans.: die
buy free sin
THE PACT: ‘For he who has died, has been bought free from his sins.’
COMMENT: NB! This verse causes confusion, and most Christian leaders reject
what it says here. And therefore they interpret it in so many different ways, but
always without telling the truth.
KJ and NIV have a correct, but general translation which interpreters take advantage
of. They claim that when you have died, you are not only free from sin, but then you
259
are free from everything that had to do with this life. Correct, but a deviation from
a correct understanding of the very text. It says in the Bible that the wages of sin are
death, the first death because of Adam. But when you have to give your life because
of Adam’s disobedience, you have paid the ultimate price for your sins. You have
nothing more to give. And therefore you have been paid free from your sins with
your own life as payment. This is so factual and simple, but many, especially the
religious leaders, reject it. It does not agree with their teaching of the immortal soul’s
torment in a burning hell! But then ask them what happen to a person, man or
woman, who has never heard of neither God nor Christ before they died. Many claim
that they are burning in hell! But the true answer is simple: They rest in their graves
until they get a resurrection together with all, righteous, those who have believed in
God, and the unrighteous, those who have not believed in God, in an earthly resurrection of their souls! It is their actions after the resurrection, after they have experienced the power of God, that will decide whether they will get a life in ages or if they
will have to suffer the second, the ever lasting, death. And that has nothing to do with
the false and horrible teaching of burning in hell!
Sometimes I feel sad that there is no hell, because those who teach this, would most
certainly deserve the result of their own teaching. Remember that it says in Matthew
07:02 that the judgement you give others, you will receive yourself!
NWT has a correct translation of this verse even though the word acquitted is not in
the Greek text. It is always a chance to take if you deviate from the true meaning of
the Greek text, but in this case it does make the text clearer. And being acquitted is
very close, almost identical, to being bought free.
THE PACT, ROM 08:15. ‘For you have not received —’
NIV: ‘For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you
received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry: “Abba! Father!”
NB! Note that NIV wrongfully refers to the Spirit as he!
KJ-1611: ‘For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have
received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.’
NB! Note that KJ writes ‘the Spirit of adoption,’ and in that way making it gender
neutral. But they correctly write whereby about the Spirit.
NWT: ‘For you did not receive the spirit of slavery causing fear again, but you
received a spirit of adoption as sons, by which spirit we cry out: “Abba, Father!”
NB! Note that NWT correctly writes ‘adopted as sons.’ And that is what ‘getting the
sonship’ means — being adopted as sons.
260
SHG: echo lambano pneuma douleia palin phobos lambano pneuma huithesia
Trans.: have receive spirit
slavery again fear
receive spirit sonship
en hos krazo abba pater
by that call abba father
THE PACT: For you have not received the spirit so that you again shall become
slaves under fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship, and by it you shall call:
‘Abba, Father!’
COMMENT: Here it develops from insane to correct: NIV refers to the Spirit as a
he, which is as far from the truth you can come. KJ refers to the Spirt of adoption,
which omits the word son to make it gender neutral. And finally NWT writes adopted as sons, which is indisputably correct in reference to the Greek text.
THE PACT, ROM 08:19. ‘In anticipation the creation —’
NIV: ‘For the creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.’
KJ-1611: ‘For the earnest expectation of the of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.’
NB! What creature?
NWT: ‘For the eager expectation of the creation is waiting for the revealing of the
sons of God.’
NB! What is ‘the eager expectation?’ Is it not to be ‘in eager expectation the creation —?’
NB! In these verses the very most Scandinavian translations write children instead
of sons. And in that way they effectively and willfully hide for the reader that the
sons of God are a heavenly priesthood of men without blemish. In all translations it
is customary to, in one way or another, hide the fact that most of the Bible is about
these 144.000 that will be part of the first resurrection together with Jesus. They constitute the heavenly division of the Realm of God. (EPH 01:10)
SHG: apokaradokia apokaradokia ktisis apekdechomai apokalupsis huios theos
Trans.: anticipation anticipation creation look forward revelation son god
THE PACT: In anticipation the creation looks forward to the revelation of the sons
of God.
261
NB! Note that in verse 16 it does say children, because also sons are children. Then
the Greek word is teknon and never huios.
COMMENT: What is so special about these sons of God that all of creation, man
and beast, are looking forward to their being revealed? These are the ones that
basically make up the Realm of God. And the major purpose of Jesus’ coming to the
earth, was to establish the Realm of God. Only when God’s heavenly government is
in full number, it will happen what we all the time read about in Father in the
heavens, but without most of us understanding it: ‘Let your Realm come, and let your
will happen on the earth and in the heavens.’ And that all of creation will re-joice
when there no longer is need, death and misery on the earth, most understand. But
why will also the animals rejoice? Yes, then people will no longer be eating their
flesh, or hunt them for trophies, and the animal instinct will diminish a little by little.
And this is the way it was from the beginning. Man was only allowed to eat fruits
and vegetables. (GEN 01:29)
NB! Again we see that some translations write children instead of sons here. And
believe me, or let it be, but all of the Bible is about these 144.000 plus the One. They
make up the heavenly division of the Realm of God. Jesus’ acts on the earth would
have been totally worthless if it had not led to the establishment of the Realm of God.
And it was the election of these sons of the Realm Jesus started when he chose the
twelve apostles! How many were women? Do you think it was coincidental?
Note also that Jesus’ death was no goal in itself. It would have been all in vain if it
had not led to the establishment of the Realm of God — first in the heavens and then
on the earth. It was the heavenly members of the Realm of God Jesus started electing
when he chose the twelve apostles.
Finally, note how carefully THE PACT follows the Greek text in its translation. And
that without the English text becoming linguistically reduced.
THE PACT, ROM 08:23. ‘Not only that, but also we —’
NIV: ‘Not only so, but we ourselves who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan
inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.’
NB! What does it mean ‘to have the firstfruits of the Spirit?’
KJ-1611: ‘And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the
redemption of our body.’
NB! Again: What does it mean ‘having the firstfruit of the spirit?’
NWT: ‘Not only that, but we ourselves also who have the firstfruits, namely the
spirit, yes, we ourselves groan within ourselves, while we are earnestly waiting for
adoption as sons, the release of our bodies by ransom.’
262
NB! Did you understand this? And one more time: What does it mean ‘having the
firstfruit of the spirit?’ And: Do you now see how evident it is that they copy each
other?
SHG: monon kai echo aparche
Trans.: only also have firstfruit
pneuma kai stenazo en heoutou
spirit also sigh
by self
apecdechomai huiothesia apolutris soma
look forward sonship
redemption body
THE PACT: Not only that, but also we who are of the firstfruit of the spirit, sigh
to ourselves and look forward to the sonship through the redemption of our bodies.
COMMENT: What is the redemption of their bodies? That happens when they receive a spiritual resurrection as a firstfruit to a heavenly glory as God’s adopted sons
and Jesus’ heavenly brothers. This is the first resurrection, the firstfruit. Then they
have been redeemed from death. The rest of the creation will have a resurrection of
the soul on the earth. That is the second resurrection, but that will not happen until
toward the end of the thousand years — after all of the firstfruit have been collected
to a heavenly glory and rules with Christ.
You may read about the first, the spiritual, resurrection in First Thessalonians 04:1318. The second resurrection is only shortly mentioned by Paul in Acts 24:15. Read
it with consideration!
NB! Note the simple Greek text and THE PACT’s simple and easy to understand
translation almost word by word following the Greek text. Then compare with the
other translations. How can their translations be so corresponding and all so far away
from having a correct translation?
THE PACT, ROM 08:26. ‘In the same way he* also help —’
*Christ
NIV: ‘In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what
we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words
cannot express.’
NB! What a confusion! Here they have again made the Spirit, God’s personality, into
a person of the male gender. It is unforgivable.
KJ-1611: ‘Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we
should pray for as we ought but the Spirit itself maketh intercessions for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered.’
263
NWT: ‘In like manner the spirit also joins in with help for our weakness, for the
problem of what we should pray for as we need to we do not know, but the soirit
itself pleads for us with groanings unuttered.’
SHG: hosautos pneuma kai sumantilambanamai astheneia eido tis
Trans.: same way spirit
also help
weakness know what
proseuchomai dei pneuma autos huperentugchano huperentugchano stenagmos
pray
will spirit
self intervene
intervene
sigh
alathos
alathos
unspeakable unspeakable
THE PACT: The same way he also help us in the spirit when we in our weakness
do not know what to ask for. Then he himself in the spirit will go between for us with
sighs that cannot be pronounced.
COMMENT: The Spirit, God’s Spirit and the Holy Spirit are identical. They make
up what emanates from God, his personality and strength. The Spirit is never in the
Bible presented at a person neither of the soul nor of the spirit the way so many are
fabling about. And here there is a great divide between the unbiblical proponents of
the trinity and the Bible’s correct teaching of God’s sovereignty. He who mediates,
or intercedes, is without exception Jesus Christ. And the Spirit of Christ is identical
to the Spirit of God. They represent the same.
Again: It is always the Man Jesus Christ, but now in a spiritual existence, who is the
Mediator between God and man. It says so directly in First Timothy 02:05. Read it,
and never forget it!
Both NIV and K.J. and even NWT, have translated this verse as if the Spirit were a
person. That is as far from the biblical truth as you can get!
Do I have proof of my claim? Yes, it is enough reading the next verse — with consideration. There it says, and now you need to check the Greek text. I would like to
present NIV’s version, but there it is as twisted as ever! So here I first present the
Greek text and then the presentation of THE PACT:
ROM 08:27
SHG: ereunao kardia eide tis phronema pneuma hoti enthugchano
Trans.: search heart know what purpose spirit
when go between
entugchano hagios kata
theos
go between holy before god
264
THE PACT: But he** who searches our hearts, knows what his* purpose is when
he** in the spirit will go between for the holy before God.
*God **Christ
THE PACT, ROM 09:04. ‘Because it was the Israelites —’
NIV: 04 ‘— the people of Israel. Theirs is the adoption as sons; theirs the divine
glory, the covenants, the receiving of the law, the temple worship and the promises.
05 Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ,
who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.’
NB! This is gross! Here they have made Jesus Christ into God the Almighty.
KJ-1611: ‘Who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and
the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
05 Whose are the fathers, and from whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who
is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.’
NB! Also in this translation Jesus has been made into God the Almighty, but not as
directly as in NIV.
NWT: ‘— who, as such, are Israelites, to whom belong the adoption as sons and the
glory and the covenants and the giving of the Law (NWT writes Law with an uppercase L, but spirit with a lowercase s) and the sacred service and the promises.; 05 to
whom the forefathers belong and from whom the Christ sprang according to the
flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever.
NB! In NW’s translation God is God the Almighty and Jesus Christ is God’s Son.
SHG: hostis israelites hos huiothesia doxa diatheke nomothesia nomothesia
Trans.: because israelite who sonship glory pact
lawgiving lawgiving
latreia epaggelia hos pater hos kata sarx christos
service promise that father that after flesh christ
THE PACT: Because it was the Israelites who had the sonship, the glory, the pacts,
the giving of the law, the service to God and the promises. This belonged to our fathers, and from them has Christ descended in the flesh.
SHG: ho epi pas theos eulogetes aion amen
Trans.: who over all god bless
age amen
THE PACT: He who stands above all, God, be praised in ages! Amen.
NB! In order to make this clear as crystal THE PACT has added the first sentence in
verse 05 to verse 04. is that the same as fiddling about with the word of God? No, on
265
the contrary! Originally the biblical texts were written as one long sentence with-out
separating the words, without capital letters or punctuation. Only during the 16th
century the Bible was divided into chapters and verses the way it is today. And then
it becomes a bit thoughtless when they have separated one biblical verse in the
middle of a sentence or in the middle of a connecting line of thought. Also THE
PACT follows the same separation, but is not slavishly bound to it. THE PACT also
presents Paul’s books in the order he wrote them.
Who were the Israelites, or the sons of Israel as the First Pact always refers to them?
Yes, they were all of Israel’s offsprings of the male gender. Did all of the sons of
Israel receive the promise of the sonship? No, that was originally reserved to the
Levites through the Levite priesthood — a priesthood of men without blemish. (LEV
21:16-24) And it was in order to elect the heavenly priesthood, Jesus and the 144.
000, the Levite priesthood was established, ref. the temple service.
Note how clearly THE PACT distinguishes between God and Jesus in its translation!
That is also how it is in the original texts. Any clearer than this it cannot be.
Note also the difference a punctuation or a comma may make:
KJ-1611: ‘— and from whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all,
God blessed for ever.’
NB! In this verse Christ has been made into God the Almighty.
‘— and from whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. Who is above all, God blessed forever. Amen.’
NB! Just by changing the comma to a period Christ is no longer God the Almighty.
A comma includes. A period separates.
THE PACT, ROM 09:05. ‘He who stands above all, God, —’
NIV: ‘Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of
Christ, who is God over all, forever praised! Amen.’
KJ-1611: ‘Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,
who is over all, God blessed forever.’
NWT: ‘— to whom the forefathers belonged and from them the Christ sprang according to the flesh: God, who is over all, be blessed forever. Amen.’
SHG: ho epi pas theos eulogetes aion amen
Trans.: who over all god bless
age amen
THE PACT: He who stands above all, God, be praised in ages! Amen.
266
COMMENT: The translation of NIV clearly referring to Christ as God the Almighty
in their translation, is not only a grave falsification, but making God smaller then he
is, borders on blasphemy! King James is guilty of the same sin, while NWT, on the
other hand, has got this right.
NB! To make this crystal clear THE PACT has separated the last sentence, the praise
to God as the Sovereign of the universe, from the rest of the text. Is that not meddling
with the word of God? No, on the contrary, it is making it clearer. As for the division
into chapters, paragraphs and verses, this is not from the original text which was
written as one long line without capitalization of the words of punctuation of the sentences. The division that we have today was not introduced until the 14th century
after the Bible had become available to the common man and woman.
THE PACT, ROM 09:26. ‘It shall happen in that place —’
NIV: ‘It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not
my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’
NB! Here NIV correctly writes sons.
KJ-1611: ‘And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them,
Ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God.’
NB! Here King James incorrectly writes children.
NWT: ‘— and in the place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there
they will be called the sons of the living God.’
NB! Here also NWT correctly writes sons.
SHG: einai topos hou rheo laos ekei kaleo huios zao
theos
Trans.: be place where say people there call son living god
THE PACT: ‘It shall happen in that place where it is said to them: Even if you have
not been my people, you will instead of them be called ‘the sons of the living God.’
HOS 01:10
COMMENT: Paul here refers to the sons of Israel being rejected as God’s chosen
people and the replacement of those of the peoples instead of the sons of Israel. And
that was a great mystery to all at that time. But the mystery does not only refer to the
election of those of the peoples to replace the sons of Israel, but to all of the heavenly order — the new creation where a human being of flesh and blood is transformed to a spiritual person. This was something totally new even to the sons of Israel
although they ought to have understood through the very order of the temple, ref.
Jesus’ conversation with Nicodemus in John chap. 03.
267
Why is it so important to both the Catholic and the Lutheran Churches to hide that
the Bible is basically about a priesthood of men without blemish? Is it to protect the
credibility of women priests? Do they not know that today there is no priesthood of
neither men nor women that has been established by God? (ACT 02:47, HEB 05:04)
THE PACT, ROM 09:29. ‘For Isaiah has predicted: —’
NIV: ‘It is just as Isaiah said previously: “Unless the Lord Almighty had left us descendants, we would have been like Sodom, we would have been like Gomorrah.”’
KJ-1611: ‘And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed,
we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.’
NWT: ‘Also, just as Isaiah had said aforetime: “Unless Jehovah of armies had left
a seed to us, we should have become just just like Sodom, and we should have been
made just like Gomorrah.’
SHG: hesaias proereo proereo ei_me kurios sabaoth egkataleipo sperma
Trans.: isaiah presay presay if no lord
multitude be left
semen
ginomai sodomao homoioo homoioo gomorrah
happen sodoma like
like
gomorrah
THE PACT: For Isaiah has predicted: ‘If not Jehovah of multitudes had let the Semen be reserved for us, it would have happened like in Sodom and we would have
become like those who were in Gomorrah.’
ISA 28:16, ISA 08:14
COMMENT: Yehovah tsaba’ is a firm expression from the First Pact. It is being
used in scores of verses. Paul here uses the same expression in Greek; kurios sabaoth. But as you see God’s name Jehovah has as usual been left out and replaced with
the title Lord. Here rules quite some confusion: The word tsaba’, gr. sabaoth, means
multitude: And God’s creation consists of multitudes. And it is the multitude of
God’s creation the Bible praises Jehovah of when it refers to the Jehovah of multitudes.
Believing that this has anything to do with regular armies, and that all these armies
belong to Jehovah, is a bit naive, yes, it brings forth the smile.
The word army means multitude. And that is exactly what an army is: A multitude
of people, soldiers. But also God’s creation consists of multitudes: Planets, stars,
people, animals, fishes, birds, fruits, etc. It is this creation of multitudes the Bible
praises Jehovah of when referring to Jehovah of multitudes. Believing that this has
anything to do with regular armies, and that these armies should belong to Jehovah,
is quite naive, especially to Jehovah’s Witnesses who all are conscientious objectors.
268
The Semen is Christ, and without Christ mankind, including the Jews, would have
become to nothing, ref. those who were exterminated in Sodom and Gomorrah. There
would of course still be people on the earth, but as each and every individual died,
they would have suffered the second death without a possibility of a resurrection, ref.
God’s judgement on Adam in Genesis 03:19, THE PACT: ‘From dust you are, and
to dust you shall return!’ And that was all God said on that occasion.
THE PACT, ROM 10:13. ‘For: All who call on the name —’
NIV: ‘— for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.’
KJ-1611: ‘For whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’
NWT: ‘For ‘everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.’
SHG: pas -hos -en epikaleomai onoma kurios sozo
Trans.: all who on call on
name lord
rescue
THE PACT: For: ‘All who call on the name of Jehovah, will be rescued.’ JOE 03:05
COMMENT: It is a bit hard understanding why basically all write the Lord when
the original text says Jehovah. And as you see, this is not only in the translations, but
also in the original Greek text.
I also mention that Jehovah’s Witnesses use this verse as a proof of the conditions
of being rescued, namely the physical use of the name Jehovah. But in order to understand this correctly, it is important to know that the name refers to the very act.
It is not a question of physically using the name Jehovah or not. On the other hand
they might have a point because in a false way omitting the use of the name Jehovah,
may lead the believer astray.
The meaning of God’s proper name Jehovah is hayah hayah = I shall fulfill, I shall
fulfill. The word hayah is being used more than a thousand times in the Hebrew text.
It is always an active verb and can therefore not mean ‘I am’ which is an auxiliary.
Yet it has been firmly, but falsely, established in Christianity that the meaning of
God’s proper name is ‘I am.’ And they refuse to use the word Jehovah.
NB! The Hebrew text in Joel 03:05 says Jehovah. Then writing the Lord in the translation becomes a falsification!
THE PACT, ROM 11:11, ‘I ask. Did they stumble so that —’
NIV: ‘Again I ask: Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all!
Rather, because of their transgressions, salvation has come to the gentiles to make
Israel envious.’
269
KJ-1611: ‘I say then, Have they stumbled that they may fall? God forbid: but
rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to
jealousy?
NWT: ‘Therefore I ask, Did they stumble so that they fell completely? Never may
that happen! But by their false step there is salvation to the peoples of the nations,
to incite them to jealousy.’
SHG: ereo oun ptaio pipto me -ginomai me -ginomai paraptoma soteria
Trans.: si så snuble falle aldri skje
aldri skje
feiltrinn
redning
ethnos
parazeloo
folkeslag sjalu
THE PACT: I ask: Did they stumble so that they would fall? That can never happen! But because of their mistakes the rescue came to the peoples to make them
envious.
COMMENT: First King James claims that they did not fall. But just a few words
later King James refers to their fall! Confusing? Yes, indeed! It is so that sometimes
you cannot believe your own eyes.
Check the Greek text and you will see that beyond recovery has been added by NIV
and completely by NWT.
THE PACT, ROM 11:12. ‘But if their mistakes are riches —’
NIV: ‘But if their transgressions means riches for the world, and their loss meas
riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fulness bring?’
KJ-1611: ‘Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of
then be the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their fulness.’
NWT: ‘Now if their false step means riches to the world, and their decrease means
riches to the peoples of the nations, how much more will the full number of them
mean it?’
Did you understand any of this? I think not. And neither did I or anybody else. And
definitely not the translators, because this is total confusion. And their lack of understanding leads to their copying of King James. And also the Greek text is unclear.
SHG: de ei paraptoma ploutos kosmos hettema ploutos ethnos posos
Trans.: but if mistake riche world
loss
riches ethnic how much
270
posos
mallon pleroma
how much greater full number
THE PACT: But if their mistakes are riches to the world and their loss riches to
those of the peoples, how much greater will not their loss be when we are in full
number?
COMMENT: This borders on complete confusion! What fulness do they refer to?
No, this refers to a full number. The full number that Paul refers to, is the 144.000.
And few Jews originally converted to Christ so that they could be part of this number — the number of God’s heavenly priesthood. The Jewish priests were rejected
by Jesus. Therefore, after the year 36 the election was no longer reserved the Levites, but concentrated on those of the peoples. And after this the majority of those
elected to the priesthood, were of the peoples. The Jewish priests had excluded
themselves through rejecting Jesus. And that was their mistake that led to riches for
the rest of the world because they accepted Jesus as God’s heavenly son. And
therefore the loss of the Jews becomes even greater when those of the peoples have
come in in full number, because then the door will be closed to them. They have then
totally lost the heavenly election! Their only chance now, to those among them who
did not blaspheme the Holy Spirit, is to become part of the second resurrection, that
of their souls on the earth.
NB! If you consider these three translations carefully, you will see that they claim
that the Jews will come in in full number. That is directly contrary to the rest of the
message of the Bible and also to their own translation of ROM 11:25. Also verse
11:25 refers to this full number. It becomes clearer there, the translations referring
to those of the peoples, but in that verse most translations are contrary to their own
translation of 11:12 where they write that the Jews will be in full number. Check it.
THE PACT, ROM 11:18. ‘But do not boast that you are —’
NIV: ‘— do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: ‘You do not support the root, but the root supports you.’
NB! The root is God, the trunk is Christ and the branches are the members of God’s
heavenly priesthood.
KJ-1611: ‘Boast not against the branches. But if you boast, thou bearest not the root,
but the root thee.’
NWT: ‘— do not be exulting over the branches. If, though, you are exulting over
them, it is not you that bears the root, but the root that bears you.’
271
SHG: katakauchaomai katakauchaomai klados ei bastazo
rhiza rhiza
Trans.: boast
boast
branch if nourishment root root
THE PACT: But do not boast that you are of the branches that were grafted in, because it is not you who give nourishment to the root, but the root that gives nourishment to you.
COMMENT: Remember that this is a parable, and parables are always presented in
pictures. The original branches are a picture of the Levite priesthood, those who were
broken off. (MAT 21:43) ‘The Realm of God shall be taken from you, —’
The branches that were grafted in, are a picture of Jesus’ apostles together with those
of the peoples. (MAT 21:43) ‘— and given to the peoples who will bear its fruits.’
The root that gives sap, is a picture of God, the trunk that grows directly from the
root, is a picture of Jesus, and the branches that were grafted in on the trunk, are a
picture of the members of God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec.
In verse 12 Paul refers to a full number, and the full number he refers to are the 144.
000. They make up the full number of the members of God’s heavenly priesthood,
divided according to the same pattern as the Levite priesthood. All of the Bible is
about the bringing forth if this priesthood which members God has set his seal on —
first the High Priest, Christ, (JOH 06:26) and then the priests, the 144. 000. (REV 07:
04) Together they make up the heavenly division of the Realm of God, those who are
to rule over the earth. (EPH 01:10) Then he will ‘include all in one under Christ,
both that which is in the heavens and that which is on the earth.’ That is so simple,
but yet so difficult, for it neither agrees with the Pope nor Martin Luther.
NB! Remember the Bible is written after the principle of the puzzle. You need to get
the very most of the pieces in the right place to get a clear picture.
THE PACT, ROM 11:25. ‘Because I do not, brothers —’
NIV: ‘I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not
be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the
Gentiles has come in.’
NB! Here they have got it correct by referring to the full number being those of the
peoples.
KJ-1611: ‘For I would not, brethern, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest
you should be wise in your own conceits, that blindness in part is happened to Israel,
until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.’
NWT: ‘For I do not you, brothers, to be ignorant of this secret, in order that you not
be discreet in you own eyes; that a dulling of sensibilities has happened in part to
Israel until the full number of the people of the nations have come in.’
SHG: thelo adelphos agnoeo tauta musterion hina -me
Trans.: wish brother ignorant this mystery so that no
272
phronomos para
wise
from
heautou heautou para -heautou porosis meros ginomai israel achri pleroma
self
self
from self
harden part become israel until full number
ethnos eiserchomai
ethnic come in
THE PACT: Because I do not, brothers, want you to be ignorant of this mystery, so
that you shall not become wise on your own: A part of Israel has been exposed to a
hardening until the full number of the peoples has come in.
COMMENT: Here Paul again refers to a full number, and he clearly states that the
hardening of the Jews will last until those of the peoples have come in in full number. And that being the case the priesthood will become completed without Israel
being part of the election, except for those who accepted Jesus from the beginning,
for instance the twelve apostles, except Judas plus Matthias, and some of the priests
who believed in Jesus. — What about today’s Israel?
NB! It is common Christian philosophy that all of Israel, including today’s physical
Israel, will become converted and rescued before the second coming of the Messiah.
There are no such indications in the Bible, and here Paul refers to the hardening, the
rejection of Christ, that will strike them. Most of them are still walking about waiting for the first coming of the Messiah. They do indeed have a long wait ahead of
them. — What then about the next two verses?
THE PACT, ROM 11:26. ‘In this way all of Israel —’
NIV: ‘26 And so all of Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The deliverer will come
from Zion; he will turn ungodliness away from Jacob.”’
KJ-1611: ‘And so all of Israel shall be saved, as it is written, There shall come out
of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.’
NWT: ‘26 ‘— and in this manner all of Israel will be saved. Just as it is written: “The
deliverer will come out of Zion and turn away ungodly practices from Jacob.’
SHG: houto pas israel sozo grapho heko sion rhumai apostrepho apostrepho
Trans.: thus all israel rescue write come zion deliverer take away take away
apostrepho asbeia
iakobos
take away ungodliness jacob
273
THE PACT: In this way all of Israel will be rescued, as it is written: ‘When the Deliverer comes from Zion, he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.
COMMENT: There are many nuances that need to fall in place in order to understand this, mostly because of many unclear translations. First: What is and where is
the Zion Paul here refers to? Zion was a hill-section in old Jerusalem where David
built up his power-center. And we know that the kingdom of David was an example
of Jesus’ heavenly rule.
Today Jesus metaphorically sits on the throne, where the power originates from, together with God. (REV 14:01) And their power-center is today the heavenly Zion in
the new, heavenly Jerusalem. (REV 03:12, REV 21:02) And it is when the members
of the priesthood have come in in full number, after Jesus has gathered the bride, that
the great feast begins in the heavens. And it is also then he will direct his attention
toward the earth and exterminate all ungodliness from the earth, also from Jacob, the
way he has already done in the heavens. (REV 12:07-12) And then there will only
be a righteous remnant left, also of Jacob.
And it is this remnant that then will make up ‘all of Israel.’
‘In this way’ refers to how, but most translations, based on K.J., write so, referring
to time. The Greek text refers to how. And thereby it is not correct to translate that
‘so all of Israel will be saved.’ But also remember that there was no country called
Israel at that time. When the Bible refers to Israel at the time of Jesus, it always refers to the descendants of Israel. And those descendants of Israel who lived at the
time of Jesus, were mainly Judaites and Benjamites. Also, when the Bible refers to
Israel, it refers to ‘those who have persevered in strife with God (and received his
blessing).’ ‘God’s Israel’ in Galatians 06:16 refers to those who get to take part in
the first resurrection. It has nothing to do with today’s Israel, the mundane state that
was established in 1947, being rescued the way so many charismatics keep howling
about. ‘Nobody comes to my Father except through me.’ You will not find anywhere
in the Bible that God has made an exception to physical Jews or Israelites. And today’s Israel has rejected Jesus as God’s Messiah, God’s Anointed.
THE PACT, ROM 11:27. ‘For such is the pact I have made
with them —’
NIV: ‘And this is my covenant with them when I take away their sins.’
KJ-1611: ‘For this is my covenant with them, when I shall take away their sins.’
NWT: ‘And this is the covenant on my part with them , when I take their sins away.’
274
SHG: houtos diatheke hotan aphaireo aphaireo hamartia
Trans.: such pact
when cut off cut off sin
THE PACT: For such is the pact I have made with them when I cut them off from
their sins.
ISA 59:20-21
COMMENT: I am not going into details about this, because it has also been explained in the previous verse. But how does God take sin away from Israel? Yes, in
the same way he does it to those of the peoples — when he eradicates all ungodliness!
THE PACT, ROM 11:36. ‘For everything is from himself. —’
NIV: For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory
forever. Amen.’
KJ-1611: ‘For of him, and through him, are all things: to whom be glory forever.
Amen.’
NWT: ‘Because from him and by him and for him are all things. To him be the glory
forever. Amen.’
SHG: dia pas autos doxa aion amen
Trans.: for all self glory age amen
THE PACT: For everything is from himself! — The glory is his in ages! Amen.
COMMENT: Here they all use the word forever in their translations, which is a better choice than the constructed word eternal, eternally, which has developed to mean
‘without end.’ That is not quite correct according to the Greek text. The ancient
Greek language Koine has as many as five different words referring to time:
Gr. hora = moment, hour (he short time). It is the same word as the English hour.
Gr. hemera = day, period, phase (the intermediate time of extremely variable
length. (A day is not always identical to 24 hours. The various days of creation in
Genesis varies by millions of years).
Gr. aion = time, age (the long time that in English is often wrongfully translated
eternal, eternally).
Gr. aionious = of time, timous, agous (the adjective and adverb connected to the
word aion.) It is hard to find a good translation into English. THE PACT often writes
ageous which may also be a constructed word, but yet an attempt at getting closer to
the original meaning.
275
Gr. aion aion = age and ages (the word is used twice consecutively to accentuate
the length. It is often wrongly translated ‘in eternities of eternities.’ The correct expression is ‘in age and ages.’
Gr. chronos = time (the general time)
Gr. cairos = time (the specific time)
Yes, even if it may be unusual and maybe strange to an eager reader of the Bible,
THE PACT has taken the consequence of this and write age, age and ages and
ageous where aion is being used as an adjective or adverb. The Bible is probably the
most falsified of all books as most denominations alter it to agree with their own
teachings and misunderstandings. Then I hope it feels secure knowing that THE
PACT is neural of any such attitudes. THE PACT is only searching the uncompromising truth of the original texts. And why not, even if this may result in disagreements with such established organizations as the Catholic and Lutheran Churches.
But ‘how it is, is how it is’ and ‘right is right’ even if the truth is unpleasant to some!
THE PACT, ROM 12:16. ‘Have the same mind toward —’
NIV: ‘Live in harmony with one another. Do not be proud, but be willing to associate with people in low position. Do not be conceited.’
KJ-1611: ‘Be of the same mind to one another. Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate. Be not wise in your own conceits.’
NWT: ‘Be minded in the same way to others as to yourselves; do not be minded lofty
things, but be led along with the lowly things. Do not become discreet in your own
eyes.’
SHG: autos phroneo allelon
eis
allelon
phroneo hupselos sunapago
Trans.: same mind each other toward each other mind elevate keep with
tapeinos phrominos humon heautou para heatou
low
wise
your self
with self
THE PACT: Have the same mind toward each other. Do not seek the elevated, but
keep together with those in low position. Do not be conceited.
COMMENT: At the first throw of the eye this verse may seem complex, which also
the different translations prove. And this much because of un-English expressions.
All of these translations include some good and some bad. Referring to the word
thing on every occasion may result in an unclear and confusing linguistic solution.
The word thing lacks meaning, for instance what are lofty things and lowly things?
It is difficult for any reader to imagine that lofty things refer to elevated persons and
276
lowly things to people of low estate. Evaluate each translation and see which is easiest to understand. But be just as positive and just as negative to all of them. Do not
be partial or conceited in your own knowledge. That is the main content of this verse.
THE PACT, ROM 14:15. ‘But if a brother is burdened —’
NIV: ‘If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting
in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.’
KJ-1611: ‘But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest though not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died.’
NWT: ‘For if because of food your brother is being grieved, you are no longer walking in accord with love. Do not by your food ruin that one for whom Christ died.’
SHG: ei adelphos lupeo broma ouketi peripateo kata -agape apollumi
Trans.: if brother burden eat
longer wander after love
lose
broma hos christos apothnesko
food that christ die
THE PACT: But if a brother is burdened by something you eat, you do not act with
love. Do not let one for whom Christ has died, become lost because of food.
COMMENT: The Greek text consistently talks about getting lost, which means that
you lose the election to the heavenly priesthood, ref. the young rich man who came
to Jesus and wanted to know how he could achieve ageous life together with Jesus.
But it is not only the election a man may lose. Some who could have received a life
in ages on the earth, will instead have to suffer a death in ages because of their disobedience to God, ref. Adam. They are referred to as being destroyed, going into a
decay in ages.
Gr. apollumi = lose, become lost. (This refers to being rejected as members of
God’s heavenly priesthood and not being part of the first resurrection. But that may
not be a hindrance to getting a life in ages on the earth during the second resurrection.)
Gr. olethros = destroy, go into decay. (These also lose the possibility of receiving
a life in ages on the earth and will suffer an ageous destruction, decay. They will then
suffer the second, the final, death.)
Gr. paripateo = wander (live, act)
277
The word paripateo in Greek is always used in reference to the way we live our
lives. It has nothing to do with walking as both King James and NWT translates it.
Both NIV and THE PACT write act here. Also wander is correct, but unnatural.
THE PACT, ROM 16:04. ‘They have risked their necks —’
NIV: ‘They risked their lives for me. Not only I, but all the churches of the Gentiles
are grateful to them.’
KJ-1611: ‘Who have for my life laid down their necks: unto whom not only I give
thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles.’
NWT: ‘— who have risked their own necks for my soul, to whom not only I, but
also all the congregations of the nations render thanks.’
SHG: hostis psuche hupotithemi hupotithemi heautou trachelos hos monos
Trans.: such soul risk
risk
self
neck
that only
eucharisteo kai pas ekklesia ethnos
thank
also all church ethnic
THE PACT: They have risked their necks for my soul, and it is not only I who thank
them, but also all in the churches of the peoples.
COMMENT: Then we have this about the soul again. It is far from being a biblical
teaching that we human beings walk around with some hocus-pocus inside of us that
cannot die! This is a teaching that builds on Satan’s first lie to Eve in GEN 03:04:
‘You are certainly not going to die.’
The soul is the very person, but also animals, fishes and birds, anything that needs
blood to sustain life, are souls. The word soul is being used 854 times in the original
texts, but for instance NIV only uses the word 129 times in their translation, and then
always when the word soul is undefinable or vague. Where it is 100% clear that the
soul is the human being or an animal, they have left it out and replaced it with words
such as life, being, creature as many as 748 times.
In this field I do not hesitate to call the translation of NIV a rubbish of falsifications!
And I will not hide the fact that I became terribly irritated when I realized how consciously they have tried to deceive me! — Is that a way to serve God?
THE PACT, ROM 16:25. ‘Praise be to him who has been —’
NIV: ‘Now to him who has been able to establish you by my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery hidden for long
ages past, —’
278
KJ-1611: ‘Now to him that is of power to establish you according to my gospel, and
the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was
kept secret since the world began, —’
NWT: ‘Now to him who can make you firm in accord with the good news I declare
and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the sacred secret
which has been kept in silence for long lasting times —’
SHG: de dunamai sterizo kata euaggelion kerugma iesous christus kata
Trans.: so able
strength by message preach jesus christ after
epokalupsis musterion sigao aionios nun phaneroo phaneroo
revelation
mystery hide ageous now reveal
reveal
THE PACT: Praise be to him who has been able to guide you through the message
and my preaching about Jesus Christ based on the revelation of the mystery that has
been hidden from the earliest times, but which has now been revealed.
COMMENT: Note that this verse does not refer to any secret, but to a mystery that
has been hidden. It is not so that the Bible does not reveal it, but it has been hidden
to man through their lack of understanding of the message simply because it is so
extraordinary. But in this letter to the Romans Paul has on many occasions referred
to the First Pact’s explanation of this. And, really, a message that is being preached,
cannot be a secret. But in this case the Bible presents it as a mystery.
One more thing: Did you notice the word aionios in the Greek text? It is often translated eternal. And then most think of a time without end. But her the word goes back
in time, and then we understand that the word eternal is constructed and does not
fully cover the contents of the Bible.
Read the full explanation of God’s heavenly mystery in EPH — One Unity under
Christ.
279
in Ephesians
THE PACT, EPH 01:10. ‘But there will be one administration
—’
NIV: ‘— to put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment — to
bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.’
KJ-1611: ‘That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together
all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, even in him.’
NWT: ‘— for an administration at the full limit of the appointed times, namely, to
gather all things together again in the Christ, the things in the heavens and the things
on the earth. Yes, in him.’
SHG: oikonomia
pleroma kairos anakephalaiomai anakephalaiomai pas
Trans.: administration fulfill time bring together
bring together all
christos te ho
ouranos ho
epi ge
christ that which on high which on earth
THE PACT: But there will be one administration, because when the time has been
fulfilled, he shall bring everything together as one under Christ, both that of the heavens and that of the earth.
COMMENT: I can not honestly claim that these translations are wrong, simply because I do not understand them! But they are at best diffuse and far from identical
in meaning. For instance, in NWT, what is ‘the full limit of the appointed times?’ Or
‘the dispensation of the fulness of time.’ Or ‘when the times have reached their
fulfillment?’ In the Bible there are two fulfillments of time. The first was the birth
of Jesus Christ. The second is after the thousand years are over and Jesus hands over
the power to God. Then God will take a more active role, but both the heavens and
the earth will be ruled by Christ and his holy priesthood!
Wrongly Translated Verses in Ephesians
280
THE PACT, EFE 03:21. ‘The honor in the church —’
NIV: ‘— to him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus throughout all
generations, for ever and ever! Amen.
KJ-1611: ‘Unto him be glory in the church by Jesus Christ throughout all ages, world
without end. Amen.’
NWT: ‘— to him be the glory by means of the congregation and by means of Christ
Jesus to all generations forever and ever.’
EPH 03:21
SHG: doxa ekklesia christos iesous eis pas genea
aion aion -ho aion amen
Trans.: honor church christ jesus in all generation age age that age amen
THE PACT: The honor in the church belongs to him through Jesus Christ in all
generations in age and ages, he who is to be through age and ages. Amen.
COMMENT: I am rather impressed that English and U.S. translators are shying
away from using the well established, but constructed, word eternity to the extent
that it is being used in Scandinavian translations. But also here the text varies to a
great extent. I am not going to point at anything that might be falsely translated her,
only to the fact that the content in some translations, such as in KJ seem rather diffuse. The pact consistently writes age where the Greek text write aion.’
The PACT, EFE 04:30. ‘Do not put God’s Holy —’
NIV: ‘Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day
of redemption.’
NB! The word whom refers to a person.
KJ-1611: ‘And grieve not the holy Spirit of God, whereby we are sealed unto the day
of redemption.’
NB! The word whereby is neutral.
NWT: ‘Also, do not be grieving God’s holy spirit, with which you have been sealed
for a day of releasing by ransom.’
NB! The word which indicates that the spirit is not a person.
SHG: lupeo hagios pneuma theos en -hos sphragizo hemera apolutrosis
Trans.: shame holy spirit
god that which seal
day
redemption
THE PACT: Do not put God’s Holy Spirit to shame, that which you have been
sealed with until the day of redemption.
281
COMMENT: Here both King James and New World have a correct translation
while NIV refers to God’s Spirit as a person by using the pronoun whom. At the
same time NWT’s translation is an interpretation because it says nothing in ths verse
about ‘a day of releasing by ransom.’ And the ransom is Christ. And that is far from
being correct because the redemption this refers to is their own death, and not that
of Chr-ist. Their actual and final redemption happens when Jesus takes them to him
from the grave, or some at the moment they die, as his heavenly brothers.
THE PACT, EFE 05:28. ‘In the same manner —’
NIV: ‘In the same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He
who loves his wifes, loves himself.’
KJ-1611: ‘So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his
wife loveth himself.’
NWT: ‘In this way husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He
who loves his wife loves himself.’
SHG: houto opheilo aner agapao gune heautou soma agapao gune agapao
Trans.: slik skylde mann elske kvinne selv
legeme elske kvinne elske
heautou
selv
THE PACT: In the same manner the man owes to love his woman like his own
body, for he who loves his woman, also loves himself.
COMMENT: Here all translations write wife where the Greek text writes woman.
NIV and NWT also write husband where the Greek text writes man.
Why do they so consistently write husband and wife where the original text writes
man and woman? It is without doubt an attempt at built up under the system of
church weddings of a man and a woman. It is not a biblical teaching that you need
to see a priest or a minister in order to be lawfully married. The Bible only refers to
giving and taking in marriage according to God’s pact — one woman per man and
one man per woman — all their lives! it is when you penetrates the maidenhead you
according to the Bible enter into a pact with God. But not many are thinking about
that today. The very most believe that you need the blessing of a priest or a minister
in order not to live in sin — no matter how many relationships you have behind you.
I explained this to a Jehovah’s Witness, and he became so upset that it almost developed into a quarrel. I did not understand at the beginning why, but the person in
282
question took this as an insult of the New World Translation which consistently
writes wife. It also had to do with the fact that Jehovah’s Witnesses without mercy
expels co-inhabitants even if they live according to God’s pact — the first relationship for both. Ironically if Joseph and Mary had been Jehovah’s Witnesses when they
had Jesus, they would have been expelled from the church because the had not been
‘lawfully married’ by a clergy or a public judge.
Check the original Greek text and you will see what is correct. It should be unnecessary to mention that I am pretty much fed up by all these falsifications that the
word of God is exposed to. It is just as easy, if not easier, to get it right! But it it not
always so easy for one who is eagerly representing a special church to see the underlaying purpose of such falsifications.
THE PACT, EPH 06:02-03. ‘Value your father and mother —’
NIV: 02 ‘Honor your father and mother — which is the first commandment with a
promise — 03 that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the
earth.’
KJ-1611: ‘Honor thy father and mother, which is the first commandment with promise; 03 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.’
NWT: 02 ‘Honor your father and your mother, which is the first commandment with
a promise. 03 That it may go well with you may endure a long time on the earth.’
SHG: timao pater meter hostis protos entole
epaggelia
Trans.: value father mother this first commandment promise
THE PACT: ‘Value your father and mother —‘ And this is the first commandment
with a promise:
NB! Timao does not in any case mean honor, but value, price. Matthew uses the
same word about Judas’ betrayal of Jesus when quoting a prophecy by Zechariah —
‘the value that the sons of Israel had set on him.’ (MAT 27:10)
SHG: eu
esomai -makrochronios makrochronios epi ge
Trans.: well live
long time
long time
on earth
THE PACT: ‘— for then it will go well with you, and you shall live long on the earth.’
DEU 05:16
283
COMMENT: This verse has caused me headache since I was young, much because
in my translation it said land instead of earth. And my mother kept quoting this
verse ever time she wanted me to do something for her.
I though I had been quite obedient both to my mother and my father, but I was still
firmly determined to ‘go to America’ when I was old enough — with or without
them. And then I would not ‘live long in the land’ where I was born. Besides, many
died yung, and I could not see that it was because they had been disobedient to their
parents.
This refers to God’s order in ages with Jesus as ruler over ‘both that of the heavens
and that of the earth.’ (EPH 01:10) Those who then get to live long on the earth, are
those who get a life in ages on the earth after having been resurrected from the dead.
Then it is not so that it is enough just having been obedient to your parents. That is
only one of the requirements, and it applies after the resurrection.
To understand the word of God it is important to be able to see further ahead than the
reach of one’s nose because the Bible is not about this age, but the next.
But few realize that and even fewer have the ability to look to the next age basically
because of wrong teaching!
284
in Philippians
THE PACT, PHI 02:02. ‘Be of the same mindset, —’
NIV: ‘— then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love,
being one in spirit and purpose.’
KJ-1611: ‘Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, being of
same accord, of one mind.’
NWT: ‘— make my joy full in that you are of the same mind and have the same love,
being joined together in soul, holding the one thought in mind.’
SHG: ho -autos phroneo echo autos agape sumpsuchos sumpsuchos
Trans.: so same mind-set have same love
one of soul one of soul
paramotheomai -heis phrone
comfort
one mind-set
THE PACT: Be of the same mind-set, have the same love, be one of souls and comfort with one purpose.
COMMENT: This is again a detestable attempt by NIV and King James at trying
to hide the fact that the soul is no immortal and invisible hocus-pocus that we human
beings carry around inside of us. NIV falsifies it directly by writing being one in
spirit instead of following the Greek text writing one of souls. And King James is
not more honest than NIV when writing being of same accord. NWT, on the other
hand, is a more honest translation writing being joined together in soul.
In verse 01 Paul admonishes the Philippians to be of one spirit, which also NIV and
King James have translated correctly. That means that they are to have one behavior
toward one another in their Christian faith. But in verse 02 Paul also admonishes
them to be one of souls, in other words standing together as one and the same human
being.
285
Wrongly Translated Verses in Philippians
The teaching of the invisible and immortal soul builds on Satan’s first lie in Genesis
when he told Eve that God was not telling the truth about their dying if the ate of the
tree of knowledge: ‘You will certainly not die.’ And for that lie to become a fact,
religious leaders have invented the immortal soul. This also has to do with the horrendous teaching of a burning hell. If someone is to be tortured in ages, that person
must have something that cannot die. No doubt the religious leaders have here been
running Satan’s errand! — a situation that is continued both by NIV and King James.
Here are Satan’s three lies:
T01 There are no invisible or immortal souls in the Bible. That teaching builds without exceptions on Satan’s first lie!
T02 The word torment is never used in the original text of the Bile. It always refers
to pain or bother. In Greek the word is basanizo.
T03 The teaching of the burning hell under the earth somewhere is nothing but a
product of the imagination of the Pope. It was nothing but a great business idea to
scare the senses out of ignorant people so that he could sell them absolution, the forgiveness of sins so that they would not end up in hell! I call it the world’s most effective business idea, because many farmers of the Middle Ages left home and property
for a letter of absolution from the Pope. And this Satan’s first lie is what Jesus referred to when he called Satan the father of lies. And this lie is being supported by most
Christians today!
What did God say about this? Oh, that is by far less pleasant reading, because his
judgement was uncompromising: ‘Form dust you were taken and to dust you shall
return!’ And that was all he said in that relation. (GEN 03:19)
THE PACT, PHI 02:06. ‘Because he who was of God’s —’
NIV: ‘Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something
to be grasped, —
NB! Here NIVpresents Jesus as God the Almighty, and at the same time they present
him as a servant and a human being! Do you think it is true what the Lutheran Churches are teaching in the Scandinavian countries? ‘Then God came down to earth, laid
himself in the womb of Virgin Mary and let himself be born as Jesus Christ?’ You
do not know? Well, let me tell you, it is pure blasphemy! Also, when did Jesus make
himself into nothing?
KJ-1611: ‘Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with
God.
286
NB! Here Jesus is not God the Almighty; only in the form of God. It is evident that
these two verses have caused a problem to them. But what robbery are they fabling
about?
NWT: ‘— who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a
seizure, namely that he should be equal to God.
NB! What does it mean that Jesus emptied himself? And when did he do that?
SHG: huparcho morphe theos hegeomai harpagmos isos theos
Trans.: exist
nature god think
robbery equal god
THE PACT: Because he who was of God’s nature, did not consider equality with
God as something he would force himself to.
COMMENT: Jesus as God’s only generated Som Michael had the same nature as
God in his heavenly existence, but yet he would not refuse to do God’s will among
men. Therefore he took on the nature of a servant. He carried through God’s will on
earth as God’s foremost servant! (ISA 42:01, MAT 12:18)
The Greek text is fairly simple in these verses, but it definitely seem as if they have
become confused by basically following the text of King James of 1611.
Gr. ginomai = happen, do, be born, be created, etc. When it says in the translations that God created Adam, it says in the text that he made Adam.
THE PACT, PHI 02:07. ‘He allowed himself to be made small,
—’
NIV: ‘— but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made
in human likeness.’
KJ-1611: ‘But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.’
NWT: ‘No, he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men.’
SHG: ginomai heautou tapeinoo kenoo lambano morphe doulos ginomai
Trans.: make
self
small
do
take
nature slave become
homoioma anthropos
like
man
287
THE PACT: He allowed himself to be made small, he took on a slave’s nature and
came in the likeness of a human being.
COMMENT: Read the texts and study the confusion. It mostly stems from copying
King James and NIV at the same time trying to make Jesus into God Almighty. But
in this verse they contradict themselves.
THE PACT, PHI 02:30. ‘Because of his work for Christ —’
NIV: ‘— because he almost died for the work of Christ, risking his life to make up
for the help you could not give me.’
KJ-1611: ‘Because for the work of Christ he was nigh unto death, not regarding his
life, to supply your lack of service to me.’
NWT: ‘— because on account of the Lord’s work he became quite near to death, exposing his soul to danger, that he might fully make up for not being here to render
private service to me.’
PHI 02:30
SHG: hoti
Trans.: because
ergon christos eggizo thanatos parabouleuomai psuche
work christ near
death take care of
soul
anaplero humon husterema litourgia pro
supply you
lack
service for
THE PACT: Because of his work for Christ he was near death, for he did not take
care of his soul when he supplied me with what you could not offer me during my
service with you.
COMMENT: It is depressing to experience how NIV and K.J. keep manipulating the
word soul to keep the reader from learning its correct meaning. If they had correctly
written soul in this verse, everybody would have understood that the soul is the very
person. But also animals. All of flesh and blood are souls in the Bible. In Genesis
01:20 all fishes swimming in shoals in the ocean are souls. And in Matthew 02: 20
also Jesus is spoken of as a soul. But that has been omitted in translations to support
the teaching of the invisible and immortal soul.
They support Satan’s first lie!
288
in Colosseans
THE PACT, COL 01:15. ‘He is the image of the invisible —’
NIV: ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.’
NB! In this translation Jesus is above all creation! Only one is above all creation,
God, and this is a subtle attempt at making Jesus into God the Almighty! The Norwegian bible society, the so-called church bible, writes: ‘— he who stands above
everything created.’ And no doubt also here they have made Jesus into God the
Almighty!
KJ-1611: ‘Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.’
NWT: ‘He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.’
SHG: hos eikon aoratos theos prototakos pas ktesis
Trans.: who icon invisible god firstborn all creation
THE PACT: He is the image of the invisible God and the firstborn of the entire creation.
COMMENT: As you may see from these translations, they are basically identical.
But as usual NIV stands out with a subtle falsification by writing: ‘— the firstborn
over all creation.’ The only one who is above all creation, is God himself, the Creator! But here they consciously claim the same about Jesus, and thereby they support
the teaching of the trinity that wrongfully claim that Jesus is God the Almighty. And
this is done on purpose because it is repeated so many times in the New International
Version.
The Greek text says that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation, and that is totally different. How may we understand it? It is so factual! Jesus was the first of all that God has
created! The Greek word monogenes which usually is translated with the outmoded
only begotten or only, but actually meaning only generated from. And after God had
created, made or born Christ (Michael in his heavenly existence), God let Michael
(= like God) carry through the rest of God’s creation.
289
Wrongly Translated Verses in Colosseans
Is NIV’s claim that Jesus is the firstborn over all creation true? No, it is a new falsification to elevate Christ above God the Almighty.
This is the order of the heavenly organization where God is above all:
T01 — the Seraphim, the four creatures. Their only purpose is to worship God.
NB! The word seraphim is used 126 times in 114 verses in the First Pact, but not used
in the translation of King James, these four creatures are directly subjected to God
in the heavens. The meaning of the word is the foremost. The two verses referring
directly to the seraphim in the Bible, are ISA 06:02 and ISA 06:06. The four creatures in Revelation 04:06-11 also refer to the seraphim.
T02 — the Cherubim, God’s foremost servants. It was the cherubim Got set to watch
the entrance to the Garden of Eden after the fall so that Adam after the fall would be
able to eat from the tree of life. Ironically it was also a Cherubim, Satan, who enticed
Adam into this disobedience.
NB! The Cherubim is a group of God’s heavenly servants in the heavenly organization placed below the Seraphim, but over the messengers. And, Satan was one of
these Cherubim. We do not learn how many they are in number in the Bible, but they
are considerably few compared to the messengers, often wrongly referred to as angels. The Hebrew word keruwb is used 93 times in 68 verses in the Hebrew text,
meaning burning, those who burn. The word is of uncertain origin, but refer to a
special group of God’s servants.
T03 — the messengers (often wrongfully translated angels) are, as the word indicates, God’s messengers and practical workforce. The foremost of these messenger,
Michael (later the Messiah in Hebrew and the Christ in Greek, and finally Jesus), is
referred to as God’s foreman, or works master.
NB! Below the Seraphim (the foremost) and the Cherubim (the flaming servants) are
the messengers. They are in great numbers, and among them there is only one Master
Messenger, Michael. The Hebrew word for messenger is mal’ak. It is being used 214
times in 197 verses in the Hebrew ext. It is the wrong translation of the Greek word
for messenger, aggelos, that has caused all of today’s angel hysteria.
The life’s story of Michael you may read about in Proverbs 08:22-36. In verse 30 he
is spoken of as God’s works master, or master worker, and thereby referring to his
taking part in the creation as God’s foreman — through the power of God.
The life’s story of Satan, his heavenly glory and final fall you may read about in Ezekiel 28:11-19. Read it with consideration! Many believe that Satan and his demons
have an existence under the earth somewhere. Where would that be? In the burning
magma of the world’s inner core? Not so. But if so, a consequence would be that God
also has a parallel creation that is of the evil!
290
A SHORT CONCLUSION: Even if Christ was the very first of God’s creation, it
becomes a falsification writing that he was ‘over all creation.’ Only God stands over
all creation as the Creator, and Michael, the Messiah, the Christ, the Anointed, Jesus,
the Word, the Light, Life, etc., was the very first of God’s creation. Therefore, in relation to God, Michael becomes part of the creation, not the Creator. Oh, by the way,
who is ‘the mother of God?’
Now read Romans 01:18-22 — with consideration! It is namely so with most Christians that when they read the Bible, they see what they believe — and not what they
read!
THE PACT, COL 01:26. ‘And therein lies also the mystery —’
NIV: ‘— the mystery that has been kept hidden for ages and generations , but is now
disclosed to the saints.’
NB! Here NIV correctly writes mystery. But who are the saints?
KJ-1611: ‘Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but
now is made manifest to his saints.’
NB! Here also KJ correctly writes mystery. But who are the saints? Was it not Louis
Armstrong who sang ‘Oh, When The Saints Go Marching In?’ Is there a biblical understanding of this?
NWT: ‘— the sacred secret that was hidden from the past system of things, and from
the past generations. But now it has been made manifest to the holy ones, —’
NB! here NWT incorrectly writes secret, which is also the case in every Scandinavian translation. NWT also elaborates a little extra by adding sacred, which is not in
the original text. In addition what is ‘the past system of things?’ In the Greek text it
says ages. But note that it does refer to the past.
SHG: musterion ho apokruptos aion genea
nuni phaneroo phaneroo hagios
Trans.: mystery that hide
age generation now reveal
reveal
holy
THE PACT: And therein lies also the mystery which in ages has been hidden from
the generations, but which has now been revealed to the holy.
NB! King James refers to the saints. Who are they? Saint is just another word for
holy. It is not wrong using it, ref. sanctuary. But it is not used so often any more unless you keep playing Louis Armstrong.
COMMENT: English translations have mostly take the consequence of the word
eternity being a constructed word that does not even cover the contents it refers to
291
and instead write ages. Scandinavian translations have not, and they almost consistently write eternity. This is undeniably a wrong translation of the word aion, meaning time, age, but implying a log period of time whether referring to the future or to
the past.
In this verse NIV and K.J. also write mystery where Scandinavian translations write
secret. The one exception is New World Translation which also write secret where
the Greek text refers to a mystery. And this refers to the establishment of the heavenly division of the Realm of God. But that is what Jesus preached all the time, so
it could definitely not be a secret, at least not based on Jesus’ teaching, The fact that
the Pope and Luther have messed it up for us is a different matter.
So what is the mystery? Yes, that an elect group of righteous men will experience
being resurrected from their death to an ageous, heavenly glory as spiritual beings,
a new creation, together with Christ. This was a great mystery to the Jews even at the
time of Jesus. And it still is to this day, so much so that most Christians reject its
reality. Few can, with hand on heart, say that they really understand this, including
myself, even if I do know what the mystery consists of.
This mystery is further accentuated by the fact that Jesus abolished the original
priesthood from which these righteous people were to be elected, and replaced it with
a church of elders, and especially aiming at those of the peoples. And from now the
election of its members were to be chosen from this church and no longer the Levite
priesthood which had for centuries served as an example of this new, heavenly group
of men. To the Jews the fact that those of the peoples would receive God’s blessings
was unthinkable, ref, the extensive criticism of Peter for having eaten with, and on
top of everything, even baptized, Cornelius and his family. (ACT chap. 10)
But notice that this mystery has now been revealed especially to God’s holy? And
who are God’s holy. Now many are they? Or does this apply to all who present themselves as Christians?
NB! Note that NWT has added the word sacred. And not being content with wrongly
writing secret, they even claim it is a sacred secret. They also include the strange
expression ‘the past system of things’ instead of writing age, aion, in the Greek text.
And even if NWT in this respect is a more honest translation that most of the others,
it is yet a suffering reading such empty expressions when you know what it says in
the Greek text. But not many readers know that.
A little curiosity: One generation is usually considered to be 30 years. The Norwegian word ‘slekt’ usually refers to three generations, a time-span of about 90 years.
In English neither the word nor the concept exists, and therefore NWT writes generation in both cases, also in their Scandinavian translations. This has led to the con-
292
fusion in their preaching that some of the 1914 generation (100 years ago) will still
be alive at Jesus second coming in the spirit. But none who experienced the First
World War are alive today. Remember, that is one hundred years ago this year. Even
from the Second World War there are few veterans left. And those who are left, are
all about 90 years or more.
This is just another of Jehovah’s Witnesses many false predictions of Jesus’ second
coming. First his coming was to take place in 1914. Then they changed it to 1918.
Then they created hysteria about the prediction of his coming in 1952. I was then a
school boy of 11 years. As I returned home from school one day, walking for about
40 minutes in each direction, one group was gathered on a large field, their faces upward waiting to see Jesus. They spent all day there until dusk expecting to see him.
But they got stood up. Downcast and shamefaced they all returned to their own. But
some had even sold their houses.
The next hysteria happened in 1974. But they got stood up then too. The last time I
have heard of, was in the year 2000. That was a special year of prediction to many.
But no Jesus.
In the year 2006, I think it was, I asked an elder at a Kingdom Hall if Jehovah’s Witnesses considered themselves infallible. He quickly said: ‘Of course not!’ But when
I asked if he could refer to any mistake they had ever made, he gave me this cryptic
answer: ‘The light will shine brighter and brighter until full daylight.’ I guess that
was a subtle and indirect admission of being fallible, but they will never admit to a
special case or incident. I find that untrustworthy.
THE PACT, COL 01:28. ‘This is what we preach.’
NIV: ‘We proclaim him, admonishing and teaching everyone with all wisdom, so that
we may present everyone perfect in Christ.’
KJ-1611: ‘Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ.’
NWT: ‘He is the one we are publicizing, admonishing every man in all wisdom, that
we may present every man complete in union with Christ.’
SHG: hos kataggello noutheteo pas anthropos didasko pas anthropos pas sophia
Trans.: that preach
warn
all man
teach all man
all wisdom
paristemi pas anthropos teleios
christos iesous
present all man
complete christ jesus
293
THE PACT: ‘That is what we preach. We admonish all men, and we teach all men
in all our wisdom how to present these men who are to be complete before Christ.’
COMMENT: The Greek word teleios is usually translated perfect in English translations. Its true meaning is ripe, mature, grown, complete, etc. It’s original meaning
is ready to burst.
When it is translated perfect in Matthew 05:40 it becomes terribly wrong, because
no human being can be perfect before God. And so it may also be in this verse, but
not as strikingly.
If this refers to their continued presence on the earth, it is wrong also here, but if this
refers to their heavenly existence after their resurrection, it is correct. Also remember
based on verse 26 that this only applies to the holy. And who are the holy?
NWT correctly writes complete here, complete then meaning good enough for God
to accept. And to be on the safe side THE PACT has chosen the same wording. I do
not dare claiming that writing perfect in this verse is directly false, because it is a bit
unclear to me if this verse refers to their continued life on earth or if it refers to their
heavenly existence.
With its many fine nuances the Bible is a wonderful book — also linguistically.
THE PACT, COL 02:01. ‘I want you to know —’
I include this verse more as a curiosity to show how far from the original text some
translations are, but I cannot claim that they are wrong:
NIV: ‘I want you to know how much I am struggling for you and for those at Laodicea, and for all who have not met me personally.’
KJ-1611: ‘For I want that you know what great conflict I , and for them at Laodicea,
and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh.’
NWT: ‘For I want you to realize how great a struggle I am having in behalf of you
and of those at Laodicea, and of all those who have not seen my face in the flesh.’
SHG: thelo eido helikos
helikos
agon echo en laodikeia hosos horao
Trans.: wish know how much how much worry have for laodicea who see
prosopon sarx
face
flesh
294
THE PACT: I want you to know how I have worried about you and those in Laodicea who have not seen my face in the flesh.
COMMENT: I am not only interested in the contents of the Bible, but also the construction of the language. The word flesh as synonymous to man is often used in the
Bible. Many translations do not use the word flesh and instead find other words that
often do not cover the meaning properly. For instance in this verse NIV writes ‘who
have not met me personally.’ In this case it may be correct, but in many other instances they overdo it by writing ‘the evil nature of man.’ I have also evaluated using
different terms for flesh, but out of respect of the language I stick as closely as possible to the original text that says ‘who have not seen me in the flesh.’ Although not
an English idiom, it is not hard to understand.
NIV has used an English wording, while K.J., NWT and also THE PACT the Greek.
The Bible often uses body parts as idioms. In this verse it refers to the flesh, in the
next verse to the heart. And as long as it keeps to flesh, head and heart, it is understandable, but of spleen, kidney or guts it becomes a bit more difficult finding a good
translation. Then it becomes necessary to use modern, English idioms to get a correct
and easily understandable English.
If you want to learn more about this, check the transliterated text.
THE PACT, COL 02:18. ‘Do not let the prize of victory —’
NIV: ‘Do not let anybody who delight in false humility and the worship of angels
disqualify you for the prize. Such a person go into great detail of what he has seen,
and his unspiritual ming puffs him up with idle notions.’
NB! This translation is not even close to the content of the original text.
KJ-1611: ‘Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly put up
by his fleshy mind.’
NB! If the text of NIV is not a direct attempt at copying King James, and without
checking the Greek text, it is beyond me. These texts make you feel dumb when you
read them, because they are meaningless. Is it common for Christians to worship
heavenly angels?
NWT: ‘Let no one deprive you of the prize who takes delight in a mock humility and
a form of worship of the angels, taking a stand on the things he has seen, puffed up
without proper cause by his fleshy frame of mind.’
NB! Uff da! Just another elaborated attempt at copying the emptiness of the translation of King James.
295
SHG: medeis medeis katabrabeuo katabrabeuo thelo tapein ophrosune threskeia
Trans.: no one no one rob
rob
wish false meekness worship
aggelos
embateuo hos horao eike
phusioo nous
messenger elaborate what see senseless blown up mind
THE PACT: Do not let the prize of victory be robbed from you by such who find
pleasure in false meekness and idolatry of the messengers. They are such who elaborate in detail about things they do not know. They are without understanding, and
they are arrogant of mind.
COMMENT: This is a frightening picture even of today’s situation with preachers
explaining the Bible in detail without themselves having understood one quack. Paul
correctly says that they are without understanding! — But ask if they are not arrogant
in their lack of knowledge! And if you should happen to show them what the Bible
says, they just blow it away!
Every translation translates angel where the original text where the Greek text write
aggelos. And then it becomes completely impossible to ger a correct understanding
of this verse. Because whom are the angels that such people worship like an idol?
Yes, the leaders, the messengers in every false church! How many are not worshiping
the Pope, the foremost messenger of the Catholic Church? Among the Lutherans
Martin Luther has been elevated next to Christ.
Among the Adventists it is Ellen G. White who is worshiped! Among the Mormons
Joseph Smith. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses the twelve holy that make up the Watchtower in Brooklyn are being worshiped as infallible, etc., etc. almost endlessly.
Every church that has been established by men, have one such founder that is being
worshiped by the church that he or she is credited with having founded.
Do you see that Paul maintains that such leaders will lose their garland of victory —
their election as God’s heavenly priests?
See if this sentence does not hit the nail on its head: ‘They are such who elaborate in
detail about things they do not know!’ And further: ‘They are without understanding,
and they are arrogant of mind!’ Read both NIV’s and NWT’s translation of this
verse. Is it possible to understand the contents of what they write? No, it is completely impossible! Both of them have taken away any possibility of understanding
this verse by directly copying from the incomprehensible translation of King James!
Do you think it could be coincidental?
296
THE PACT, COL 03:13. ‘Be overbearing with one —’
NIV: ‘Bear with each other and forgive what ever grievances you may have against
one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.’
KJ-1611: ‘Fore bearing one another, and forgiving one another, if any man has a
quarrel against any: even as Christ forgave you, so also you do.’
NWT: ‘Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely if anyone has a cause of complaint against another. Even as Jehovah forgave you, so do
you also.’
NB! NIV writes the Lord referring to Christ. KJ writes Christ and NWT writes Jehovah.
SHG: anechomai allelon
allelon
charizomai heautou heautou ean tis
Trans.: overbearing each other each other forgive
self
self
if any
echo momphe
pros tis
kai christos* houto kai
have differences with any also christ
you also
*LORD
THE PACT: Be overbearing with one another and forgive each other the differences
you may have in a relation with anyone — the way the LORD* has also done to you.
* JHVH
COMMENT: This is a good example of the confusion the man-made philosophy of
the trinity causes within Christianity, and it reaches all the way up to such who work
with the original texts. In this case the original text writes Christ where it should have
written the LORD, Jehovah or God. Because it is God who forgives sins even if he
has also delegated that power to Jesus. But when most who read this, read Christ in
the translations, they must study it rather carefully to find out that the text should
have read Jehovah. And in this case a result of this confusion is that they write Christ.
THE PACT, COL 03:18. ‘Women, submit to your —’
NIV: ‘Wives, submit to you husbands, as it is fitting in the Lord.’
KJ-1611: ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.’
NWT: ‘You wives, be in subjection to your husbands, as it is becoming in the Lord.’
SHG: gune hupotasso
idios idios aner aneko kurios
Trans.: woman submit under own own man fit
lord
297
THE PACT: Women, submit under your men, as it is fitting in the Lord.
COMMENT: This is not such a big matter, but they write wife and husband where
the Greek text writes woman and man. This is done on purpose to build up under
Western tradition of unbiblical church wedding. THE PACT has not been translated
to play politics, but consistently follows the Greek text to honor God.
THE PACT, COL 03:19. ‘Men, love your women —’
NIV: ‘Husbands, love your women and do not be harsh with them.’
KJ-1611: ‘Husband, love your wives, and be not bitter against them.’
NWT: ‘You husbands, keep on loving your wives and do not be bitterly angry with
them.’
SHG: aner agapao ho gune pikraino pros
Trans.: man love who woman bitter
against
THE PACT: Men, love your women and do not be strict with them.
COMMENT: In this short sentence there cannot be much wrong, can there? It is the
same as in the previous verse. And it is not a big matter or a question of rescue, but
every time they write husband and wife instead of woman and man, they help building up under the unbiblical order of being married in the church.
It does not say in one single verse throughout all of the Bible that you have to ‘go to
a priest or a judge’ to get married. And whether you are a worldly or a Christian the
norm is the same: One woman per man and one man per woman — all life long! The
consummation of a marriage according to God’s norm is then the man penetrates the
maiden head of his woman. Only then are you legally married in the eyes of God. if
you are with another man or another woman after that, you commit fornication.
It is not a question of whether you have ‘been to the priest’ or not!
In preparation of my father’s funeral in 1998 I asked the local minister where in the
Bible it says that you have to be married in church by a priest or a minister in order
not to live in sin. And he answered me sort and concisely: ‘No, not in a single
place!’And after a rather long theatrical pause he added: ‘But you have to admit it is
a nice custom!’ I was so surprised by getting such a direct answer from a minister
that I almost lost my ability to speak. But after composing myself I more mumbled
than spoke: ‘Well, then, why do you not present it as a nice custom instead of a commandment from God?’
298
THE PACT, COL 03:22. ‘Slaves, obey your masters —’
NIV: ‘Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when
their eye is on you and to win their favor, but in sincerity of heart and reverence
for the Lord.’
KJ-1611: ‘Servants, obey in all things your master according to the flesh; not with
eyeservice, as manpleasers, but in singleness of heart, fearing God.’
NB! NIV writes Lord referring to Jesus. KJ writes God.
NWT: ‘You slaves, be obedient in everything to those who are your masters in a
fleshy sense, not with acts of eye-service, as man-pleasers, but with sincerity of heart,
with fear of Jehovah.’
SHG: doulos hupakouo pas ho kurios kata sarx opthalmodouleia
Trans.: slave obey
all who lord
after flesh eye servant
anthroporeskos haplotes kardia phobeo theos
man pleaser
sincere heart fear
god
THE PACT: Slaves, obey your masters in the flesh in everything, not as an eye servant or man pleaser for the sake of appearance, but with a sincere heart in respect of
God.
COMMENT: In this verse NIV writes Lord in lower case letter and in that way referring to Jesus. King James write God according to Strong’s Hebrew / Greek. NWT
writes Jehovah.
I have been in doubt here thinking the correct text shout be Jehovah, but when I am
not one hundred percent certain, it is hard to deviate from the Greek text. But when
it comes to the use of God’s name Jehovah, also the original text have been shuffled
about quite extensively.
All this confusion is beyond doubt a result of the unbiblical teaching of the trinity.
Ok, it is not such a great matter, but right is right. And, if the correct use of God’s
name had been a matter of rescue or getting lost, Jesus would have made this clear
to all men and women. But he does not address this question one single time during
his short service on the earth.
299
in Philemon
THE PACT, PHL 01:10. ‘So I ask you on behalf of —’
NIV: ‘I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son when I was in
chains.’
KJ-1611: ‘I beseech thee for my son Onesimus, whom I have begotten in my bonds.’
NWT: ‘I am exhorting you concerning my child, to whom I became a father while in
my prison bonds, Onesimus.’
SHG: parakaleo teknon onesimos hos gennao desmon
Trans.: ask
child onesimus when receive chain
THE PACT: So I ask you on behalf of my child Onesimus whom I had after I was
in chains.
COMMENT: Here King James and NIV write son where the Greek text says child.
And they keep juggling these two words as they see fit! Some within the Lutheran
Church also tell you naively that the word huios may mean both son and child, but
far from it. A son may indeed be a child, but never a girl.
Yes, after years of wrong translation, they believe in their own falsifications!
Gr. huios = son, foal, etc. (actually an offspring of the male gender. It can never
mean child, but of course, a son may also be a child.)
Gr. teknon = child ( an offspring of both genders, male or female. It is gender neutral.)
Gr. paidion = little child
Wrongly Translated Verses in Philemon
300
But, does it make any difference in this case whether you read son or child? Is it not
even more natural referring to Onesimus as a son rather than a child? After all he was
a grown man. Yes, and that is probably why they have done it, but then it losses its
meaning. By writing son they only refer to his nearness to Paul. But the text goes
deeper. It was common at that time to refer to such whom they had either converted
to Christianity or helped to raise in the Christian faith, their children. And such who
had very little knowledge of God and the word of God, they even called little children.’ Especially John does that on many occasions.
THE PACT, PHL 01:15. ‘Possibly his being away —’
NIV: ‘Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you
might have him back for good.’
KJ-1611: ‘For perhaps he therefore departed for a season, so that you shouldest receive him for ever.’
NWT: ‘Perhaps really on this account he broke away for an hour, that you may have
him back forever.’
SHG: tacha
dia
-touto chorizo
hora
apecho aionios
Trans.: possible through this stay away short time return long time
THE PACT: Possibly his being away from you for some time may result in his
coming back to you for good.
COMMENT: It is against the Bible that somebody is to remain a persons property,
a slave, through ages. Such a claim sets the result of Jesus’s acts aside. During a long
time on the earth, yes, but not forever.
I have stressed over and over again that the Greek word hora refers to the short time
and aion to the long time. And that is also how it must be translated in this case. NIV
is correct here, but NWT is thoughtless. They do not realize the short time hora also
refers to a period of time?
The same misinterpretation of the Hebrew word yawm, day, has led to the Adventist
believing the universe was created in as short a period of time as six days and six
nights only, when it might have taken millions of years! The process is still ongoing.
301
in Hebrews
THE PACT, HEB 01:03. ‘He is an image of his glory —’
NIV: ‘The Son is the radiance of God’s Glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for
sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in the heavens.’
KJ-1611: ‘Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.’
NWT: ‘He is the reflection of his glory and the exact representation of his very being,
and he sustains all things by the word of his power, and after he had made a purification for our sins he sat down on the right hand of the Majesty in lofty places.’
SHG: apaugasma doxa charakter charakter hupostasis phero pas rhema
Trans.: radiance glory character character personality carry all word
dunamis heautou poieo -katarismos hamartia kathizo kathizo en dexis magalosune
power himself do
cleansing sin
sit
sit
to right majesty
en hupselos
on high
THE PACT: He* is an image of his** glory and personality through his* person,
and he* upholds everything through the power of his** word. After he* had performed the cleansing of sin, he* sat down at the Majesty’s right hand in the heavens..
*Jesus **God
COMMENT: All these three are fairly good and correct translation, mush because
King James has it correct from the start. The reason I still include this verse is to
Wrongly Translated Verses in Hebrews
302
show Scandinavian readers the great difference between English translations of this
verse as compared the falsified Scandinavian versions where they almost without exception have made Jesus into God the Almighty. Oh, is it not a better wording writing
‘the power of his word’ that ‘the word of his power?’
DNB, the Norwegian church Bible: ‘He (Jesus) carries everything through his (Jesus’) mighty word.’ It is a pathetic falsification!
THE PACT: ‘He (Jesus) upholds everything through the power of his (God’s) word.’
This is an example of how subtle one can falsify the word of God! And as a result of
the blasphemous teaching of the trinity, these falsifications are being repeated throughout all of the Bible. Is it any wonder that people get confused? And, really, this
has not been easy for me either. It took a long time before I was able to put the Devil
aside!
NB! Note that it actually does not say ‘by the majesty’s right hand,’ but ‘to the right
of the Majesty.’
A spiritual being does not have physical features such as a face or hands, etc. Therefore the Bible very seldom refers to physical features, such as face, arm, hand, etc.
But it happens. And then we understand that this is metaphorical. The expression ‘by
God’s right hand’ has been so well worked into Christianity that people will react
negatively to different wordings. Based on this, and because this is a metaphor, also
THE PACT writes ‘by God’s right hand’ in an attempt at not provoking unnecessarily.
THE PACT, HEB 01:06. ‘And later, when God brings —’
NIV: ‘And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says: ‘Let all
god’s angels worship him.’
KJ-1611. ‘And again, when he brings in the firstbegotten into the world, he said, And
let all the angels of God worship him.’
NWT: ‘But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: ‘Let
all God’s angels do obeisance to him.’
SHG: palin hotan eisago prototokos eis oikomene
lego pas aggelos
Trans.: again when lead firstborn to inhabitate earth say all messenger
theos proskuneo
god honor
303
THE PACT: And later, when God leads his Firstborn to the inhabited earth, he says:
‘Let all of God’s messengers honor him.’
PSA 97:07
COMMENT: In this short and simple verse they have managed to present three distortions compared to a correct translation:
T01. By writing again, this must refer to a second time — to Jesus’ second coming,
and thereby they create confusion. The word palin in the Greek text does not refer
to Jesus’ second coming. Paul only refers to the continuation of the previous text.
Previously he writes further and now again, actually later. Again: This is not a reference to Jesus’ so-called second coming, but to his first. And this was what Satan referred to when he tempted Jesus.
T02. Here they as usual translate the Greek word aggelos with angel when it means
messenger. Writing angel is no translation, but a paraphrasing! Yet, in this verse it
is reasonable to believe that the word aggelos refers to heavenly messengers.
T03. And then comes the grave falsification that somebody are to worship Jesus!
That is not the case! Read Father in the Heavens. The word that in this case is
wrongly translated worship is proskuneo, which in no case meas worship, but honor.
The Greek word for worship is proseuchomai, and it never refers to anybody but God
the Almighty in the Bible — never to Jesus Christ! We see from the Greek text that
God has reserved the worship to himself and does not even share it with his Firstborn
Son! The same applies to the service, latereuo.
NB! This is so simple and easy that I can only believe that this is done consciously!
It is, sad to say, common teaching that we are to pray to Jesus, which the Bible warns
against strongly. (ROM 01:25) Some even pray to, or worship, the Holy Spirit! That
is how far astray it is possible to come when you stray from the original text. And in
the choice between a correct understanding of the Bible and this wrong teaching,
people are eager to adhere to the wrong teaching — that which ‘tickles the ear.’ (2TI
04:03) And do not forget that this is also a question of religious power!
THE PACT, HEB 01:08. ‘To the Son he says: —’
NIV: ‘But about the Son he says:’Your throne, O God, will last forever and ever, and
righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.’
KJ-1611: ‘But to the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre
of of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.’
NWT: ‘But with reference to the Son: ‘God is your throne forever and ever, and the
scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness.’
304
SHG: huios thronos theos aion aion rhabdos euthutes
rhabdos basileia
Trans.: son throne god age age scepter righteousness scepter realm
THE PACT: To the Son he says: ‘Your throne is from God through age and ages,
and your scepter shall be a scepter of righteousness.
COMMENT: Again NIV and KJ makes Jesus into God the Almighty, and, even if
done very subtly, they are still conscious falsifications of the word of God. Everybody with just a limited function under their scull knows that Father and Som cannot
be the same! It is a contention against nature! And do not give me that blasphemous
phrase that ‘nothing is impossible to God!’ What is quite clear is that God follows
his own laws of nature, for instance when Jesus calmed the storm.
One good thing about English translations: They have basically all turned away from
the incorrect use of the word eternal.
THE PACT, HEB 01:09. ‘For you have loved —’
NIV: ‘You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, therefore God, your God,
have set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy.’
KJ-1611: ‘Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy
God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.’
NWT: ‘You loved righteousness and hated lawlessness,. That is why God, your God,
anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your partners.’
SHG: agapao dikaiosune miseo anomia
dia
-touto theos theos chrio
Trans.: love righteousness hate lawlessness through this god god anoint
elaion agilliasis para
methochos
oil
joy
before co-heir
THE PACT: For you have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness, and therefore
will God, your God, anoint you with the oil of joy before your co-heirs.’
PSA 45:07-08
COMMENT: It is almost unbelievable, but contrary to the previous verse, in this
verse both NIV and KJ has got it correct. Here God the Almighty is also Jesus’ God!
What else? How come that they have got it wrong and right in the same verses. In this
case is that not proof that NIV has copied KJ?
305
But who are Jesus’ companions? (NIV) Or fellows? (KJ-1611) Or partners? (NWT)
The Greek word is metochos, which according to Strong’s Hebrew / Greek may mean
all of the above, but in their explanation Strong’s write co-heirs, which is definitely
the correct word to use. Jesus’ co-heirs are the one hundred and forty-four thousand
and God’s adopted sons, those who get the sonship. They are to make up a priesthood
of men without blemish or fault. (LEV 21:16-24) Read it yourself and see how
clearly it says so — if you have a correct translation!
NWT writing partners seems pathetic, because they usually have a correct understanding of the one hundred and forty-four thousand. Yet they do not manage to get
a correct translation of this in the own Bible. In addition they also claim that the one
hundred and forty-four thousand consist of both men and women? Why are they then
such ardent adversaries of women priests?
This verse has a quote from the First Pact which THE PACT clearly indicates by
presenting the text in italic and with reference to the verses from the First Pact. And
when you go in and check the Hebrew text with the translations, you will discover
many discrepancies — if they have been correctly translated.
Consider that the Bible is basically about the election of God’s heavenly priesthood,
the one hundred and forty-four thousand, which will comprise the heavenly division
of the Realm of God. It has been established in the heavens, but not yet on the earth.
The Lutheran Church preaches that you become an ageous member of the Realm of
God when you are baptized as a child. Where in the Bible does it say so? Also, if so,
you may go on living life as you see fit without considering what is the will of God
or not! This was the teaching of the Nicolaitans, which Jesus hated! (REV 02:06)
THE PACT, HEB 02:13. ‘Further: I put my trust in him.’
NIV: And again, “I will put my trust in him.” And again he says, “Here am I, and the
children God has given me.”
KJ-1611: ‘And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold, I and the children God which God hath given me.’
NWT: ‘And again: “I will have my trust in him.” And again: “Look! I and the young
children, whom Jehovah gave me.’
SHG: palin peitho peitho palin idou paidion hos theos didomi
Trans.: igjen sette lit sette lit igjen se barn
som gud gi
306
THE PACT: Further: ‘I put my trust in him.’ And further: ’See! — they are the sons
whom Jehovah has given me!’
2SA 22:03, ISA 08:18 *JHVH
COMMENT: The last part of this verse is a quote from Isaiah 08:18. I include it in
Hebrew (with Latin letters).
Hebr.: himmeh yeled* ‘asher yehovah nathan
Trans.: see
son
who jehovah give
*lad, male offspring
NIV: ‘Here am I and the children God has given me.’ Check the Hebrew and the
Greek texts. Where does it say: ‘Here am I and —’
COMMENT: The last part of this verse is a direct quote from Isaiah 08:18. I include
it in Hebrew (with Latin letters).
Hebr.: himmeh yeled ‘asher yehovah nathan
Trans.: see
son whom jehovah give
To me it becomes a blatant falsification writing God in the translation when it says
Jehovah in the Hebrew text. Also note that the Hebrew text writes sons while the
Greek text says children. With great probability it is also supposed to write sons in
the Greek text, huios instead of paidion.
The contents of the Bible has been exposed to many attacks through the years, but
never to the extent that takes place in the latest translations where the translators
more or less shuffle the original text as they see fit! No doubt these sons refer to the
members of the Melchizedec priesthood.
They all write children here, but the Hebrew text says sons. Check it out. Also, referring to NIV, where does it say ‘here am I?’ And NWT even writes young children,
exposing so clearly that they have not understood this!
THE PACT, HEB 02:16. ‘Because it was not the —’
NIV: ‘But surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants.’
KJ-1611: ‘For verily he did not take on him the nature of angels, but he took on him
the seed of Abraham.’
NWT: ‘For he is really not assisting angels at all, but he is assisting Abraham’s seed.’
307
SHG: depou epilambanomai epilambanomai aggelos
epilamanomai
Trans.: true
take care of
take care of
messenger take care of
epilambanomai sperma abraham
take care of
sperm abraham
THE PACT: Because it was not the messengers he wanted to take care of, but he
wanted to take care of those who are of Abraham’s semen.
COMMENT: Note that NIV writes descendants here while KJ and NWT write seed.
The Hebrew text is very direct and writes sperma which THE PACT translates semen. The word sperma is being used as many as 45 times in 41 verses in the New
Pact. It seems so innocent, but it still makes it harder to understand the contents of
the Bible. In Matthew 03:09 John the Baptist says to the pharisees: ‘Do not think that
you can say to yourselves: ‘We have Abraham for a father. For I say that God may
raise up whomever he wants from stones as children of Abraham!’
Until now I have not met anybody who is able to explain this verse. Who are ‘children of Abraham?’ Are they all of Abraham’s descendants on the earth, ref. NIV. No
it only applies to those who those who will share in God’s promise to Abraham, and
that promise goes through Jesus Christ. They are the only ones who are of Abraham’s semen. And these consists of two groups because Abraham received two
promises: Those who receive a life in ages, either as God’s heavenly sons, the one
hundred and forty-four thousand, or the great white flock who will get a life in ages
on the earth. Actually John reject those who are Abrahams descendants in the flesh,
the Jews, and refers to those who will receive a life in ages through Christ. These are
the ones that John claims God is able to raise from stones.
I hope you can see how much easier it as to understand the Bible if you read ‘these
who are of Abraham’s semen, rather that just ‘the descendants of Abraham.’ Many
confuse this to be the physical descendants of Abraham, both Jews and Arabs. So
even if this distortion may seem innocent, it may still become a hindrance to your
understanding of the Bible. It is safest following the principle that ‘right is right,’ and
that especially applies to such a nuanced book as the Bible.
Do I need to mention one more time that the Greek word aggelos does not mean
angel, but messenger? Yes, I do, because to many it will still not sink in!
THE PACT, HEB 03:06. ‘Also Christ, as Son, is —’
NIV: ‘But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house. And we are his house, if we
hold on to the courage and the hope of which we boast.’
308
KJ-1611: ‘But Christ as son over his own house; whose house are we, if we hold fast
the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm until the end.’
NWT: ‘— but Christ was faithful as a son over the house of that One. We are the
house of that One, if we make fast out hold on our freeness of speech and our
boasting over the hope to the end.’
SHG: christos huios epo
heautou oikos hos oikos ean katecho katecho
Trans.: christ son faithful self
house that house if stay firm stay firm
parrhesia
bold
kauchema elpis beabaios telos
boast
hope remain end
THE PACT: Also Christ, his Son, is faithful to his* house, the house which also we
are part of if we stand firm in boldness. Then we may boast that we have stood firm
in the hope until the end.
*God’s
COMMENT: Here KJ has a cunning translation presenting Christ as being faithful
to his own house, while NIV has added the word God and thus correctly referring to
God’s house. The translation ‘we are the house’ is not correct. All of creation is the
house of God, but especially the heavens. And this is the house that the members of
God’s priesthood will become part of if they stand firm in their hope until the end.
Writing that they will become the very house, does not make much sense. There is
a lot of confusion here, and it is easy to tell from their mindless translations that they
have not understood much of this. Read THE PACT’s translation and see how clear
it is there.
THE PACT, HEB 03:07. ‘By the Holy Spirit he says: —’
NIV: So, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today if you hear his voice, —”
KJ-1611: ‘Wherefore (as the Holy Ghost saith, Today if you will hear his voice, —’
NWT: For this reason, just as the holy spirit says: Today of you people listen to hs
own voice.’
SHG: dio hagios pneuma lego semeron ean akouo phone
Trans.: by holy spirit
say today if hear voice
THE PACT: By the Holy Spirit he says: ‘Today, if anybody hears my voice.’
COMMENT: Here they have all made the Holy Spirit into an active person. This
must be especially embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses that they have not managed
to get this correct in their translation as long as they to not have the same teaching.
309
And if you check the Greek text, you will also see that it writes ‘by (or through) the
Holy Spirit.’
When the prophets in the First Pact spoke an behalf of God, they often started this
way: ‘This says Jehovah!.’ And then they always spoke through God’s Holy Spirit.
And in this verse the Greek text also writes by, or through, dio. ‘By the Holy Spirit
he says: —’ The Spirit, God’s Spirit and the Holy Spirit are three expressions referring to the same. The Spirit is what exudes from God, and that Spirit he has in
common with Jesus — they represent the same!
All people have basically two different spirits:
T01. The technical function of breathing. In Hebrew that is called neshama. And that
was the spirit that God blew into Adam’s nostrils so that he became a living soul.*
NB! The newest translations have started writing being here instead of soul. (GEN
02:07) And when a person dies, this spirit goes back to God who gave it. This spirit
is not connected to a persons personality, neither good nor bad. Remember: ‘He who
sleeps, does not sin.’ But he breathes!
T02. In time a person develops his personality of both good and bad traits. And this
was a result of Adam’s fall. Before this Adam was in God’s image until he ate from
the tree of knowledge. Only then did he take to him of Satan’s qualities and became
sinful. After this mankind has become bastards no longer being in the image of God.
What we represent after the fall, is a mixture of good and evil. In Hebrew that spirit
is called ruwah. And when a person dies, also this spirit goes back to God even if this
spirit is a mixture of both God and Satan. But a person’s personality remains in
God’s memory after he dies.
Only if a person has blasphemed the Holy Spirit the way Adam and Eve, Judas and
some of the priests and pharisees did, will their spirits be deleted from God’s memory — they are no longer written in ‘the book of life.’
NB! The ancient Greek language Koiné does not separate between these two spirits
the way the Hebrew language does. In Greek there is only one word for spirit, the
word pneuma.
THE PACT, HEB 03:14. ‘Because you shall become —’
NIV: ‘We have come to share in Christ if we hold firmly till the end the confidence
we had at first.’
KJ-1611: ‘For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence unto the end.’
310
NWT: ‘For we actually become partakers of the Christ only if we make fast out hold
on the confidence we had at the beginning form to the end.’
SHG: ginomai metochos christos ean katecho arche
hupostasis bebaios telos
Trans.: become co-heir christ if firm beginning confidence stand firm end
THE PACT: Because you will become Christ’s co-heirs if you continue in the same
confidence you had at the beginning and will stand firm until the end.
COMMENT: Here they all have an almost identical text even if it does not agree
with the Greek text. But they are no far off. If they had written the preposition with
instead of in or of, it would have been correct, even if still unclear. But then they
would have written: ‘We are to share in the inheritance with Christ —’ But the way
they all write now, it is impossible to get a correct understanding of this.
See how clear and logical it becomes if you check with the transliterated Greek text
and then read THE PACT!
THE PACT, HEB 04:03. ‘It is he who believes —’
NIV: ‘Now we who have believed enter the rest, just as God has said, “So I declared
on oath in my anger, ‘They shall not enter my rest.’” And yet his work has been finished since the creation of the world.’
KJ-1611: ‘For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn
in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished since
the foundation of the world.’
NWT: ‘For we who have exercised faith do enter into the rest, just as he has said: “So
I swore in my anger, they shall not enter into my rest,’” although his works were finished since the founding of the world.’
SHG: ho pisteuo eiserchomai eis katapausis ereo omnuo orge ei eiserchomai
Trans.: who believe enter
in rest
say swear wrath in eneter
eis katapausis kaitoi
in rest
even
ergon ginomai katakole
kosmos
work happen foundation world
THE PACT: It is he who believes who shall enter his rest, for he says: ‘In my wrath
I swore that they shall not enter my rest.’ And that even if his work was ready from
before the foundation of the world was laid.
PSA 95:11
311
COMMENT: It is common preaching that this was determined by God before he
started his work of creation, the very earth. Then those guys have been totally confused, because that simply means that God created this world based on Satan’s wish,
and a greater deception is hard to imagine.
The foundation of this world refers to after the fall. And the foundation was Cain and
Abel — the first individuals not created in the image of God, but who were a mix of
good and evil, a mixture of God and Satan.
God had decided his new order before Cain and Abel were born, before the foundation of this world — from then on temporarily ruled by Satan. The verse that explains this is Genesis 03:15. But if you have little knowledge of the Bible, you may
not understand the contents of this condensed verse.
You find the explanation of God’s Final Plan in What does the Bible Say?
NB! It does not say in the Hebrew text that God created mankind in his image. It says
that he created Adam in his image. But the word adamah, red earth, has developed
into meaning man.
THE PACT, HEB 04:12. ‘Because the word of God —’
NIV: ‘For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword
it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the
thoughts and attitudes of the heart.’
KJ-1611: ‘For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to dividing asunder of soul ans spirit, and of the joints
and marrow, and is a discerner of thoughts and the intents of the heart.’
NWT: ‘For the word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any twoedged sword, and pierces even to dividing soul ans spirit, and of joints and their
marrows, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.’
SHG: logos theos zao energes tomoteros huper pas distomos
machchaira
Trans.: word god live work sharp
over all double-edge sword
diikneomai merismos psuche pneuma harmos melos kritikos enthumesis ennoia
penetrate separate soul spirit
limb marrow judge purpose
mind
kardia
heart
312
THE PACT: Because the word of God is living and working. Sharper than a doubleedged sword it penetrates and severs the soul from the spirit, and limbs from marrow.
It judges thoughts and the purposes of the heart.
COMMENT: These translations are so insane that I hardly know whether to sit
down and cry or laughing out loud! If the soul is invisible and immortal, as King
James and NIV claims, how may then a sward divide souls? And how can a sword
divide a spirit? It becomes senseless!
When you separate the spirit from the soul, the soul, the very human being, dies, because then the soul can no longer breathe. The soul has been separated from the spirit. And when a sword cuts the head, or any other limb, of a man, it separates the
limbs from the marrow. NWT writes ‘and of joints and their marrows.’ Do joints
have marrows? The spinal marrow runs along a person’s spine, and what has been
separated from the marrow is from then on only a dead part of the body! Ok, also
bones may have a bone marrow, but that is not what this refers to, because if you cut
a limb from the body, both the limb and the bone marrow are separated from the soul.
And these are pictures of the power of the word of God. And — the reason why the
word of God is double-edged, is that it strikes both ways — to death of the ungodly,
to life for the believers!
NB! It is not the fault of the disbelievers that they reject the Bible as uninteresting.
It is the responsibility of the so-called Christians that have turned the Bible from
being a factual and interesting book into an incomprehensible fable! The senseless
translations of this verse by King James and NIV are a result of their not accepting
a correct understanding of the soul as the very human being, but adhere to the fable
of the immortal and invisible soul. If the soul were immortal, what power would then
the sword, a picture of the word of God, have over the soul?
To Jehovah’s Witnesses, who have a correct understanding of the soul, this must be
rather embarrassing, because it so clearly shows that they have copied from King
James and not translated from the original text.
THE PACT, HEB 04:13. ‘No part of creation is hidden—’
NIV: ‘Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered
and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.’
KJ-1611: ‘Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things
are naked and open unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.’
NWT: ‘And there is not a creation that is not manifest to his sight, but all things are
naked and openly exposed to whom we have an accounting.’
313
SHG: kai -ou ktisis
aphanos enopion pas gumnos trachelizo opthalmos
Trans.: also no creation hide
before all naked open
eye
hos -ho logos
that who word
THE PACT: No part of creation is hidden from him, and all will be revealed and laid
openly before the eyes of those who have his word.
COMMENT: It says nothing about anybody being accountable to God in this verse.
And again they have all managed to present an identically wrong translation even if
it says something totally different in the original text. What the Bible in this verse
presents as a blessing to all who believe God’s word, especially referring to the holy,
they have managed to turn into a premise of judgement.
THE PACT, HEB 05:04. ‘But no one can take this honor —’
NIV: ‘No one takes this honor upon himself; he must be called by God, just as Aaron
was.’
KJ-1611: ‘And no man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called by God,
as was Aaron.’
NWT: ‘Also, a man takes this honor, not of his own accord, but only when he is
called by God, just as Aaron also was.’’
SHG: ou
Trans.: no
tis lambano ho time heautou kaleo theos aaron
any take
such honor self
call god aaron
THE PACT: But no one can take this honor by himself. He must be called by God
as Aaron was.
COMMENT: A true translation of this verse is a powerful stick of dynamite in
relation the today’s Christian practice of including various priesthoods. God has only
established one single priesthood, the Levite, Aaronite, the Jewish. Aaron was a Levite, and this was the priesthood that rejected Christ when he came to his own. Then
this priesthood was abolished, and after that God has never established a new priesthood! To replace this priesthood God, together with Christ, established the Church
of God and Christ on the day of the Pentecost in the year 33 when the twelve apostles, and only the twelve apostles, received the Holy Spirit in form of tongues of fire.
All that is at strife with this, including priesthoods and churches, God will abolish.
This you will have confirmed if you read Revelation, chapters 18 and 19.
314
Many ‘israelsaved’ are left with no answer if you asked them what was God’s purpose of electing the twelve sons of Israel as his own people. But his purpose is clear:
Among these twelve tribes, twelve is always in the Bible a picture of that of the heavens, God chose one tribe, the Levites, to be responsible of the temple service. And
he chose Aaron and his descendants, all Levites, to make up an earthly priesthood as
an example of God’s final order after the establishment of the Realm of God, God’s
heavenly rule over the earth.
If these Levites had not broken the pact and rejected their own heavenly High Priest,
the Christ, Jesus, all of God’s heavenly priesthood, the Melchizedec, would have
been chosen among these Levites. And do not reject the fact that this priesthood, in
reference to Jesus, is to consist of a group of men without blemish. There were no
women among them. (LEV 21:16-24)
God’s original plan by choosing Israel’s twelve tribes as his own people, was to
choose from them a people for his name — the Melchizedec priesthood, the one
hundred and forty-four thousand.
NB! Note that NWT by Jehovah’s Witnesses has added the word also to their text.
The Greek text does not say also, but in that way they justify the establishment of
new priesthoods. And every time you consciously add a word, or delete one, in order
to adjust the Bible to one’s own convictions, it becomes a direct falsification!
To Jehovah’s Witnesses this must be especially embarrassing in this case, because
it shows that they are not able to translate the Bible correctly, not even when a correct translation agrees with their own teaching! And again it is so evident that they
have copied from King James which has also included the word also in their later
translations.
THE PACT, HEB 05:07. ‘At the time when he* —’
*Jesus
NIV: ‘During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions
with loud cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard
because of his reverent submission.’
KJ-1611: ‘Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death,
and was heard in that he feared.’
NWT: ‘In the days of his flesh Christ offered up supplications and also petitions to
the One who was able to save him out of death, with strong outcries and tears, and
he was favorably heard for his for his godly fear.’
315
SHG: hos hemera sarx prosphero deesis hiketeria ischuros kreuge dakru dunamai
Trans.: that day flesh present prayer before strong call
tear able
sozo thanatos eisakouo eulabeia
rescue death
listen
anxiety
THE PACT: At the time when he* was in the flesh, he bore forth prayers that he*
presented with strong calls and tears to him** who could have saved him from death.
But he** did not listen to his* anxieties.
**God *Jesus
COMMENT: Only once in the Bible does it say that Jesus prayed to God with cries
and tears, and that was in Gethsemane when he was asked to be relieved of the
painful process that awaited him. But God did not listen to him, and therefore he
had to fulfill God’s plan the way he had been sent to do. From Jesus was in Getsemane and until he dies on the pole, he was all alone and without God’s protection.
This was confirmed by Jesus himself just before he gave up his spirit: ‘My God, my
God, why have you left me!’
This verse is a striking example that those who translate the Bible, not only must be
able to use the ancient Greek language, included its corresponding grammar, correctly, but must also have a full knowledge and understanding of the message of the
Bible.
About the word not: That is not included in the Geek text. It must be added based on
the translators understanding of the text. And then it is imperative to realize that this
verse refers to Jesus’ prayers in Gethsemane, the only time he was not heard by God.
And why not? Because what Jesus prayed for, was against the will of God that he had
sent Jesus to fulfill!
THE PACT, HEB 05:09. ‘And after his being made —’
NIV: ‘— and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all
who obey him —’
KJ-1611: ‘And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto
all them that obey him, —’
NWT: ‘— and after he had been made perfect he became responsible for everlasting
salvation to all those obeying him, —’
SHG: teleioo
teleioo ginomai aitios aionios soteria pas hupakouo
Trans.: complete complete become source ageous rescue all obedient
316
THE PACT: And after his being made complete, he became a source of ageous rescue to all who are obedient.
COMMENT: Here King James write that Jesus became ‘the author of eternal salvation.’ This is directly contrary to the rest of the Bible, because the Bible says that the
whole rescue is from Jehovah. (1CO 01:26:31) Then he becomes the author and originator. Therefore Jesus may only be considered the secondary author. But, ‘nobody
comes to my Father except through me.’ Therefore Jesus becomes the inexhaustible
source of God’s ageous rescue.
Also note the use of the word eternal. It is not of biblical origin.
Gr. aion = age (referring to a long age)
Gr. aionious = of age, ageous (this is the adjective to the noun age. THE PACT
writes ageous, but it is hard find a good word here. And that is probably why earlier
translations have come up with the constructed word eternal.
All the time there are being made subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, attempts at
making Jesus into God the Almighty. But a lie does not become truth no matter how
many times it is repeated. Then it only becomes an even worse lie testifying to the
dishonesty of the clergy.
In the Bible Jesus is spoken of as the first of God’s creation (COL 01:05, REV 03:
14) and God’s foremost servant. (ISA 42:01-04, ISA 49:03, MAT 12:15-21) The contention that Jesus is God the Almighty is the roughest of all falsifications in relation
to the teaching of the Bible! It only agrees with the Pope, Luther and Emperor Constantin who introduced this blasphemous teaching at the church meeting in Nicosia
in the year 325. Until then it was not part of the teaching of the Christian faith
THE PACT, HEB 07:21. ‘Those who were priests —’
NIV: ‘— but he became a priest with an oath when God said to him: “The Lord has
sworn and will not change his mind: You are priest forever.”’
KJ-1611: ‘(For those priests were made without an oath, but this with an oath by him
that said unto him, The Lord has sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest forever
after the order of Melchisedec.’
NWT: ‘(for there are indeed men that have become priests without a sworn oath, by
the One who said respecting him: “Jehovah has sworn (and he will feel no regret),
You are a priest forever.”’
317
SHG: ho hiereus ginomai choris korkomosia korkomosia lego kurios omnuo
Trans.: who priest become without oath
oath
say lord
swear
metamellomai hiereus aion kata taxis melchisedek
regret
priest
age after order melchizedec
THE PACT: Those who were priests, had become so without an oath, but he became
one by an oath. For he says: ‘Jehovah has sworn, and he shall not regret. You shall
be priest in ages after the order of Melchizedec.’
PSA 110:04
COMMENT: NIV has left out ‘after the order of Melchizedec’ in this verse, but they
have included it in verse 17. Both NIV and King James write the Lord in this verse,
but this is a quote from Psalms 110:04 where it unequivocally says ‘Jehovah has
sworn.’ To me it becomes a direct falsification changing God’s name Jehovah to the
title Lord in this verse, and that without even a reference or footnote.
Being priest according to the order of Melchizedec refers to Jesus’ heavenly priesthood with the one hundred and forty-four thousand as his co-priests. (REV 14:01-05)
Read Revelation 14:01-05 with consideration, but read the text and not you own
mind.
THE PACT, HEB 10:15. ‘By the Holy Spirit it was —’
NIV: ‘The Holy Spirit also testifies about this. First he says: —’
KJ-1611: ‘Whereof also the Holy Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that he hath
said before: —’
NWT: ‘More over, the Holy Spirit also bears witness to us, for after it has said: —’
SHG: hagios pneuma kai martureo meta proereo proereo
Trans.: holy spirit
also testify after predict predict
THE PACT: By the Holy Spirit it was also testified to this when it was predicted:
COMMENT: Here we see that all three translations make the Holy Spirit into an
active person, which is directly at strife with the word of God. The Holy Spirit is in
the Bible the power and personality that emanates from God and Christ in commonship, and which they individually exert according to God’s wish. Making the Holy
Spirit into a deaf and dumb person without the ability to say a single word, and yet
being able to speak, is a great blasphemy!
318
Again it is strange that Jehovah’s Witnesses, who are aware of this, are unable to take
the consequences of this and translate according to the Greek text. Again they almost
slavishly follow King James! And be aware that there is only a limited use of
prepositions in Greek. But that is not how it is in English. Therefore the pereposition
must be added correctly to make a correct English based on Greek grammar. And
then the correct preposition must be added to the right place based on the contents,
and that even if the proposition is at the beginning of a sentence.
Ok, I am tempted to say that this is not such a great matter — the correct use of prepositions, I mean — but still — right is right, especially when referring to the Bible.
And believeing that the Holy Spirit is a deaf and dumb person, is one of the greatest
deceptions within Christianity.
Besides, remember that it was only the twelve chosen who received of God’s Holy
Spirit on the day of Pentecost in the year 33. And the Holy Spirit was the pawn of
their election to the Melchizedec priesthood until the day they died! But also after
their resurrection to a heavenly glory, will they remain subject to God’s power and
personality, God’s Holy Spirit. These are also the ones to wander in God’s prepared
acts. (EPH 02:10) And the acts they are to wander in, is to execute God’s power on
the earth and restore it to the way it would have been if Adam had not fallen to the
cunning ways of Satan.
THE PACT, HEB 10:39. ‘But we do not shy away —’
NIV: ‘But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who
believe and are saved.’
KJ-1611: ‘But we are not of them that draw back unto perdition, but of them that
believe to the saving of the soul.’
NWT: ‘Now we are not the sort that shrink back to destruction, but the sort that have
faith to the preserving alive of the soul.’
SHG: hupostole hupostole apoleia
pistis peripoiesis psuche
Trans.: pull back pull back destruction believe rescue
soul
THE PACT: But we do not shy away to destruction, for we believe in the rescue of
the soul.
COMMENT: Here King James refers to the perdition which is not a biblical teaching. Either you lose the heavenly election, and then you are lost. Or your soul will
be exterminated, and then you lose the possibility of a resurrection — on the earth.
319
It is my contention that NIV has deliberately omitted using the word soul in this
verse, simply because in this verse it becomes rather clear that the soul is the very
person, and not some hocus-pocus that you carry within yourself that cannot die and
that nobody can see! — There has got to be a limit!
Translating the word apoleia with perdition is free imagination!
Gr. apollumi = lose
Gr. olethos = destroy
Gr. apoleia = exterminate
THE PACT, HEB 11:13. ‘All these died in the faith —’
NIV: ‘All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive
the things promised; they only saw them from a distance. And they admitted that they
were aliens and strangers on the earth.’
KJ-1611: ‘These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen
the afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they
were strangers and pilgrims on the earth.’
NWT: ‘In faith all these died, although they did not get the fulfilment of the promises, but they saw them afar off and welcomed them and publicly declared that the
were strangers and temporary residents on the earth.’
SHG: houtos pas apothnesko pistis lambano epaggelia eido parrhoten peitho
Trans.: these all die
faith receive promise see far away believe
aspazomai homologeo xenos
pareipidemos epi ge
welcome realize
stranger foreigner
in land
THE PACT: All these died in the faith without getting their promise fulfilled. But
they saw it far away, and they believed in it, and they welcomed it, because they realized that they were foreigners in the country.
COMMENT: Both in Hebrew and Greek there is only one word for both earth and
land, erets and ge, and that has caused an incredible confusion to the translators and
the understanding of the word of God by Christians. But these could not possibly be
foreigners or strangers on the earth. They had lived on the earth all their lives. But
they were strangers and foreigners in the new land that they on God’s command had
chosen to settle it.
320
Christian interpretation is also that they were strangers on the earth because their real
homeland was the heavens. Not so. None of these had received a heavenly promise.
Their promise was a life in ages on the earth after the reestablishment of what man
lost because of Adam’s disobedience. And then it has become a reality what Peter
says in 2PE 03:13, THE PACT: ‘But according to his promise we look forward to
new heavens and a new earth where righteousness shall live.’ And that was the
promise that had not been fulfilled when they died.
THE PACT, HEB 11:16. ‘But they stretched for —’
NIV: ‘Instead they were longing for a better country — a heavenly one. Therefore
God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.’
KJ-1611: ‘But now they desire a better country, that is a heavenly: wherefore God
is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.’
NWT: ‘But now they are reaching for a better place, that is, one belonging to heaven. Hence God is not ashamed of them, to be called upon as their God, for he has
made a city ready for them.’
SHG: nuni orgeomai kreitton epouranios dio theos epaischunomai
Trans.: now stretch better heavenly come god ashame
epikeleomai theos hetoimazo polis
call
god prepare city
THE PACT: But they stretched for something better: That of the heavens which is
from God. Therefore he is not ashamed to be called their God by the city he is preparing.
COMMENT: The kingdom of David originated from Jerusalem. But not only Jerusalem was subject to his rule. So was also the rest of the country stretching to the
most remote corners of Israel. And this is an example of Jesus rule from the New
Jerusalem over the earth. This is what Paul refers to in this verse. And when these
will be resurrected to something better, that which they saw in the far distance, they
will be resurrected to a better earth without Satan’s influence, but an earth that is
subject to Jesus’ heavenly rule through the Realm of God.
Here NIV and King James refer to a better country — a heavenly one. That will have
to be on their own account, because it says nothing about a better country or a better
place in the Greek text. It is a grave falsification! It all builds on the free imagination
that all good go to heaven when they die, while the bad or evil end up in hell. Most
so-called Christians also reject the message of the Bible about ‘new heavens and a
new earth where righteousness shall live,’ because the whole group of them are ‘go-
321
ing to heaven.’ A greater deception than this nobody can be subjected to compared
to the clear message of the Bible. But when we see such translations that both NIV
and King James, and also to some extent NWT, it is not at all strange that honest people are being led astray!
We see again that both NIV and NWT build almost entirely on King James of 1611.
The same mistakes are repeated over and over again in both translations! But right
is right in relation to NWT: Where they discover obvious mistakes they sometimes
go in and correct them, such as the use of the word soul.
Writing ‘a better country’ and ‘a city made ready for them’ are grave falsifications
not agreeing with neither the Greek text nor the content of the Bible. Do they not
realize they keep making a liar out of Jesus with such translations! John 03:13.
‘Because nobody has ascended to the heavens except he who is from the heavens —
and he is the Son of Man.’ It is clear that nobody could enter into the heavens before
the curtain in the temple had tore in two. Besides, this only applied to the priests!
So who are we going to believe — Jesus or these false translations?
THE PACT, HEB 11:17. ‘By faith Abraham was about to —’
NIV: ‘In faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who
had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son.’
KJ-1611: ‘By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had
received the promises offered up his only begotten son.’
NWT: ‘By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac, and the
man that had gladly received the promises, attempted to offer up his only begotten
son, —’
SHG: pistis abraam peirazo prosphero isaak andechomai epaggelia prosphero
Trans.: faith abraham about offer
isaac receive
promise sacrifice
monogenes
monogenes
only generated only generated
THE PACT: By faith Abraham was about to sacrifice Isaac. He who had received
the promises, would sacrifice his only son!
COMMENT: Here they all keep adding words to the text as if they were coming out
of conveyor belts! It says nothing about ‘when he was tested’ in the Greek text. And
322
they all write the same! Strange that they have all included it even though it does not
say so in the original text. It becomes more and more evident that they keep copying
each other — and not the Greek text. NWT adds ‘gladly’ even if it is not in the Greek
text. They translate according to their own feelings, and not the Greek text.
NIV also writes Abrahams only son about Isaac. But Abraham also has an older son,
Ishmael. In addition he also he also had six sons with Ketura after Sarah had died.
Yet it is just as correct to write only as only begotten, because this refers directly to
the semen that is to lead to Christ.
Gr. monogenes = only generated from. And then we understand that Jesus as the
first of God’s creation is the only one generated directly from God. After that Christ
was behind the rest of creation — with God’s power.
How many promises did Abraham get? This is detailed, so therefore it is correct to
say that he got one, also two is correct, and even three and four. How may we understand that? First he got the promise of Isaac when Sarah was ninety and too old to
bear children. And this promised he received when the right time had passed. But this
promise was two promises in one, because it also referred to Jesus. And through
Jesus he also got two promises in one — one referring to the first resurrection in the
spirit and the other referring to the second resurrection of the soul — on the earth.
And these last tree promises Abraham has not yet received. Which promise will
Abraham then take part in when that time comes? The last, the second resurrection
to a life in ages on the earth!
Therefore the sons of Abraham does not refer to the Abrahams millions of descendants of this age, but to all who will receive a life in ages through Christ — a small
flock in the heavens, (LUK 12:32) the great white flock on the earth. (REV 07:09-17)
I am glad to show that this is how simple and factual God’s plan is. But, indeed, ask
if there are fablers! And ask if not all are going directly ‘to heaven’ when they die!
Not so.
THE PACT, HEB 11:40. ‘But God has foreseen —’
NIV: ‘God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would
they be made perfect.’
KJ-1611: ‘God having provided some better things for us, that they without us could
not be made perfect.’
NWT: ‘— as God foresaw something better for us, in order that they may not be
made perfect apart from us.’
323
SHG: theos problepo tis kreitton choris teleioo
teleioo
Trans.: god presee any better without complete complete
THE PACT: But God has foreseen something better for us. Because without us they
could not be made complete.
COMMENT: How may we understand this? — Those whom God had foreseen
something better for, were those who had been chosen to a heavenly existence. And
this was set in a time-frame relating to Christ, because only at Jesus’ death did the
curtain in the temple tear in two from top to bottom. And those who then get a heavenly existence, are made complete. ‘Us’ then in this verse refers to those who take
part in the first resurrection. ‘They’ in the next sentence refers to those who will take
part in the second resurrection, and according to God’s plan this could not happen
until after the heavenly division of the Realm of God had come in in full number.
Then also these others will be made complete, in other words given a life in ages on
the earth — but not without the assistance of God’s heavenly priesthood!
THE PACT, HEB 12:06. ‘For he whom Jehovah loves —’
NIV: ‘— because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he
accepts as a son.’
KJ-1611: ‘For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom
he receiveth.’
NWT: ‘— for whom Jehovah loves he disciplines; in fact, he scourges every one
whom he receives as a son.’
SHG: hos kurios agapao paideuo mastigo pas
Trans.: who lord
love discipline hold whip all
huios hos paradechomai
son who receive
THE PACT: For he whom Jehovah loves, he disciplines, and he swings the whip on
all the sons who will be received by him.’
PRO 03:11-12
COMMENT: Here we see that they all correctly write sons. Have they also understood that these sons refer to God’s priesthood, or do they just write sons in this verse
because it refers to discipline and punishment thinking that God would not punish
children? And as a picture he holds the whip over them!
None of these translations indicate that this is a quote from the First Pact, from Proverbs 03:11-12. And there is says Jehovah, not Lord. And as we then see, also the
Greek text has falsified this verse by omitting God’s name Jehovah and replacing it
with kurios, lord. NIV even thinks that this verse refers to Jesus, because when they
324
think the Lord is Jehovah, they write LORD in capital letters. And when they think
the Lord is Jesus, they write Lord with only a capital first letter.
King James also write ‘the sons whom he receives,’ so thereby they must have understood something they are not so eager to admit or present correctly.
THE PACT, HEB 12:08. ‘Because if you are not —’
NIV: ‘If you are not disciplined (and everyone undergoes discipline) then you are
illegitimate children and not sons.’
KJ-1611: ‘But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then you
are bastards and not sons.’
NWT: ‘But if you are without discipline of which we all have become partakers,
you are really illegitimate children, and not sons.’
SHG: ei
Trans.: if
choros paideia
hos pas metochos ara nothos
huios
without discipline then all co-heir
be illegitimate son
THE PACT: Because if you are not disciplined like everybody else, then you are not
co-heirs, but illegitimate sons.
COMMENT: These translations are confusing, because they write that all partake
in God’s punishment while the text actually refers to the sons as Jesus’ co-heirs. And
they are all sons. And these are the sons who are being adopted as Gods heavenly
sons, those who get the sonship. These facts may have eluded both NIV and King
James, and also the translators or scribes of NWT. And therefore they all write
‘illegitimate children’ instead if ‘illegitimate sons.’ Admittedly, it is confusing.
As usual NWT is faithful to King James by following their text in detail and therefore avoid seeing that this refers to the one hundred and forty-four thousand — God’s
heavenly priesthood. — Uuufff!
THE PACT, HEB 12:29. ‘Because God can —’
NIV: ‘— for our “God is a consuming fore.”
KJ-1611: ‘For our God is a cunsuming fire.’
NWT: ‘For our God is also a consuming fire.’
SHG: theos katanalisko pur
Trans.: god consume
fire
THE PACT: Because God can consume like fire!
325
COMMENT: It is almost comical making God into a consuming fire. If God only
was a consuming fire, he would not be much. NWT seem to have the same understnding, and maybe that is why they have added also even if it is not in the Greek
text. It is another example that they add words here and there, in this verse both our
and also. Also in addition to what?
What Paul warns about in this short verse, is God’s ability to consume like fire. Do
we have any examples? Yes, by the number! But it is enough just to mention one:
When Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, they became through God’s wish consumed by fire! By the way, the same happened to the Baal-priests at the time of Elijah.
THE PACT, HEB 13:02. ‘And do not forget your hospitality—’
NIV: ‘Do not forget to entertain strangers, for by so doing some people have entertained angels without knowing it.’
KJ-161: ‘Be not forgetful to entertain strangers: for thereby some have entertained
angels unawares.’
NWT: ‘Do not forget hospitality, for through it some, unknown to themselves,
entertained angels.’
SHG: epilanthanomai philonexia philonexia dia tautei tis xenia
aggelos
Trans.: forget
hospitality hospitality by this some strange messenger
lanthano
ignorant
THE PACT: And do not forget your hospitality, because by it some of you shall receive strange messengers so that you will not remain ignorant.
COMMENT: Wow! Some have been visited by ‘angels’ without knowing it! Here
the translators of this verse all expose their total lack of biblical understanding! First,
this verse does not refer to invisible heavenly beings, ‘angels,’ but to earthly messengers, for instance when Jesus sent out the twelve and the seventy, and the following
preaching about God’s plan and Jesus’ acts. What this verse says is this: If you are
hospitable and receive strangers as your guests when they come knocking on your
door, you will receive knowledge about the message they bring. And then you will
not remain ignorant about Jesus’ work, but receive the message and as a result maybe
receive a life in ages!
326
Think for yourself! How can you receive, and even entertain, an invisible heavenly
being that they do not even know is visiting? How can you then be hospitable? By
adding an extra plate on the table just in case someone invisible shows up? —
There has got to be a limit! Such translations are nothing but great deceptions. And
here is again solid proof that they copy King James that also have the same text, only
in outmoded English!
NB! Note that Hebrews 13:01-10 is all about practical rules and recommendations
from Paul to a good Christian life. There is no mention of any heavenly hocus-pocus!
Believing that this has anything to do with invisible heavenly beings becomes insane!
THE PACT, HEB 13:23. ‘You shall know, brothers —’
NIV: ‘I want you to know that our brother Timothy has been released. If he arrives
soon, I will come with him to see you.’
KJ-1611: ‘Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty, with whom, if he comes
shortly, I will see you.’
NWT: ‘Take note that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom, if he
comes quite soon, I shall see you.’
SHG: ginosko adelphos timotheos apoluo apoluo apoluo hos ean erchomai
Trans.: know brother timothy release release release that if come
tachion optanomai
soon
see
THE PACT: You shall know, brothers, that Timothy has been released so that he
soon will be able to come and visit you.
COMMENT: It is being maintained that the letter to the Hebrews has not been
written to a special group, but to all Hebrews, all of Jewish descent, who have accepted Christ. That seems probable, but it still seems that Paul addresses a specian group
in this verse. Which one we do not know.
They all write that he will come and visit them together with Timothy, but as you see
from the Greek text it does not say so there. This is another example that they copy
King James almost word by word.
327
in Titus
THE PACT, TIT 01:01. ‘From Paul, a God’s slave —’
NIV: ‘Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ for the faith of God’s
elect and the knowledge of the truth that leads to godliness —’
KJ-1611: ‘Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the
faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness, —’
NWT: ‘Paul, a slave of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ according to the faith of
God’s chosen ones and the accurate knowledge of the truth which accords with godly
devotion —’
SHG: paulos doulos theos apostolos iesous christos kata pistis theos elektos
Trans.: paul slave god apostle jesus christ after faith god choose
epignosis
aletheia kata eusebeia elpis aionios zoe
correct knowledge truth
after holiness hope ageous life
THE PACT: From Paul, a God’s slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, in the faith of
God’s elect to correct knowledge of the truth and leading to sanctification and a hope
of receiving ageous life.
COMMENT: It is nothing major, because whether you write servant or slave the
contents is about the same. But right is right, and the Greek text writes slave. Why
then do the write KJ and NIV write servant? Well, this is based on solid Christian
tradition, and then what is right or wrong is not a decisive question.
The Greek word doulos means slave, but then we should realize that a slave in biblical relation often builds on voluntariness. In addition it was regulated by the law
that a slave was entitled his freedom every seven years. But a slave often opted to
stay with his master because many of then had nowhere else to go. And as a result we
Wrongly Translated Verses in Titus
328
have the expression ‘a slave contract.’ In many Scandinavian translation they use the
Nordic word thrall instead of slave. That is not quite correct, first and foremost
because it is not of biblical origin. And the concept is also different, because a Nordic
thrall very seldom became a free man. They were thralls for life.
Therefore THE PACT consistently write slave based on Greek and biblical traditions.
Gr. doulos = slave, a slavery of a minimum of seven years. The Greek word for
slave, doulos, is being used 127 times in 118 verses in the Greek text.
Gr. pais = servant. The word is being used 24 times in 24 verses in the Greek text.
THE PACT follows this consistently in its translation.
THE PACT; TIT 01:06, If so may be, he should be blameless
—’
NIV: ‘An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.
KJ-1611: ‘If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not
accused of riot or unruly.’
NWT: ‘If there is any man free from accusation, a husband of one wife, having believing children that were not under the charge of debauchery nor unruly.’
SHG: ei ei-tis anegkletos aner mia gune echo pistos teknon en kategoria
Trans.: if so any blameless man one woman have faithful child any blame
asotia
e anupotaktos
immorality or rebellion
THE PACT: If so may be, he should be blameless, a one woman man, have faithful
children who cannot be blamed for immorality or be possessed by rebellion.
COMMENT: They all write husband and wife where the Greek text says man and
woman. One preacher once told me it would be disrespectful writing man and woman
instead of husband and wife. Well, it is not a question of rescue or decay, but what
is disrespectful, is changing the original text into modern day phrases. What is wrong
with man and woman?
329
in First Timothy
THE PACT, 1TI 02:06. ‘He gave himself as a corresponding—’
NIV: ‘— who gave himself as a ransom for all men — the testimony given in its
proper time.’
KJ-1611: ‘Who gave himself as a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.’
NWT: ‘— who gave himself as a corresponding ransom for all — this is what is to
be witnessed to at its own particular time.’
SHG: ho didomi heautou antilutron
pas marturion idios kairos
Trans.: who give self
corresponding ransom all testimony own time
THE PACT: He gave himself as a corresponding ransom to all, and that has become
the testimony about him in his own time.
COMMENT: There is a deep disagreement about the translation of this verse, and
the di-vision is between for or against the teaching of the trinity. Because by writing
corresponding ransom the translation refers to Adam, which the proponents of the
trinity reject, because then Jesus cannot be God the Almighty.
The word lutron is being used twice about Jesus in the Bible, in Matthew 20:28 and
Mark 10: 45. There all have translated the word ransom. But Paul explains this in
more detail and writes antilutron, a counterpart to, corresponding to. And then Paul
refers to Adam.
Why did God hinder Abraham from sacrificing Isaac? Yes, that was exactly because
Isaac as sinful could not be a corresponding sacrifice to the originally immortal and
sin-free Adam. And it was exactly therefore God sent Jesus, not only as any ransom,
but a ransom corresponding to, as a counterpart to, Adam. That is also why Jesus is
called ‘the last Adam.’ (1CO 15:45) There should be no disagreements over this,
Wrongly Translated Verses in First Timothy
330
because all you have to do is check the original text and see what it says there. But
again is this a solid proof that the translators do not always have honest intentions.
By the way, why did this become a testimony about himself? That is easy. In that way
he proved that he was the Son of God, which also the soldier confirmed when he gave
up his breath: ‘He really was the Son of God!’ (MAR 15:39)
NB! The New World Translation is correct in writing corresponding ransom, but by
writing ‘at its own particular time,’ they follow King James and refer to a time in the
future, instead of referring to Jesus sacrificial death there and then.
Jesus called to the priests and pharisees in despair: ‘If you do not believe me on my
words, at least believe me on my acts!’ I am tempted to say something similar: ‘If you
do not understand the contents of what you are translating, at least keep to the text!’
1TI 02:13 — ‘For Adam was formed first. Thereafter —’
NIV: ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve.’
KJ-1611: ‘For Adam was first formed, then Eve.’
NWT: ‘For Adam was formed first, then Eve.’
SHG: adam protos plasso eita
eua
Trans.: adam first form thereafter eva
NB! They all correctly write formed here.
PAKTEN: For Adam was formed first, thereafter Eve.
COMMENT: They all write formed here, but Norwegian translations use many different names: created, formed, molded, born, generated, made, etc. All versions may
be accepted even if the word plasso in this case refers to being ‘formed in a mold,’
so molded may even be more correct to cover the full content of the word. THE
PACT has chosen ‘formed’ as the best choice. But as mentioned before: If you do not
understand what you are translating, at least follow the text.
Many Christians eagerly maintain the Michael, later the Messiah, was born. They do
not understand that the word is only a picture of his nearness to God, because no one
imagines God nine months pregnant. Most translation write only begotten. The Greek
word is mongenes which means only generated from, and thereby we understand that
only is just as correct as only begotten. One hundred percent correct is only generated.
331
THE PACT, 1TI 02:15. ‘But they will be rescued —’
NIV: ‘But women will be saved through childbearing — if they continue in faith,
love and holiness with propriety.’
KJ-1611: ‘Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in
faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.’
NWT: ‘However, she will be kept safe through childbearing, provided they continue
in faith and love and sanctification along with soundness of mind.’
SHG: sozo teknogonia ean meno
Trans.: rescue childbirth if
keep
pistis agape hagiasmos sophrosune
faith love purity
sobriety
THE PACT: But they will be rescued through the childbirth* if they persevere in
their faith, in love, purity and sobriety.
*Jesus’ birth
COMMENT: Here the nuances are fine, and they have all fallen for the temptation
of writing holy, but seldom in the Bible does it refer to holy womwn, except for those
who have been laid in their graves.
To be holy means being set aside, so in that respect also women might be holy, set
aside. Also those in the graves are referred to as holy in the Bible (MAT 27:52), and
nobody can deny that those in the graves have been set aside, in the true meaning of
the word. But when the Bible refers to the holy, it almost exclusively refers to the
members of God’s heavenly priesthood. And, in reference to Jesus, that is to consist
of men without blemish. And that is also why no women were chosen as priests according to the First Pact. And it is only according to the First Pact God has established a priesthood. Today there are no priesthoods established by God! (HEB 05:04)
Therefore, if a false priest is a man or a woman, becomes totally indifferent!
It is common teaching, supported both by the Pope and Luther, that a woman is saved
through childbirth. And here both NIV and King James, as well as NWT, writes the
same. That is how they interpret this verse. But instead of interpreting, they should
try to understand, because such translations are brainless madness placing the word
of God in extreme discredit.
One Bible critic, well, he was actually a bible hater, had this reasoning: ‘Does not the
Bible say that if a woman only gets herself pregnant with any kind of bastard, she
will be saved and come to heaven!’ — Uff!
Not so. Use your brains! The childbirth Paul refers to, that which saves, is the birth
of Jesus. And that is the only childbirth that may save a woman as well as a man!
332
THE PACT, 1TI 04:01. ‘By the Spirit it is clearly —’
NIV: ‘The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and
follow deceiving spirits and things thought by demons.’
NB! Here NIV has turned the Spirit into a person who speaks. That makes the confusion complete, because the teaching of the trinity explains that the Holy Spirit does
not speak! It is presented as a deaf and dumb person.
KJ-1611: ‘Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; —’
NB! Of course also the origin of this deception has made the Spirit into a speaking
person!
NWT: ‘However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time
some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances
and teaachings of demons.’
NB! This is as confusing as the other, yet in different ways. Taking away the word
spirit and replacing it with ‘the inspired utterance’ becomes a falsification no matter
how well meant it may be. And it changes nothing that is wrong; only makes it worse.
SHG: de pneuma lego rhetos husteron chronos tis
aphistemi pistis prosecho
Trans.: so spirit say clear last
age
some leave
faith keep to
planos pneuma didaskalia daimonion
deceptive spirit
teaching demonic
THE PACT: But by the spirit it is clearly revealed that in the last ages some shall
leave the faith and keep to deceiving spirits and demonic teachings.
COMMENT: This is a clear warning of what will happen after the last apostles no
longer are present to defend the original true faith through their power. And there
have indeed developed many unbiblical interpretations as well as a countless number
of satanic priesthoods and churches. It started when the beast (the Roman Empire)
rose from the abyss and made Christianity into a state religion. Then the teaching of
the Bible was adjusted to agree with worldly leaders’ hunger for power. The reason
why the Lutheran teaching got such a fast and strong foothold in all Scandinavian
countries, was the fact that through the confiscation of all Catholic properties and
placing them under the state, the kings increased their power drastically by being not
only head of state, but also becoming head of the church. It had vary little, yes, next
to nothing, to do with the teaching which was almost identical. It was a power struggle!
What demonic teachings does Paul refer to? The row is long! And a solid proof of
this you find in the very translation of this verse — that God’s Spirt is a person able
333
to speak! And then we are heading straight on to the blasphemous teaching of the
trinity that God is One, God the Almighty, but that he is also two, God the Almighty
and Jesus Christ, but in addition he is also three — God the Almighty, Jesus Christ
and the Holy Spirit. And as a consequence he is only one third of a Godhead existing
of thee equally powerful persons! — Uff! How far away from the truth is it possible
to stray? And this many claim to believe in, but often without understanding what
they profess. The regime of the trinity is strong, introduced by Emperor Constantin
in the year 321 and officially adopted by the church in 325, together with a hole heap
of demonic teachings — the invisible and immortal soul’s ever lasting torment in an
ever lasting burning hell. And in this last sentence alone you will find three such demonic teachings! Which?
But the Lutheran state run churches are not much better off, because subjected to a
mundane state they have to adjust their teachings according to the political development. And what demonic teachings has that resulted in? Another heap! But almost
all that was introduced by Constantin was adopted by the Catholic Church and transferred to the Protestants by Luther — child baptism, the horrible teaching that an
unbaptized child goes to hell if he or she dies, confirmations, church weddings, the
sprinkling of dirt on the coffins, etc., etc. All this build on demonic teachings which
after centuries have become so entrenched in Western culture that most people do
no longer evaluate whether they are of God or not. Most do not even care!
THE PACT, 1TI 04:03. ‘They forbid people to take and —’
NIV: ‘They forbid people to get married and order them to abstain from certain
foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and
who know the truth.’
KJ-1611: ‘Forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
truth.’
NWT: ‘— forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God
created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have truth.’
SHG: koluo gameo apechomai broma hos theos ktizo metalepsis eucharistia
Trans.: forbid marry reject
food that god create accept
thanks
pistos
pistos
epiginosko
aletheia
confidence confidence correct knowledge truth
THE PACT: And they forbid people to take and give in marriage, and they abstain
334
from food that God has created so that we who have correct knowledge about the
truth, will receive with thanks and faithfulness.
COMMENT: Some translations write come to acknowledge of instead of correct
knowledge of the truth. Such translations make it difficult for the reader to understand the true content of what he is reading. Because there is a great difference between acknowledge and have knowledge of something. But the Greek text here refers
to having a correct, or central, knowledge of the word. The Greek word is epignosis.
The word gnosis means knowledge, and the prefix epi refers to that which is central,
ref. the word epicenter. And the epicenter of an earthquake refers to the exact point,
the center, of the quake’s origin. Why mess this up when it is so simple?
Gr. epignosis = correct knowledge, subst.
Gr. epiginosko = have correct knowledge, verb
The expression to get married is neither of biblical origin, but builds on our Western
culture with church weddings. It is not a biblical teaching. In Greek it says ‘give and
take in marriage.’ And this did not happen in a church, but according to God’s norm.
Who forbids people to marry? Is it not the Pope demanding all priests to live in celibacy! And this has resulted in all kinds of ungodly behavior such as homosexual
abuse of the quire boys.
One Catholic priest made as many as twenty-four nuns pregnant! He was quite a stud,
but in order to preserve his reputation as a priest in celibacy, he forced each and all
of them to have an abortion!
Are not also nuns supposed to live in celibacy?
THE PACT, 1TI 05:21. ‘I testify before God and the Lord —’
NIV: ‘I charge you, in the sight of God and Christ Jesus and before the elect angels,
to keep those instructions without partiality, and to do nothing out of favoritism.’
NB! Who are the elect angels, also in King James.
KJ-1611: ‘I charge thee before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the elect angels,
that thou observe these things without preferring one before another, doing nothing
by partiality.’
NWT: ‘I solemnly charge you before God and Christ Jesus and the chosen angels to
keep these things without prejudgement, doing nothing according to biased leaning.’
NB! Who are the chosen angels?
SHG: diamarturomai enopion theos kurios iesous christos elektos aggelos
Trans.: testify
before god lord jesus christ elect messenger
335
phulasso tauta choris prokrima prokrima poieo medeis prosklisis
obey
this without prejudge prejudge do
nothing partial
THE PACT: I testify before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the holy messengers: Obey this without prejudging, and do nothing unless you are impartial.
COMMENT: Here both NIV and King James refer to elect angels. Have you ever
hear of any elect or chosen angels in the ble? No, never! But elect or chosen messengers you hear about all the time, for instance when Jesus sent out the twelve and the
seventy. Apostles and messengers are the same. An apostle is also a messenger, one
who brings a message. And when Jesus sent out the twelve, an example of the preaching among Israel, and the seventy, an example of the preaching among the peoples,
it was Jesus’ intention by sending out the apostles that they were to present the message about Jesus, the Messiah, God’s Rescuer. They were then God’s chosen, or
elect, messengers.
The first elect were the twelve apostles, and those later chosen were those who, one
by one, accepted the message about Jesus. It has nothing to do with invisible, heavenly beings flapping their wings! — There has got to be a limit!
Greek apostolos = messenger, emissary.
Greek aggelos = messenger, proclaimer
THE PACT, 1TI 06:09. ‘Those who desire riches —’
NIV: ‘People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction.’
KJ-1611: ‘But they that will be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many
foolish and harmful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition.’
NWT: ‘However, those who are determined to be rich fall into temptation and a snare
and many senseless and hurtful desires, which plunge men into destruction and ruin.’
1TI 06:09
SHG: boulomahee plouteo eis peirasmos pagis eis polus anoetos blaberos
Trans.: desire
riches in temptation snare to much senseless harmful
epithumia hostis buthuzo anthropos olethros apoleia
desire
such go under man
destroy lose
THE PACT: Those who desire riches may fall into temptations and snares that again
336
may lead to senseless and harmful desires. Such people are about to go under. They
may be destroyed and get lost.
COMMENT: I include this verse also even if it may not we wrongly translated, but
it is indeed confusing.
U01. According to the Bible you may be lost. That simply mean, as the word says,
that you lose the election to God’s heavenly priesthood. Then the Greek word is
apoleia.
U02. But you may also be destroyed. That means that you will either become exterminated during the great tribulatin. Then you will not be resurrected. But if you have
died before this happens, you will become resurrected to the judgement whether you
have been a Christian or not. If you then side with Satan during his last rebellion
against God, you will become annihilated once and for all. The correct word is destroyed. The Greek word is olethros. It is that simple! The word perdition in King
James refers to hell. That has never been a biblical teaching. The word ruin in NIV
and NWT refers to material ruin, but that is not what this verse is all about even if it
refers to those who want to become rich in a negative way.
THE PACT, 1TI 06:14-16. ‘Keep his commands without —’
NIV 06:14-16. ‘— to keep his command without spot or blame until the appearing
of our Lord Jesus Christ, 15 which God will bring about in his own time — God, the
blessed and only ruler, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16 who alone is immortal
and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be
honor and might forever. Amen.’
Congratulations! They have got it right this time!
KJ-1611: ‘That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the
appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: 15 Which in his times he shall show, who is the
blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 who only hath
immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, whom no man
hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.’
NWT: ‘— that you observe the commandment in a spotless and irreprehensible way
the manifistation of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 This manifestation the happy and only
Potentate will show in its own appointed times, the King of those who rule as kings,
and Lord of those who rule as lords. 16 the one alone having immortality, who dwells
in unapproachable, who not one of men has seen or can see. To him be honor and
might everlasting. Amen.’
337
This was encouraging. These three translations have all got this right while the very
most Scandinavian translations have it wrong by making God into Jesus Christ.
Well, they do have a tendency to follow King James’ original version of 1611 — for
better or worse.
SHG: tereo ho entole
aspilos aspilos anepileptos mechri epiphaneia
Trans.: keep that commandment spotless spotless blameless until manifestation
kurios jesus christus
lord jesus christ
THE PACT: Keep this commands without spot or blame till our Lord Jesus Christ
makes himself known!
1TI 06:15-16. The only immortal
1TI 06:15
SHG: hos chronos deiknuo ho markarios monos dunastes basileus basileuo
Trans.: som tid
bestemme som velsignet eneste enehersker konge konger
kurios kurieuo
herre herrer
THE PACT: That will happen when he* himself decides, he who is blessed, the only
absolute ruler, King over kings and the LORD over all lordships.
*God
1TI 06:16
SHG: ho monos echo athanasia oikeo phos hos oudeis aprositos
Trans.: who only have mortality live light that no one access
oudeis anthropos eido dunamai eido hos time kratos aionios amen
no
man
see able
see who glory power ageous amen
THE PACT: He is the only one who is immortal and lives in a light no one can approach. No man has seen him or can see him. The glory and the power is his in ages!
Amen.
COMMENT: In verse 14 Paul refers to the coming of the Christ. And the way some
translations present the next two verses, they refer back to Jesus as God the Almighty. That is not the case, and based on the language it may seem that way. That
is not the case. And many preaches it that way, even if the text says differently. But
if you study the text carefully, you will see that Paul pictures refer to God the Al-
338
mighty. It is only God who lives in a light nobody can approach. And it is only God
whom nobody has seen or can see.
Also: Vers 14 is a warning against a wrong lifestyle just prior to Jesus’ coming, while
verse 15 and 16 are a praise to God for his rescue through Jesus Christ. Many honest
readers get confused here. In some texts it is enough just changing a period to a
comma to make Jesus into God the Almighty.
339
in Second Timothy
THE PACT, 2TI 02:01. ‘Now, my child, be strong — ’
NIV: ‘You then, my son, be strong the grace that is in Christ Jesus.’
KJ-1611: ‘Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus.’
NWT: ‘You, therefore, my child, keep on acquiring power in the undeserved kindness in connection with Christ Jesus.’
2TI 02:01
SHG: oun teknon endunamoo charis christos iesous
Trans.: now child strong
grace christ
jesus
THE PACT: Now, my child, be strong in the grace of Jesus Christ.
COMMENT: Most translations write son here, but the Greek text says child. I have
therefore believed that Paul refers to his younger co-workers as sons, but that is not
correct. He refers to them as his children. And it was common at that time to refer to
some whom you had converted to Christ, as my children, my children in the faith or
my children in Christ. Therefore Paul refers to Timothy as his child, not son.
It is not a major matter, such as a question of rescue or not, but why not let right be
right? It is much easier consistently following the Greek text than to keep changing
it all the time. Well, many have chosen to just making some changes to a copied version of King James which will often lead to contradictions.
You will not find a single contradiction in the Greek text, but in wrong or direct false
translations they abound.
Gr. huios = sønn, fole, etc. It actually means offspring of the male gender. Therefore it can never be correct to translate huios with child, even if also a son may be a
child. The first Christians called young men whom they were working with sons to
indicate nearness and difference in age.
Wrongly Translated Verses in Second Timothy
340
Gr. teknon = child. It was common among the first Christians to call such whom
they themselves had converted, while they were still new in the faith and without a
deeper knowledge of the word of God, for their children in the faith, and Paul first
met Timothy in Galatia on his second journey. (ACT 02:01-03)
NB! Check the long, fancy text of NWT with the short, factual Greek text.
THE PACT, 2TI 02:19. ‘Yet, God’s solid foundation —’
NIV: ‘Nevertheless, God’s solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription:
“The Lord knows those who are his,” and: “Everyone who confesses the name of the
Lord must turn away frm wickedness.”’
KJ-1611: ‘Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, “The
Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one naming the name of Christ depart from iniquity.’
NWT: ‘For all that, the solid foundation of God stays standing, having this seal: “Jehovah knows those who belong to him,” and: “Let everyone naming the name of Jehovah renounce unrighteousness.”’
SHG: mentoi themelios theos histemi stereos echo tautei sphragis
kurios
Trans.: yet
foundation god stand
strong have this inscription lord
ginosko pas onomazo onoma christos aphistemi adikia
know
all confess name christ** refrain
evil
**Jehovah God
THE PACT: Yet, God’s solid foundation remains standing with these inscriptions:
‘The LORD* knows his own.’ And: ‘All who confess the name of the LORD,* must
refrain from evil.’
*JHVH
COMMENT: For each new translation we seem to get further and further away from
the contents of the original text. This is without doubt a willed development, but if
you read this verse with consideration, you will see that it only refers to God and his
solid foundation. Therefore, in the oldest handwritings it says LORD* also where
Strong’s write Christ.
*JHVH
THE PACT is in every way striving to get as close on the original text as possible.
Therefore THE PACT follows the advise that Paul gave to Timothy in verse 15 ‘not
to be ashamed of cutting all the way into the truth of the word,’ even if the opposition to that has been strong at times! The established churches have much to hide,
and they do not take kindly to anybody trying to expose them.
341
THE PACT, 2TI 04:03. ‘For the time will come —’
NIV: ‘For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead,
to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to
say what their itching ears want to hear.’
KJ-1611: ‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after
their own lusts shall heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; —’
NWT: ‘For there will be a period f time when they will not put up with the healthful
teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for
themselves to have their ears tickled: —’
SHG: kairos einai hote anechomai hugiaino didaskalia kata idios epithumia
Trans.: time come when persevere uncorrupt teaching after own wish
episoreuo heautou didaskalos knetho akoe
gather
self
teacher
tickle ear
THE PACT: For the time will come when they shall not persevere an unfalsified
teaching, but after their own wishes they shall gather teachers according to what tickles the ear.
COMMENT: Again: It is nothing major, but the Greek text says tickle, not itch. And
there is a difference: An itch you scratch to get rid of the itch, but it is when somebody tickles your ears that you get that strange, funny and exciting feeling. And that
is what Paul refers to in this verse.
Gr. knetho = tickle
Gr. knao = itch
THE PACT, 2TI 04:05. ‘But you, be factual —’
NIV: ‘But you, keep your head in all situations, endure hardships, do the work of
an evangelist, discharge all the duties of your ministry.’
KJ-1611: ‘But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.’
NWT: ‘You, though, keep your senses in all things, suffer evil, do the work of an
evangelizer, fully accomplish your ministry.’
NB! Both NIV and NWT are here copies of the wrong translation of King James.
SHG: nepho pas kakopatheo
kakopatheo
Trans.: sober all endure trouble endure trouble
342
poieo ergon euaggelistes
do
work preacher
plerophoreo plerophoreo plerophoreo diakonia
fulfill
fulfill
fulfill
service
THE PACT: But you, be factual in everything! — Persevere in troubles, do a preacher’s work and fulfill your service.
COMMENT: Here you see many different texts of the short and simple word nepho.
It means sober, but without referring to anybody’s alcoholic consumption. The best
translation is to write factual, as contrary to myths. Writing ‘watch all things’ is a
more doubtful translation, and ‘keep your head,’ or ‘senses,’ is just a slightly altered
version of the same. THE PACT cuts directly to the very content of the word nepho.
Actually: ‘Be sober in everything.’ As opposed to spreading myths. In more modern
English we would say: ‘Be factual in everything.’ As opposed to spreading myths.
343
in Jacob
THE PACT, JAC 02:21. ‘Abraham, our father, was made —’
NIV: ‘Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he
offered his son Isaac on the altar.’
KJ-1611: ‘Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac
his son on the altar?’
NWT: ‘Was not Abraham our father declared righteous by works after he had offered
up Isaac his son upon the altar?’
SHG: abraam pater dikaio
ergon anaphero isaak huios thusiasterion
Trans.: abraham far
righteous act
lift up
isaac son
altar
THE PACT: Abraham, our father, was made righteous through an act when he was
willing to offer his son Isaac on the altar.
COMMENT: Here they all write that Isaac was offered on the altar. That is not correct. Abraham never offered Isaac on any altar! He was willing to do it, because he
figured that God had the power to raise him up. (HEB 11:19)
But God stopped him because he had proved his faith in God. But also because Isaac
could never have become a full worthy sacrifice for the sins of man in relation to
Adam who was without sin until he fell. And God had already prepared his plan to
send Jesus.
Check the Greek text. It says that Abraham lifted him up on the alter. And that he did,
but without sacrificing him. But if you are going to write offer or sacrifice, which
was the purpose of Abraham lifting him up on the altar, you must add ‘was willing
to’ in order to make the translation agree with what actually happened.
Wrongly Translated Verses in Jacob
344
THE PACT, JAC 02:23. ‘Then the Scripture was fulfilled —’
NIV: ‘And the scripture was fulfilled that says: “Abraham believed in God, and it
was credited to him as righteousness.” And he was called God’s friend.’
KJ-1611: ‘A the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it
was imputed into him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God.’
NWT: ‘— and the scripture was fulfilled which says: “Abraham put his fath in
Jehovah, and it was contd to him as righteousness,” and he came to be called Jehovah’s friend.’
SHG: graphe pleroo ho lego abraam pisteu theos logizomai dikaiosune
Trans.: scripture fulfill when say abraham believe god
consider righteous
caleo phileo theos
call friend god
THE PACT: Then the Scripture was fulfilled when it says: ‘Abraham believed in
Jehovah, and he was considered righteous.’ And he was called the LORD’s* friend.
GEN 15:06
*JHVH
COMMENT: In the original older scriptures it says Jehovah in this verse, not God.
It has been replaced sometime down the years. It is still strange that they are so inconsiderate that they change a text that shows directly to the First Pact, in this case
Genesis 15:06. There it says in Hebrew: aman yehovah chashab tsedeqah —
Yet, this verse refers to faith which also Paul underscores. So how can two such
direct opposite claims both be correct? Years ago I struggled with it, but when it
finally dawned on me it all seemed so logical. The acts Paul referred to that did not
lead to the goal, were the acts of the sons of Israel based on the law of Moses. And
we know that the law of Moses was neither based on faith or the grace of God
through Christ, but obedience only. The acts that Jacob refers to are the acts based
on Jesus’ commandments, such as his commandment of love, which was based on
both faith in Christ and acts of God’s grace, also based on Christ.
‘No one comes to my Father except through me.’ (JOH 14:06)
Every time I read Jacob I catch myself sitting wondering whether he at all has
understood Paul’s writings or not. Because Paul is quite clear on this. Also Jacob
connects faith with acts, but faith in God, not Christ, when he refers to Abraham. If
Jacob had been fully clear on this, he ought to have referred to the faith in Christ.
345
THE PACT presents all direct quotes from the First Pact in Italics with a direct references to the verse in Hebrew. This is done so that the reader may easily go back to
the First Pact and check what is says there, because so many of these verses have
been falsified during translation. The last sentence of this verse is not part of the
original text, but has been added by Jacob. Therefore THE PACT neither presents it
in Italics nor write Jehovah.
THE PACT, JAC 02:25. ‘And — for the same reason also —’
NIV: ‘In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for
what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?’
KJ-1611: ‘Likewise was not also Rahab the harlotjustified by works, when she received the messengers, and had sent them out another way?’
NWT: ‘In the same manner was not also Rahab the harlot declared righteous by
works after she had received the messengers hospitably and sent them out by another
way?’
SHG: homoios kai rhaab porne
dikaioo ergon hupodechomai
Trans.: so
also rahab prostitute justify act
receive
aggelos
eiseimi
heteros hodos
mrssenger send away another way
THE PACT: And — for the same reason also the prostitute Rahab was justified
through an act when she received the messengers and helped them away in another
direction.
COMMENT: The Greek word aggelos means messenger, and not angel the way it
has been falsified in Western literature. And these messengers that Jacob refers to in
connection with Rahab, were far form heavenly beings or preachers in a church, but
scouts, spies, sent out by Joshua ahead of the sons of Israel to report back on the situation in the land they were about to invade. And it is because of the message they
brought back, they are being referred to as messengers, and by no means angels!
NB! Note that NIV writes spies in this verse instead of angel or messenger. The others correctly write messengers, and this is solid proof that they know the meaning
og the word aggelos. Why they then deliberately falsify it, is beyond me. Can it have
something to do with what tickles the ear? (2TI 04:03)
346
THE PACT, JAC 03:01. ‘Brothers, not many ought —’
NIV: ‘Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you
know that we who teach will be judged more strictly.’
KJ-1611: ‘My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.’
NWT: ‘Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, knowing that we shall
receive heavier judgement.’
SHG: adelphos polus didaskalos eido lambano meizon krima
Trans.: brother many teacher
know receive stricter judgement
THE PACT: Brothers, not many ought to become teachers, for we know that they
will get it stricter during the judgement.
COMMENT: How can anybody be judged more strictly, receive a greater condemnation or receive a heavier judgement? No, that is impossible, because how
many grades of judgement are there? Will some get a light judgement and other a
heavy judgement. No, there are only two judgements: Either you will become acquitted and receive a life in ages or you will be found guilty and receive a death in ages.
There is nothing in between! No one can be half rescued or partly condemned. What
then is the judgement? To those who take part in the first resurrection, they have all
been chosen because of their faith and righteousness under this world’s order under
Satan. When they are resurrected, they are resurrected to a heavenly existence as
God’s adopted sons and Jesus’ heavenly brother. The second death will have no
power over them, because they have already been found ‘not guilty.’ (REV 02:11,
REV 20:06)
Those who may be exposed to the second death, are those who will take part in the
second resurrection on the earth, which are the very most of us, righteous or unrighteous. In addition are the great, white flock who have entered into the thousand years
without having to die first — because of their righteousness! The ‘day of judgement’
then roughly refers to the thousand years. It is the choice you make after you have
been subjected to God’s direct power, ref. Adam and Eve, that will determine your
final fate. And that will not happen until all of the second resurrection has been
fulfilled and Abel has been risen. The first to die will be the last to be resurrected.
Then after the thousand years when Jesus again has handed the power over to God,
Satan will be released for a short time. Those who then side with God and Christ will
be rescued to a life in ages — on the earth. Those who side with Satan, will receive
a death in ages. And that is the final judgement! Finally, after all these years.
347
Those who are then resurrected, will be resurrected with their own personalities, their
spirits. Then those who have thought falsely, will continue to do so. And for them it
will be more difficult to relate to God’s truth that all the others. And therefore they
will have a harder, more strict, heavier time during the judgement. Such are the
Popes, Martin Luther and all the rest of the false teachers. This was Luther’s attitude
as a teacher: ‘He who will not believe my teaching (my teaching), shall not be saved!
And I will not tolerate that my teaching is put to the test by anyone, not even by
angels!’ What about God and Christ? A humble Christian? Not so. And the Popes
are no better! During the four hundred years called the dark ages it has been estimated that they killed roughly 50 million Christians who refused to subject themselves
to the Catholic Church. This process was called the inquisition.
When these popes, together with Marin Luther and more, are resurrected with their
wrong teachings and bloated personalities, it will become much harder for them to
make the right decision during the judgement, then for someone who has never been
a teacher.
That is how simple and factual it is! But, holy cow, how there are fablers!
THE PACT, JAC 03:06. ‘Also the tongue is like a fire —’
NIV: ‘The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole person, sets the whole course of his life on fire, and it itself set on
fire by hell.’
KJ-1611: ‘And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity so the tongue among out members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature, and it
is set on fire of hell.’
NWT: ‘Well, the tongue is a fire. The tongue is constituted a world of unrighteousness among our members, for it spots up all the body and sets the wheel of natural
life aflame and it is set aflame by Gehenna.’
JAC 03:06
SHG: glossa pur kosmos adikia houto glossa en melos spiloo
holos soma
Trans.: tongue fire world unjust this
tongue be limb contaminate hole body
phlogizo phlogizo trochos genesis phlogizo phlogizo geenna
ablaze
ablaze
run
nature ablaze ablaze gehenna
THE PACT: Also the tongue is like a fire — like a world of injustice. The tongue
as a limb may contaminate the whole body and put the ways of nature on fire! Itself
it will be put on fire in Gehenna.
348
COMMENT: What does it mean the tongue is like a world of evil? Just consider
backbiting and vicious gossip. If you have been exposed to something like that, you
know very well what Jacob is talking about. And he refers to the same Jesus once
said: ‘It is not what goes into a man’s mouth that makes him unclean, but what comes
out of his mouth may make him unclean.’ In other words the tongue may make the
whole body unclean through gossip and slanderous speech. In worst case scenarios
the tongue may set the whole natural development on fire in the same way Gehenna
is set on fire. Think: May not animosity and threats against each other cause world
wide wars with catastrophic consequences?
‘Itself will be put on fire in Gehenna.’ What does that mean? Is it Satan himself who
comes sneaking with matches? No, these are no translations, but copies of King James of 1611: ‘— and it is set on fire of hell.’ This translation nobody can understand,
and nobody has, simply because in the Bible there is no such place as hell. But imagine the garbage dump south of Jerusalem — Gehenna. There everything useless was
thrown in the fire — a fire that was constantly nourished so that all the garbage
would burn up, and therefore it was all the time in flames. Such people with evil
tongues are also useless to God, and therefore they will become discarded of, including also their tongues. And that is what Jacob refers to when he says that ‘they will
be put on fire in Gehenna,’ ref. the two robbers who died at the same time as Jesus.
Their bodies were thrown in Gehenna, including their tongues. And let me tell you:
They are definitely not burning in hell – none of them!
Jesus was often using Gehenna, the garbage dump, as a picture of such who were
useless to God. They were to be thrown into the fire of Gehenna. You will see that
this is correct if you open your Bible and read all the verses where Jesus refers to
Gehenna: MAT 05:22, MAT 05:29, MAT 05:30, MAT 10:28, MAT 18:09, MAT
23:15, MAT 23:33, MAR 09:43, MAR 09:45, MAR 09:47, LUK 12:05, JAC 03:06.
THE PACT, JAC 03:15. ‘That kind of wisdom does not —’
NIV: ‘Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual,
of the devil.’
KJ-1611: ‘This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, devilish.’
NWT: ‘This is nt the wisdom that comes down from above, but is the earthly, animal, demonic.’
SHG: houtos sophia kataerchomai anothen epigeios psuchikos daimoniodes
Trans.: such wisdom come down above earthly soully
demonic
349
THE PACT: That kind of wisdom does not come down from above. It is of the earth
and of the soul — it is demonic.
COMMENT: Here NIV writes heaven. The Greek text says above, as does also the
other translation. But their real blemish is writing unspiritual instead of of the soul
in an attempt at hiding that the soul is noting immortal and invisible that we carry
around within us. They then follow in the track of King James writing sensual instead
of of the soul. And what do you know, NWT writes animal instead of of the soul.
Where they got that from is hard to say, but it is definitely not from the original
Greek text. But they are not so far off, because also an animal is a soul. And all these
falsifications just to hide that the Greek text write of the soul, and that the soul is not
something immortal and invisible we carry around inside of us — something inexplicable that jumps out of us when we die. All of this world is of the soul. Every
creature that in one form or another needs blood to sustain life, is a soul, from the
smallest insect to to the biggest eagle, from the smallest herring to the greatest whale.
And if only we have understood this, you also understand that the soul cannot be anything immortal and invisible that we carry around within ourselves. The teaching of
the immortal soul builds on Satan’s first lie: ‘You are not at all going to die.’ (GEN
03:04) But when God sentenced Adam, he said something totally different: ‘From
dust you were taken, and to dust you shall return!’ (GEN 03:19) And that was all he
said in that respect!
Again: NWT writes animal, and where they have got that from without seeing it says
of the soul, is a riddle. But as I said, they are not so far off, because all animals in the
Bible, are also souls.
Gr. psucikos = of the soul, soully, is used in these verses in the New Pact: 1CO
02:14, 1CO 15:44, 1CO 15:46, JAC 03:15, JUD 01:19.
THE PACT, JAC 04:04, ‘Whoremasters! Whores! —’
NIV: ‘You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world, becomes an enemy
of God.’
KJ-1611: ‘Ye adulterers and adultresses, know you not that the friendship of the
world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the
enemy of God.’
NWT: ‘Adultresses, do you not know that the friendship with the world is enmity
with God? Whoever therefore who wants to be a friend of the world is constituting
himself an enemy of God.’
350
SHG: moichos moichalis eido philia kosmos echthra theos hos -an
Trans.: fornicator whore
know love world animosity god who thereby
oun boulomahee philos kosmos echthros theos
then wish
friend world animosity god
THE PACT: Whoremasters! Whores! You ought to know that friendliness with the
world is animosity against God. For he who wants to be a friend of this world, becomes God’s enemy.
COMMENT: It seem strange, but why anybody would want to deviate from this
simple text is hard to understand. Maybe it is a bit too direct for them. And why
NWT has left out adulterers altogether is also hard to understand. And I also find it
a bit unfair to women. We all know it takes two to tango. And does it not also take
two to fornicate?
THE PACT, JAC 04:15. ‘Rather say: “If the LORD wants —’
NIV: ‘Instead you ought to say: “If it is the Lord’s will, we will live and do this or
that.’
KJ-1611: ‘For that ye ought to say, If the Lord will, we shall live, and do this, or
that.’
NWT: ‘Instead you ought to say: “If Jehovah wills, we shall live and also do this or
that.’
JAC 04:15
SHG: lego ean kurios thelo zao poieo touto e
Trans.: say if lord wish live do
this or
THE PACT: Rather say: ‘If the LORD* wants me to live, I shall do this or that.’
* JHVH
COMMENT: This is nothing big, but more a curiosity, because there is little doubt
that THE PACT has the correct nuance in its translation. The condition of being able
to fulfill future plans, is that the LORD, God, Jehovah, and not the Lord Jesus in this
verse, wants us to live.
This is easy to see from the Greek text, and to me this is solid proof that they have
not studied the original text, but just copied King James.
351
THE PACT, JAC 05:04. ‘But, see! — the workers who have —’
NIV: ‘Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are
crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord
Almighty.’
KJ-1611: ‘Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which
is by you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.’
NWT: ‘Look! The wages due the workers who harvested your fields but which are
held up by you, keep crying out, and the calls for help on the part of the reapers have
entered the Jehovah of armies.’
SHG: idou misthos ergates ho echo amao humon chora ho apostereo aopstereo
Trans.: see wage worker who have reap your field that deprive deprive
apostereo krazo boe echo therizo eiserchomai eis ous kurios sabaoth
deprive cry need have harvest come
to ear lord multitude
THE PACT: But, see! — the workers who have harvested your fields and whom you
have deprived of their wages, cry out in need, and their cries have reached the ears
of the LORD* of multitudes!
*JHVH
NB! A fixed expression from the First Pact is: ‘Jehovah of multitudes.’
COMMENT: NIV has omitted this expression entirely by writing the Lord Almighty, and by writing Lord, not LORD, they refer to Jesus Christ. King James have had
a problem translating this expression, so therefore they have wisely presented the
original text. NWT write armies, in that way referring to warring soldiers.
True, the Hebrew word sebaot is often translated army, and correctly so when referring to a multitude, but this army has nothing to do with a military army as such. An
army refers to a large group, mostly used about soldiers, and in the way the real
meaning of an army has been lost. It means a multitude. And the expression Jehovah
of multitudes is a expression of reverence of God and his great creation of multitudes
— planets, stars, animals, sea creatures, even ants. And finally also mankind! And
therefore Jehovah of multitudes! And because this is a fixed expression from the First
Pact, we also know that the correct expression is Jehovah of multitudes, not the Lord
of multitudes.
Hebr. Jehovah sabaoth = Eng. Jehovah of multitudes. It refers to the impressive
multitudes of God’s creation.
352
THE PACT, JAC 05:07. ‘Wait therefore patiently —’
NIV: ‘Be patient, then, brothers, until the Lord’s coming. See how the farmer waits
for the land to yield its valuable crop and how patient he is for autumn and spring
rains.’
KJ-1611: ‘Be patient, therefore, brethern, unto the coming of the Lord. Behold, the
husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, and hath long patience for it,
until he receive the early and latter rain.’
NWT: ‘Exercise patience, therefore, brothers, until the presence of the Lord, Look!
The farmer keeps waiting for the precious fruit of the earth, exercising patience over
it until he gets until he gets the early rain and the late rain.’
SHG: makrothumeo oun adelphos parousia kurios idou georgos ekdechomai
Trans.: patient
then brother presence lord see farmer wait
timios karpos ge makrothumeo makrothumeo heos lambano proimos
precious fruit
earth patient
patient
until get
early
opsinos heutos
late
rain
THE PACT: Wait therefore patiently, brothers, until the presence of the Lord. For,
see! — the farmer must wait for the precious growth of the field! And he must wait
patiently until he gets the early and later rain.
COMMENT: Here both NIV and King James write the coming of the Lord while
NWT writes the presence of the Lord. And there is no doubt that the Greek word
parousia means presence, not coming.
Why do they then write coming? it is common preaching that Jesus will return to the
earth one more time — in the flesh as he did the first time. And then it has become
so important to them to hide this extensive wrong teaching they are even willing to
falsify the word of God to keep the truth from the reader! Listen to what Jesus said
in John 14:19, NIV: ‘Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will see
me. Because I live, you also will live.’ It says nowhere in the original text of the
Bible that Jesus will return as a human being one more time! Why would he? Did he
not do good enough work the first time?
No, Jesus’ second coming refers to his spiritual presence as the spiritual ruler of this
physical world. The example of this is the column in the wilderness. But the next
time we will not have a column to relate to. We will have to relate to his spiritual
power!
353
Jesus said to the disciples that he would return in the same way he left them. And
how did he leave them? In the spirit! And how the first, the spiritual, resurrection will
take place you may read about in First Thessalonians 04:13-18. The way all the rest
of us, if we live at that time, will experience Jesus’ second coming, you may read
about in Matthew chap. 24.
NB! When it says that he will come in the cloud, it is metaphorically, a picture, that
we will not see him with our eyes, but we will know that it is him, ref. the column in
the wilderness as an example of his spiritual presence on the earth.
THE PACT, JAC 05:08. ‘In the same way also you —’
NIV: ‘You too, be patient and stand firm, because the Lord’s coming is near.’
KJ-1611: ‘Be ye also patient, stablish your hearths: for the coming of the Lord
draweth nigh.’
NWT: ‘You to exercise patience, make your hearts firm, because the presence of the
Lord has drawn close.’
SHG: kai makrothumia sterizo
humon kardia parousia kurios eggizo
Trans.: also patient
strengthen your heart presence lord
nearing
THE PACT: In the same way also you must be patient and strengthen your hearts,
because the presence of the Lord is nearing.
COMMENT: Again we see that both NIV and King James write coming where the
Greek text says presence. And that is something totally different than coming. One
honest exception to this falsification is NWT by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He who reads
this will easily see that these translations create expectations that can never be
fulfilled. Those who wait for Jesus’ second coming on the earth, have a long wait
ahead of them. They will have to wait just as long for Jesus’ second coming in the
flesh as the Jews will have to wait for his first coming!
It is sad, but these fablings seem to be without end. Actually, those who are responsible of this deliberate wrong teaching, ought to be held accountable of it!
Gr. teleios = ending
Jesus’ spiritual presence is of long duration before his actual coming which will be
swift and brutal resulting in the ending of this world as we have known it under the
rule of Satan. Then there will be new heavens and a new world — where righteousness shall live.
354
in First Peter
THE PACT, 1PE 01:12. ‘Then it was revealed to them —’
NIV: ‘It was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves but you, when
they spoke of the things that have now been told you by those who have preached the
gospel to you by the Holy Spirit sent fro heaven. Even angels long to look into these
things.’
KJ-1611: ‘Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did
minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the
gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven, which things the angels
desire to look into.’
NWT: ‘It was revealed to them that, not to themselves, but to you, they were ministering the things that have now been announced to you through those who have declared the good news to you with holy spirit sent from heaven. Into these things
angels are desiring to peer.’
SHG: hos apokalupto heautou diakoneo autos hos nun anaggello euaggelizo
Trans.: then reveal
self
serve
own who now tell
preach
euaggelizo hagios pneuma apostello ouranos hos aggelos
epithumeo
preach
holy spirit send
on high that messenger wish
parakupto eis
insight
in
THE PACT: Then it was revealed to them that it was not themselves they served
with this, but you who now have seen and been preached to about the Holy Spirit that
was to be sent from the heavens. These are such that the messengers wish to get an
insight in.
355
Wrongly Translated Verses in First Peter
COMMENT: Who was it who wanted to get an insight about the establishment of
the Realm of God? Were they heavenly angels? No there has to be a limit.
God’s heavenly messengers knew all as one about God’s total plan to reestablish
what was lost through Adam’s disobedience. But those messengers who longed to
receive knowledge of God’s total plan, were such whose work it was to preach or
teach in the church and teach other preachers in the church, also called messengers,
simply because their major task was to bring forth the message about Christ and the
establishment of the Realm of God.
Are you able to explain what the Realm of God is?
Is the Realm of God something we get inside of us when we receive Jesus?
(The Pentecostals).
Is the Realm of God Jesus himself?
(The Catholics).
Is the Realm of God a membership we get from God that will last in ages when we
are baptized as an infant?
(The Lutherans).
Read Daniel 02:44 — with consideration! The prophecy about the establishment of
the Realm of God you may also read about in Isaiah 66:07-08.
It was not the prophets themselves who lived to experience this, but first and foremost the apostles that Jesus chose, among them also Peter. Therefore it is not correct
to write you in the translation, but us. King James has got this correct, but NIV and
NWT have both got it all wrong. And this is another example of how important it is
to understand the Bible in order to be able to place the right personal pronoun in the
right place
THE PACT, 1PE 03:21. ‘That is a counterpart —’
NIV: ‘— and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not a removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of good conscience with God. It saves you
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, —’
Uff! This translation is nothing less than a total confusion!
KJ-1611: ‘The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not putting away the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience to God) by
the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’
356
UFF! This was not much better, but it becomes obvious where NIV has copied their
text from. They definitely do not have it from the original Geek text!
NWT: ‘That which corresponds to this is also now saving you, namely baptism (not
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the request made to God for a good
conscience,) through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’
NB! Sad to say, this is another direct copy of King James. They even have the parenthesis in the same place! And the confusion is not one notch better! A coincidence!
Yes, my - - -! Excuse me. I was almost going to say something!
SHG: antitupon antitupon hos baptisma kai nun sozo apothesis apothesis
Trans.: counterpart counterpart that baptism also now rescue put aside put aside
rhupos eperotema agathos suneidesis eis theos anastasis
iesous christos
impurity question good conscience with god resurrection jesus christ
THE PACT: That is a counterpart to the baptism that also now may rescue us. It is
not putting aside the impurities of the flesh, but a question of having a clear conscience with God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
I will comment these three translations one by one:
NIV: This translation claims that you cannot remove the dirt from you body through
baptism. That is a breach of logic. If your body is a bit dirty and you are submerged
in water naked, that is the only thing baptism may do: Remove the physical dirt from
your body. And then claiming that this will save you through Jesus’ resurrection, is
as far from the truth as you can come!
King James: This translation is the origin of this confusion! And neither NIV nor
NWT have shied away from copying it directly, only NIV writes dirt instead of filth.
NWT: This translation is almost a true copy of King James referring to ‘the filth of
the flesh.’ They have even put the parenthesis in the same place. And neither does the
original text say anything about ‘making a request to God.’ They do take chances
when they translate in this way, but they do not expect that their text will be scrutinized to any extent. And the members of their congregations swallow it raw! I was
told by a witness that their translation was next to flawless and that they had received
praise of this by scholars and professors alike! The witness even showed me a newspaper clipping to support her claim — probably from the Watchtower!
THE PACT: This translation follows the Greek text almost word by word, which
does not refer to the filth or dirt of you body, but to the impurities of the flesh, your
sinful nature. The Greek text also states clearly that baptism is not a question of being
357
rescued or saved, or not. It states clearly that it will not remove the impurities of the
flesh, but is only a question of having a clear conscience with God — through his
resurrection of Jesus Christ! Therefore it is also important to realize that baptism is
not a pact between God and the baptized, but an initiative from the baptized only.
However, the religious fabling over this is almost endless! From the Lutheran Church
claiming that an infant who has had some water sprinkled on its head, will become
an eternal member of the Realm of God, to the Pentecosts’ claiming that through baptism you will be transformed into a different dimension through the receiving of the
Holy Spirit! And then they both keep maintaining that an infant who dies without
being baptized, will without doubt burn in hell throughout eternity! What about
those who die in their mother’s womb?
I am happy to say there is no hell, but if there were one, it would have been a proper
place for such as these!
I would like to wring the necks of those who are responsible for such translations as
these! Well, I guess it is a bit late for those who translated King James four hundred
years ago, but I should be able to get hold of those who translated both NIV and
NWT!
This is so important to get a correct understanding of that I include the article About
Baptism immediately following this text:
358
in Second Peter
THE PACT, 2PE 02:04. ‘For God did not even spare —’
NIV: ‘For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but sent them to hell, putting them into gloomy dungeons to be held for judgement; —’
KJ-1611: ‘For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell,
and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgement.’
NWT: ‘Certainly if god did not hold back from punishing the angels that sinned, but
by throwing them into Tartarus, delivered them to pits if dense darkness to be
reserved for judgement, —’
SHG: ei theos pheidomai aggelos
hamartano tartaroo
tartaroo
Trans.: if god spare
messenger sin
throw abyss throw abyss
paradidomi seira zophos tereo krisis
surrender chain darkness keep judgement
THE PACT: For God did not even spare the messengers when they sinned, but
plunged them into the abyss and left them in chains of darkness where they will be
kept in custody until the judgement.
COMMENT: I get sad when I read some of these translations. it is clear that NIV
ios nothing but a direct copy of King James, as are also NWT. And their translations
are nothing but total confusion. True, the ‘angels’ that they refer to, are spiritual beings, but still the Greek word aggelos does not mean angel, but messenger. And then
King James as well as NIV write that they were sent or cast to / in hell.
And then they both manage to present the incredible breach of logic that they were
sent to gloomy dungeon in anticipation of the judgement. Do they not realize that if
there had been a place called hell, this would have been the final judgement? Can
359
Wrongly Translated Verses in Second Peter
they be both send to hell, and at the same time be put into gloomy dungeons? But
right is right: Strong’s Hebrew / Greek is partly responsible for this.
NWT builds on the same King James’ text as NIV, but realizing there is not hell, they
have just exchanged the word hell with the Greek word Tartarus, also making that
into a place name. Not so.
Please check the Greek text and compare with these translations, and you will see
how far off they are. You need to know this in order to be able to understand the
Bible.
Gr. abyssos = abyss (substantive)
Gr. tartaroo = throw into abyss (this is a verb, and how they could have made this
verb into the substantive hell is incredible)
THE PACT, 2PE 02:08. ‘As righteous he lived among them —’
NIV: ‘(for that righteous man living among them day after day, was tormented in his
righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard) —’
NB! This is another copy of King James. Even the parenthesis are the same. And here
they have made the soul immortal and invisible.
KJ-1611: ‘(for the righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing and hearing, wexed
his righteous soul from day to day with their unlawful deeds,) —’
NB! This is the origin of the deception of the invisible soul. By changing his righteous soul to this righteous soul it would have been correct.
NWT: ‘— for that righteous man by what he saw and heard while dwelling among
them from day to day was tormenting his righteous soul by reason of their lawless
deeds.’
NB! The nuances are subtle here, nut NWT has got this right.
SHG: dikaios egkatoikeo en blemma akoe basanizo dikaios psuche hemera
Trans.: righteous live
by see
hear pain
righteous soul day
hemera anomos ergon
day
lawless act
THE PACT: As righteous he lived among them, and with pain the righteous soul
saw and heard their lawless acts day after day.
Wrongly Translated Verses in Second Peter
360
COMMENT: I chose to add a little comment to each translation here, and that
mostly says it all. But again: There is no such teaching in the Bible that we have an
invisible and immortal soul inside of us. A soul is a physical being of flesh and blood
— a human being, all animals, the fishes in the sea, and even the insects.
In Genesis 01:21 it says: ‘Then God created all the living souls that swim in shoals
in the sea.’ And who swim in the sea? Invisible beings? No, it says living souls such
as mackerels and herrings, etc. All these are living souls! You may check the Hebrew
text in GEN — In the Beginning God Created.’
In Genesis 09:04 God allowed Noah to eat meat, but on one condition. And I include
the Hebrew text here. It is only four simple words:
SH/G:
Transliterated:
basar
flesh
nephesh
soul
dam
blood
‘akal
devour
Translated: (But) flesh (of a) soul (with its) blood (in it you shall not) eat.
NB! Check all other translations and study the confusion! Compare with King James.
Now it is up to you if you are willing at accept the facts of the word of God or not!
361
in First John
THE PACT, 1JO 02:18. ‘Little children, we are in the last —’
NIV: ‘Dear children, this is the last hour; and you have heard that the antichrist is
coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last
hour.’
KJ-1611: ‘Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall
come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know it is the last time.’
NWT: ‘Young children, it is the last hour, and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now there have come to be many antichrists, from which we
gain the knowledge that it is the last hour.’
1JO 02:18
SHG: paidion
paidion eschatos hora akouo antichristos erchomai kai nun
Trans.: little child little child last
day hear antichrist come
also now
polus antichristos hothen
ginosko eschatos hora
many antichrist wherefrom know
last
hour/time/age
THE PACT: Little children, we are in the last ages, and you know that antichrist will
come. But already now there are many antichrists.
COMMENTARY: I am not going to go into details about all that senseless preaching, especially by the extreme charismatics, that is taking place in connection with
anti-christ which many believe is a person. And some translations directly adds to
this confusion by capitalizing the word Antichrist. But note that John says that
already now, almost two thousand years ago, many antichrists, one who denies that
Christ had come in the flesh, had come forth. Antichrist simply means against Christ,
and the first great antichrists were the very Jews themselves, and they still are to this
Wrongly Translated Verses in First John
362
day. And they will continue as antichrists as long as they deny that Christ has come
in the flesh as Jesus.
Do you know any groups today besides the Jews who deny that Jesus has come in the
flesh, as a human being? Here is a quote from a Lutheran woman minister on national
radio some years ago: ‘God himself came down to earth; laid himself in the womb
of Virgin Mary and let himself be born as Jesus Christ.’
It is almost two thousand years now since John wrote this, and then everybody ought
to have understood that it is senseless claiming that almost two thousand years ago
was the last hour! Surely the Greek word hora (Eng. hour) may refer to one hour, but
it may also mean time, age which it does in this case. But it is also wrong writing
time or age in the singular, because it was clearly not the last age when John wrote
this. The Bible all the time refers to the last ages, and then it may be good knowing
that Jesus, and also John, lived mostly under the third last age of the seven ages of
the Bible — the age of the Jews. Then follows roughly the age of the peoples and the
age of the Lord, which is the very last age. And that is now!
Be aware that the Bible has been divided into seven ages only. And it is possible to
follow the transition from one age to the next. You may even figure it out to the exact
year, but then you need to have a deeper understanding of the total message of the
Bible. In some instances it is hidden in rather complicated verses, ref. Daniel.
Who is antichrist? Antichrist is not at all a specific person who is to rule over the
earth, as some keep fabling about. Also be aware that it is not according to the Bible
to mix antichrist, the lawless and the beast. They are not the same, but represent
different forces in the development to the establishment of the Realm of God.
Antichrist is only mentioned in four verses, and only by John. An antichrist is one
who denies that Jesus has come to the earth as the Messiah — in the flesh, in other
words as God’s heavenly Son and being born as a human being. The first great antichrist were the Jews themselves, who not only rejected Jesus as God’s Messiah, but
even executed him!
NB! Be aware that the teaching of the trinity rejects Jesus as God’s heavenly Son by
claiming he was God the Almighty. They reject that he was a human being without
sin corresponding to Adam. Therefore also they may be considered an antichrist.
The worst antichrist until now was the teaching of the communists. Today’s great
antichrist are the Muslims. Also the pagan society, now the humanistic-ethesists,
make up I great antichrist both national and international. Many claim that also Hitler
was a great antichrist, but that is not the case. Hitler never rejected Jesus as God’s
heavenly Son. On the contrary, he used the Bible as a basis of his political power by
363
Wrongly Translated Verses in First John
promising the Germans peace and prosperity for a thousand years. He also chose one
of the Pope’s cardinals as his second in command.
And thereby he became a great lawless the way they all are when they use the word
of God as basis of their political power, ref. Bush, Blair and Bondevik. And now Angela Merkel in Germany.
Read Second Thessalonians chap. 02. Also read what John writes about antichrist
in 1JO 02:18, 1JO 02:23, 1JO 04:03 and 2JO 01:07.
THE PACT, 1JO 05:19. ‘We know that we are of God —’
NIV: ‘We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the
control of the evil one.’
KJ-1611: ‘And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.’
NWT: ‘We know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power
of the wicked one.’
1JO 05:19
SHG: eido theos holos kosmos keimai poneros
Trans.: know god whole world subject evil
THE PACT: We know that we are of God, but the whole world is subject to the evil
One.
COMMENT: Who are ‘we’ in this verse? All Christians? NIV has added children
in this verse. Is that correct? They also write control while NWT write in the power
of. It is not such an important matter, but the original text does not mention children
in this verse, nor does it say under the control of or in the power of.
364
in Judas
JUD 01:09 — ‘They are the ones causing divisions —’
KJ-1611: ‘These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts
and do not have the Spirit.’
NIV: ‘These are the men who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do
not have the Spirit.’
NWT: ‘These are the ones that make separations, animalistic [men] not having
spirituality.’
SHG: houtos apodiorizo heautou psuchikos echo ånd
Trans.: these devide
self
of the soul have spirit
THE PACT: They are the ones causing divisions among you, because they are of the
soul and have no spirit.
COMMENT: All these translations are guilty of an unforgivable sin. What they
write is not directly wrong, but it is still a falsification, knowingly or not. Both KJ1611 and NIV write follow mere natural instincts while NWT goes even further and
elaborate far beyond the content of the Greek text by writing animalistic men.
This is nothing but free fantasy compared to the Greek text. There has got to be a
limit!
Gr. psuche = soul, a human being, an animal or a fish needing blood or fluid to
sustain life, anybody who has an earthly existence.
Gr. pneuma = spirit, anybody who has a heavenly existence.
365
Wrongly Translated Verses in Judas
Gr. psuchicos = of the soul, soully, everything which is of this world, the earthly
Gr. pneumaticos = of the spirt, spiritual, that which is of the spirit, the hevenly
You will see, when you study these texts, how important is is for most translators to
hide the actual meaning of the word soul as what is of this earth. They all want the
reader to believe that the soul is something invisible and immortal hocus-pocus that
people carry around within them.
This must be particular embarrassing to Jehovah’s Witnesses who have a correct
understanding of the soul, and still they have not got it right in their translation and
write animalistic men.
The teaching of the invisible and immortal soul corresponds with Satan’s first lie:
‘You shall certainly not die.’ And almost all translations adhere to that lie. It may be
of interest knowing that in the original texts the word soul is being used as many as
1134 times. KJ-1611 translates it only in 458 times in 432 verses. NIV, on the other
hand, clearly follows the trend of hiding the true meaning of the word soul and only
translates it 129 times in 125 verses. Sad to say, but in this way they have taken a big
step in the direction of hiding the true meaning of the word soul to the ignorant or
inexperienced reader.
Heb. nephesh = soul, any human being, animal or fish
The word is being used as many as 749 times in 672 verses in the Hebrew text. KJ1611 writes soul only 419 times in 396 verses; NIV only 129 times in 125 verses,
and only where it is unclear what the soul is.
Gr. psuche = soul, any human being, animal or fish
The word is being used as many as 385 times in 350 verses. KJ-1611 writes soul only
39 times in 36 verses; NIV only 19 times in 17 verses, and only where it is unclear
what the soul is.
366
in Revelation
THE PACT, REV 01:01. ‘This is a revelation of Jesus Christ
—’
KJ -1611: ‘The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto
his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by
his angel unto his servant John.’
NB! King James of 1611 has not completely omitted that Revelation is given in signs,
but writes signified it. At best it is a very unclear translation. Note that K.J. also
wrongfully writes both angel and servant where correct translation is messenger and
slave.
NIV: ‘The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what
must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.’
NB! Note carefully that NIV has omitted altogether that Revelation is written in
signs. And thereby they come under the judgement that God gives in REV 22:19 on
such who take away anything from the prophetic words of Revelation. And this is one
of the most important keys to understanding the contents of Revelation! They also
write angel and servant. The ancient Greek word aggelos does not in any case means
angel, but messenger. The fact that the word aggelos has not been translated, but
periphrased, has caused a lot of confusion among Christians, because it has become
so entrenched in Christian belief that they are usually not willing to correct themselves. There are no angels flying with wings in the Bible.
They also write servant where the Greek word is slave. But then we must remember
that the word slave in biblical terms is weaker than common usage today. In the First
Pact a slave could get his freedom after seven years of service.
NWT: ‘’A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the
things which must shortly take place. And he sent forth his angel and presented it in
signs through him to his slave John, —’
367
Wrongly Translated Verses in Revelation
NWT has included the part of the text that says it is written in signs. They also write
slave, but still shy away from correct usage of aggelos, messenger.
SHG: apokalusis iesous christis hos theos didomi deiknuo doulos hos die en
Trans.: revelation jesus christ which god give
show slave what will in
-tachos ginomai apostello semeino aggelos
doulos ioannes
haste happen send out sign
messenger slave john
THE PACT: This is a revelation of Jesus Christ that God gave him so that he would
show his slaves what will soon happen. He sent it out in signs through a messenger
to his slave John.
COMMENTARY: NIV has omitted that Revelation is given in signs, and King
James has periphrased it so that it is not so easily understood. (see original text) And
thereby they become guilty of God’s warning in REV 22:19, THE PACT: ‘And if
anybody deducts any of the words in this prophetic scroll, God will take away from
him his share in the scroll of life and the Holy City that it is written about in this
scroll.’
And this is the very key to understanding Revelation, because if you are not aware
that it is written in signs, pictures, but take it literally, you have no chance of
understanding the contents of Revelation. Be also aware that the two most important
books to understand the establishment of the Realm of God, are Hebrews and
Revelation. These two books are usually omitted from any curriculum of biblical
teaching. Many Catholic priests and Protestant ministers would like to see these two
books removed from the biblical canon, the books approved as part of the Bible. At
certain intervals there are suggestions that these two books ought to be removed.
THE PACT, REV 02:01. ‘To the messenger of the church in
—’
KJ-1611: ‘Unto the angel* of the church of Ephesus write; —’
NIV: ‘To the angel* of the church in Ephesus write: These are the words of him who
holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks among the seven golden lampstands:’ [* Or <messenger>; also in verses 8, 12 and 18]
NB! Here NIV proves that they know the correct translation of aggelos!
NWT: ‘To the angel of the congregation in Ephesus write: —’
368
SHG: aggelos
ekklesia ephesos grapho
Trans.: messenger church ephesus write
THE PACT: ‘To the messenger of the church in Ephesus you shall write:—’
COMMENTARY: The all write angel in this verse, except that NIV corrects themselves in a footnote saying messenger. But because they all write angel in this verse,
the reader thinks this refers to a heavenly being. That is far from the case! Correct
translation of the word aggelos is without exception messenger, and then it also
becomes possible to understand the contents. Because nobody can send a scroll to an
invisible heavenly being, and also have this heavenly being read from this scroll in
the church. No, the messenger in the church is he who at all or any time takes the
word in a church and brings forth the message.
This is the same for all the seven churches in Asia, in verses 02:01, 02:08, 02:12,
02:18, 03:01, 03:07 and 03:14. Jehovah’s Witnesses naively claim to have an ‘angel’
in every church leading their work. Then they refer to these verses. And then we also
understand that such a claim is based on a clear misunderstanding that this messenger
is a heavenly being.
Wrong translations of the word aggelos creates many such misunderstandings
through all of the Bible. And as we say: ‘it is human to err.’ But then we must also
remember that we say: ‘But it is of the Devil to continue doing it!’
Then to the word ekklesia = church. In many European countries the word church has
developed to refer to the very church building, but the word church does not refer to
the building, but to the very congregation. And this may cause difficulties for a good
translation, because originally correct translation is church. But to none-Protestant
and none-Catholic Christians the word church gives negative connota-tions, ref.
Jehovah’s Witnesses who write congregation. THE PACT makes no such
considerations and usually writes church both where it refers to the very building or
a Protestant congregation. Also internationally the word church is used in both cases,
but the Church of Christ in the U.S., for instance, is in Europe called the Congregation of Christ.
THE PACT, REV 02:09. ‘I have seen your work —’
KJ-1611: ‘I know your works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but you are rich) and I
know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.’
NIV: ‘I know your afflictions and your poverty - yet you are rich! I know the slander
of those who say they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.’
369
NWT: ‘I know your tribulation and poverty — but you are rich — and the blasphemy
of those who say they are Jews, and yet they are not but are a synagogue of Satan.’
SHG: eido ergon thlipsis ptocheia ei plusios blasphemia ho lego
Trans.: see work trouble poverty but rich blaspheme who say
ioudaios sunagoge satanas
judean
synagogue satan
THE PACT: ‘I have seen your work, your troubles and your poverty — but you are
rich! And I know about those who blaspheme and say they are Jews, but who are a
Satan’s synagogue!’
COMMENTARY: Here they all write and are not. I can not claim that it is grammatically wrong, but the very sentence is without meaning. Why would they say that
are Jews without being it? No, it is enough knowing that they are a synagogue of Satan. That refers directly to the worship of Caesar that was so dominant in Smyrna.
For long I thought the this referred to the true meaning of the word jew — he who
praises Jehovah. And that may be correct, but the word Jew was not used until the
15th century. Before it said ioudaios, judean, one from or living in Judea. Yet, it
saying Judean and not Jew, explains even clearer why the expression ‘and are not’
does not belong in this sentence. This addition you originally find in King James of
1611. How come they are included in almost all other translations when it is not even
included in the original text?
THE PACT, REV 03:14. ‘— the beginning of God’s creation.’
KJ-1611: ‘And onto the church of the Laodiceans write, These things saith the Amen,
the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s creation.’
NIV: ‘To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: These are the words of the
Amen, the faithful and true witness, the ruler of God's creation.
NB! Note that NIV writes ‘the ruler of God’s creation.’ This is a good example of
how subtle one can falsify the word of God to make it fit into the philosophy of the
trinity. If Jesus was the ruler of God’s creation, he cannot possibly be God himself.
And what it says is true, only it does not say so in this verse! I have many examples
like this.
NWT: ‘And to the angel of the congregation of the Laodiceans write: These are the
things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of God’s
creation, —’
370
SHG: aggelos
ekklesia laodikeus grapho hode lego amen pistos alethinos
Trans.: messenger church laodicean write this say amen faithful true
martus arche
ktisis
theos
witness beginning creation god
THE PACT: ‘To the messenger of the church in Laodicea you shall write: This says
he who is Amen, the faithful and true witness — the beginning of God’s creation.’
COMMENTARY: They all know that this verse refers to Jesus, and both K.J. and
NWT have it correct, while NIV wrongfully writes ‘the ruler of God’s creation.’
And this is not only done by NIV, but most translations of those adhering to the
philosophy of the trinity.
Making an honest mistake is understandable, but knowingly falsifying the word of
God in order to take the correct understanding away from reader, is something totally
different!
THE PACT, REV 09:06. ‘In those days men shall seek death
—’
KJ-1611: ‘And in those days shall man seek death, and shall not find it; and shall
desire to die, and death shall flee from them.’
NIV: ‘During those days men will seek death, but will not find it; they will long to
die, but death will elude them.’
NWT: ‘And in those days the men will seek death but will by no means find it. And
they will desire to die but death keeps fleeing from them.’
SHG: ekeinos hemerea anthropos zeteo thanatos heurisko epithumeo apothnesko
Trans.: same time
man
seek death find
wish
die
thanatos pheugo
death flee
THE PACT: At that time man shall seek death, and they shall find it. They shall
wish to die, and death shall not flee from them.
Ref. JER 08:03
COMMENTARY: Notice these translations which almost all slavishly follow King
James of 1611. NWT as usual add words that does not exist in the original text, in
this case by no means and keep fleeing.
371
Think now! Is it a biblical teaching that man shall not be able to die? No, on the
contrary, it is the major teaching of the Bible that all people must die because of
Adam’s sin! But note that the original text does not contain the word not. It has to
be added during translation. But here they have put the word not in the wrong
sentence. And after having read Wrongly Translated Verses, you will see that it is by
far the first time!
Read THE PACT’s translation — with consideration, and you will see that the
word not is placed in the correct sentence. This is also confirmed in Jeremiah 08:03.
All of chapter 09 is about the development of the Muslim teaching and its effect on
a derelict Western Christendom. And this verse refers directly to the Muslim use of
suicide bombers! So direct is the Bible. It contains world history in a nutshell! But
many so-called Christians use it mostly as a basis of their own interpretations and
unbiblical fablings.
But these suicide bombers wish to die, and death does not flee from them! They long
to die — they have seventy virgins waiting for them in the heavens — and death does
not flee from them. And those whom their evil acts are aimed at, have to die with
them! Death definitely does not flee from them!
This development started after the American attack on Iraq, and from then on it has
only increased in strength until it today is almost a common occurrence across much
of the Muslim world!
If you have the necessary respect for the word of God, you will easily be surprised
how informatively factual the Bible really is! And is it a biblical teaching that man
will not be able to die, by no means, as NWT writes? Of course not! If you jump into
the ocean without being able to swim, you will be dead within minutes. It is as simple
as that!
Or as the Americans claim: ‘The gun is a clean tool.’ All you need to do is point it
toward your temple and pull the trigger and you are gone! Dead as a doornail! The
only one who will not see you fall, is yourself!
It is definitely not a biblical teaching that man cannot die! On the contrary: It is a
biblical teaching that man must die as a result of Adams disobedience to God. God’s
strict judgement was this: ‘From dust you were taken and to dust you shall return.’
(GEN 03:19) And that was all he said in that respect!
And is how it would have been for all of us if not for the sacrificial act of Jesus that
gives hope of a resurrection — a few in the first, the spiritual, resurrection to the
heavens — the rest of us in the second resurrection, that of the soul, on the earth!
372
THE PACT, REV 12:17. ‘And the dragon became so furious
—’
KJ -1611: ‘And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went out to make war
with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the
testimony of Jesus Christ.’
NIV: ‘Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against
the rest of her offspring - those who obey God's commandments and hold to the
testimony of Jesus.’
NWT: ‘And the dragon grew wrathful at the woman, and went off to wage war with
the remaining of her seed, who observe the commandments of God and have the
work of bearing witness to Jesus.’
SHG: drakon ergizo gune aperchomai poieo oplemos loipoy sperma ho tereo
Trans.: dragon angry woman go away
do
battle
rest sperma who keep
entole
theos echo marturia
iesous christos
commandment god have testimony jesus christ
THE PACT: Then the dragon became so furious at the woman that he went out to
wage war against the rest of her semen — those who keep God’s commandments and
have the testimony about Jesus Christ.
NB! The dragon only went to war against those who have the testimony about Jesus
Christ, therefore none of them may be Jews or Muslims.
COMMENTARY: Here Jehovah’s Witnesses have literally walked their shoes off
themselves! They do themselves the disservice of writing themselves into the Bible
in direct contradiction to the Greek text! They claim that they are the only ones who
have the work of bearing witness to Jesus’ because they are the only ones walking
from door to door. This is a willed falsification of the word of God! It may well be
that they are the only ones walking from door to door, but there are also many other
ways of giving testimony of Christ. Yet, that is not the point in this verse. The point
which NWT has here falsified, is that those whom the dragon wages war against, and
such ho ‘keep the commandments of God and have the testimony about Jesus Christ.’
And in this verse there is not at all mentioned that this in any way is a kind of work.
Also in John 17:03 Jehovah’s Witnesses write themselves into the Bible. It is strange
that they consider it in their interest to behave in that manner. It is my claim that if
you translate the Bible based on your own interests, it is a greater blessing going
home reading Donald Duck!
373
THE PACT, REV 22:08-09. ‘And I, John, is the one who saw
—’
KJ-1611: 8 ‘And I john saw these things and heard them, And when I had heard and
seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which showed me these
things. 9. Then saith he to me, See thou do it not: for I am a fellowservant and of the
brethern and prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship
God.’
NB! Note that King James writes worship in both these verses! And of course they
also write angel. Also NIV writes worship in both these verses. And angel.
NWT: ‘Well, ‘I John’ was the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I had
heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel that had been
showing me these things. 9. But he tells me: ‘Be careful! Do not do that! All I am is
a fellow slave of you and of those who are observing the words of this scroll. Worship God!’
NB! That also NWT writes angel is no surprise. But the fact that they in both these
verses write worship when they throughout the rest of the Bible correctly write honor
where the Greek text says proskuneo, is another question. And quite coincidentally
I learned why!
REV 02:08
SHG: ioannes blepo tauta akouo hote akouo blepo pipto proskuneo emprosthen
Trans.: john
see this hear then hear see fall honor
before
pous aggelos
ho deiknuo tauta
foot messenger who show
this
THE PACT: And I, John, is the one who saw this and heard it. And when I had seen
and heard it, I fell down before the feet of the messenger in order to honor him for
having shown me all this.
REV 22:09
SHG: kai lego horao eimi sundoulos adelphos prophetes tereo logos tauta
Trans.: also say see
I am co-slave brother prophet keep word this
biblion proskuneo theos
scroll
honor
god
THE PACT: But he said: “See to it that you do not do that! For I am only a fellow
slave with you and your brothers the prophets. God you shall honor for this!”
374
COMMENTARY: Here many dogs are buried. First to the word angel. And here it
may seem fair enough, for this ‘angel’ is without doubt a heavenly being. But it is
still not consistent, because where it says aggelos in the text, there is only one correct
translation; messenger. And this was one of God’s many heavenly messengers!
But why is it wrong to write worship in these two verses? After all the worship belongs to God, and not Christ, in both of these verses. Quite correct, but in the original
text it says proskuneo, and that means quite simply to honor, show reverence to. And
then that is exactly how it is to be translated! Because, remember, it is only God you
shall worship. But it is not for that reason wrong to honor him. And also remember:
‘Honor whom honor is due.’ And in this case that is God the Almighty, and not the
messenger!
Do you remember Moses? He was denied access to the promised land because he
forgot to give God his proper honor! ‘I am a jealous God!’
But why does New World write worship in these two verses when they throughout
all of the Bible write honor where the Greek text writes proskuneo? But strangely not
in these two verses. Is there a special reason?
A Jehovah’s Witness, an elder who had been part in this decision, explained it in this
way:
A prominent Jehovah’s Witness entered into a discussion with a prominent Lutheran
minister about the worship. The witness referred to the Bible where it says that only
God you shall worship, and not Jesus. And he showed to a correct usage of the word
proskuneo.
Then the minister showed him these two verses where the word proskuneo is also
used about God. Which is correct. But there the minister wrongfully claimed that the
word proskuneo could also mean worship. Then the Jehovah‘s Witness was unable
to answer back, which was a heavy defeat for him. So instead of studying this closer
until the next time, he went into the translation and altered the translation of these
two verses. And afterward this has not been discussed neither by the witness nor by
the minister.
At first I thought this was an anecdote, but the proof is in the text of their own translation.
Do they think they can alter the word of God as they themselves see fit?
375
The sign of Jonah
In Matthew 12:40, THE PACT, Jesus says: ‘As Jonah was three days and three nights
in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights
in the heart of the earth.’
Jesus here refers to the metaphoric story of the prophet Jonah and says that he will
be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth, in other words in the tomb.
And when Jesus was executed, we know that it happened during Easter, or Passover,
a celebration that God had commanded the sons of Israel to do every year in
remembrance of the exodus from Egypt. But even if this was to be a celebration for
the sons of Israel only, the rest of the world has adopted the same celebration
contrary to the word of God.
But we are taught that Jesus died on a Friday and stayed in the tomb during Friday
night and all day Saturday before he was raised on Sunday morning. But in this way
Jesus only stayed one day and two night in the tomb, and not three days and three
nights as Jesus says himself.
What is wrong?
New International Version writes in Matthew 28:01-06.
MAT 28:01. ‘After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary
Magdalena and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
MAT 28:02. There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord* came
down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.
MAT 28:03. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as
snow.
MAT 28:04. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like
dead men.
MAT 28:05. The angel said to the woman: “Do not be afraid, for I know that you
are looking for Jesus, who was crucified.
MAT 28:06. He is not here. He has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place
where he lay.’
NB! Here they write that he has risen, in other words by his own power, because it
is the teaching of both the Catholic and Lutheran churches that Jesus as God the
Almighty had the power to raise himself from the dead.
A female Lutheran minister explained it in this way: ‘As God the Almighty Jesus
did of course have the power to raise himself from the dead! And just as matter-offactly he ruled from the heaven while he lay dead in the grave.’
But the way this has been translated Jesus did not lie in the tomb three days and
three nights, as he himself says. (MAT 12:40) And I have always had the feeling that
when Jesus sais something, that is how it is. But I have not before been able to explain how, because here there are so many fine nuances that need to fall in place that
376
I was unable to sort it out. And also the way we celebrate Easter, or Passover, Jesus
only lay in the tomb from Friday evening until Sunday morning. So how could I,
then, claim that all this was wrong?
Jehovah’s Witnesses are also aware that this is not correct, but they have not
managed to get it in place either, so in their translation also they follow what is most
usual and write Sabbath in the singular. But they explain that it was parts of three
days and three nights. But you cannot be dead only part of a day, well, in Jesus’
case, except for the first and the last day, but that does not correct the misconception.
But I was once criticized by an Adventist for having written the Sabbath in the
singular instead of the Sabbaths in the plural. Well, they are always so preoccupied
with the Sabbath that I did not pay enough attention to him at the beginning. But I
had for some time understood that here was something that did not agree with Jesus’
words, and in a couple of mails this person did explain his view on the matter. But
the way he explained it there was half a day too many instead of one and a half too
few. When I showed him this, he became offended and did not want any further
correspondence. But I put it on the back burner, as they say in New Jersey. I kept it
warm without letting it boil. But no matter how I figured I got half a day too may.
Therefore I chose not to alter the text until I was sure of what was correct. I saw no
purpose in correcting one mistake to another mistake.
It has been the preaching of the Lutheran Church that Jesus’ resurrection happened concurrent with the earthquake when the messenger descended from the heavens: ‘He has been risen!’ But it says nothing about that in the Greek text, and neither
in any other translation. So that is only suppositions by some preachers that has
become stuck. Wrong teachings are dangerous that way. They are almost impossible
to get rid of! But I kept seeing that there was something I had not managed to put in
place, or I must have figured wrongly.
Well, now it happens to be so that if something keeps churning in the top floor,
it will finally fall in place. And if you are preoccupied with something before you fall
asleep, it often works in your subconsciousness. And one night as I suddenly woke
up at three o’clock, the whole picture was clear to me. I jumped up and reread First
Peter 03:18-19 which was the last I had read before I went to bed. It was still open
on my desk before me. And I read what it said there: ‘He died in the flesh, but was
made alive in the spirit. He also went away and preached to the spirits that had been
taken into custody.’
Then it dawned on me that Jesus resurrection did not happen with an earthquake! Or
by materialized messengers, but in the spirit and without a single sound the way is
says in First Kings 06:07, NIV: ‘In building the temple, only blocks dressed at the
quarry were used, and no hammer, chisel or any other iron tool was heard at the
temple site while it was being built.’
The stones that were chiseled in the quarry (on the earth) had a spiritual, soundless resurrection. And Jesus was the very first of these stones, he became the First-
377
fruit of all who had fallen asleep. Jesus also refers to this stone in his confrontation
with the pharisees. (MAT 21:42) This symbolically shows to the first resurrection of
those who will take part in God’s real temple, that of the heavens.
And then it also became clear to me that Jesus was not resurrected on Sunday
morning the way it is usually preached, and also the way our Easter celebration
presents it, but on Saturday night before six o’clock, exactly three days and three
nights after he died! And thereby we also see that Jesus turned out to be right — one
more time! And the one night I could not account for, thereby fell in place. That was
when he in the spirit went and preached to the spirits that had been taken into custody! It was the offspring of these God’s sons, the Nephilim, God sent the flood to
exterminate, in Genesis chapter 06.
This is how Jesus lay in the tomb:
He ate Passover with his twelve disciples, including Judas, on the day of preparation
of the three Sabbaths, also called the Great Sabbath. That then included Thursday and
Friday in addition to the regular Sabbath which was on a Saturday, And thereby the
day of preparation to the Great Sabbath was not on a Friday, ref. our Easter celebrations, but on a Wednesday. And Jesus died before six o’clock on that Wednesday.
From six o’clock Wednesday evening to six o’clock Thursday evening Jesus has lain
in the tomb one night and one day.
From six o’clock Thursday evening to six o’clock Friday evening Jesus has lain in
the tomb two nights and two days.
From six o’clock Friday night to six o’clock Saturday night before six Jesus has lain
in the tomb three nights and three days. And that is when he was resurrected!
And then it agrees in detail with his own statement in Matthew 12:40, THE PACT:
‘As Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so the Son of
Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.’
I see a fantastic symbolism in the fact that Jesus was lying in the tomb during all the
three Sabbaths, the days of rest, without doubt an arrangement introduced by God in
honor of Christ. And he was risen on a Sunday, on the first day after the Sabbaths,
which was then a regular working day. And he started working as soon as he had
been risen when he went and preached to the spirits that had been taken in custody.
Another proof that this is correct is the fact that the 14th of Nisan, the day Jesus
established to eat the Last Supper in memory of him, always falls on the Tuesday two
days before Maundy Thursday, and that was the day when Jesus ate the Last Supper
with his disciples. And it was night. After that Jesus brought the disciples with him
378
to Gethsemane where he prayed that God would relieve him from what was now
about to happen. But God did not listen to him. Then he was captured later that night
and brought before Annas early in the morning while it was still cold. Later he was
led to the Sanhedrin where he was sentenced to death. But a death sentence by the
Jews had to be sanctioned by Governor Pontius Pilate. That is why he was sent to
Pilate after he had been sentenced by the Jews.
And Jesus died and was buried before six on that Wednesday evening, on the 14th
of Nisan. After six it was the first of the three Sabbaths, the 15th, and no practical
chores were allowed to take place on a Sabbath.
After I had become aware of this I had no problem writing the Sabbaths in the plural
instead of Sabbath in the singular. And I feel certain that THE PACT is the only
translation that has this correct. But there are people who have understood this in
spite of the fact that both churches and authorities are trying to hide it.
This is again and example of the many fine nuances of the Bible. It is only an -s that
separates the translations, but this -s represents in return a much deeper understanding of the sign of Jonah, in other words Jesus stay in the tomb. It is also a solid
proof that the Bible never contradicts itself. It is we people who need to become more
accurate and respectful in order to understand it! And the Bible is much too deep to
have been written by people without God’s inspiration, such as is the case with the
Koran and the book of Mormon.
But we must be aware of conscious falsifications, such as for instance in JOH 01:18
by NIV* and honest mistakes such as in MAT 28:01, also by NIV.*
*New International Version
But why has this become such a problem? If it says Sabbaths in the plural in the
Greek text, why then not just follow the text when translating? Yes, that would have
been simple, but the Greek text does not separate between the singular and the plural
— not only in this situation, but in all situations.
In addition the Jewish calendar is different from that of the Western world, which we
also need to take into consideration. It took some time until it dawned on me that
Sunday morning to the Jews was actually Saturday evening at six. The new day
always started at six in the evening, ref. the six days of creation: ‘It became evening,
and it became morning —’
Jesus was resurrected just before six Saturday evening which was Sunday morning
to the Jews. And when the women came to see him at daybreak, Jesus had been resurrected in the spirit for about twelve hours. During that time he went and preached to
the spirits that had been taken into custody. (1PE 03:19, JUD 01:06)
379
About Baptism
When I at first started taking an interest in the Bible, I often asked the meaning of
baptism; the exact meaning of the word, that is. If I asked a Lutheran minister, he said
that it means to be sprinkled with water. When I asked the Baptists, they told be that
it means to be dipped under, emerged, in water.
In a way they were both right, because they only explained what it meant to them,
based on their way of practicing baptism. And when checking the dictionaries, I was
also told the practice, but not the exact meaning of the word.
What confused me was Paul’s description in First Corinthians 10:01-02. There he
says:
T01. ‘Brothers, I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact that our fathers were
under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea.
T02. And they were all baptized to Moses through the cloud and the sea.’ In
Ephesians 04:05 Paul also said that there was only one baptism, while he himself
refers to three kinds of baptisms, one to Moses, one to John, and one to Christ. It was
only after I read in one dictionary, or maybe it was in an article, that the true meaning
of being baptized to is being subjected to, or submitted under, that it became evident:
T03. When you are baptized to anyone, or anything, you are subjected to that person
or system. And they were baptized to Moses through the sea, because when the sea
closed behind them and destroyed pharaoh’s army, there was no way back. They all
became subjected to Moses whether they wanted to or not, ref. Korah and his
followers who objected to being baptized to, subjected to, Moses. It was the same
with the cloud. They had become baptized, subjected to, the guidance of Christ, symbolized by a visible cloud. When the cloud moved, they had to move. And it was all
under Moses’ leadership.
T04. John’s baptism was only a symbolic act in anticipation of Christ. You understand this, because nobody was really subjected to John during his period of baptism.
T 05. When Paul says there is only one baptism, he refers to the baptism, subjection,
to Christ. And this is the only real baptism that has any long term value, because only
through being baptized to Christ, will it be possible to obtain ageous life. If you
understood this, and accepted it, you have understood that every single person who
is born on earth, is automatically baptized both to God and Christ, be-cause whether
you like it or not, and whether you accept it or oppose it, you have no other
alternative: You are a subject to God’s plan through Christ. Then anybody in his right
About Baptism
380
mind will understand that there is no rescue through baptism. Peter explains this
rather accurate in First Peter 03:20. And I quote this exactly as it is written in the
ancient Greek text:
‘It is not putting aside the uncleanliness of the flesh, but it is a question of having a
clear conscience with God through the resurrection of Jesus Christ.’
In other words: When you are baptized to Christ, you have taken a stand against this
world, and you clearly state to God, Christ and the world that you will be on God’s
side in the process to establish his Realm in the heavens, and on earth. It has nothing
to do with being rescued or not being rescued, but, again, a question of having a clear
conscience with God through the resurrection of Christ.
So far about God and Christ. But — are we baptized to anybody or anything hav-ing
to do with this world? Yes, if you are born an American, you are automatically
baptized, subjected, to the American society with its laws and regulations. And you
are thereby also baptized to him who represents this society, and his name in 2014
is Barak Obama!
If you are born in England you are automatically baptized, subjected, to Queen
Elizabeth and everything English, English law and culture. If you are born a Dane,
you are baptized, subjected, to the Danish queen and Danish law and culture.
And by showing your support in public, you acknowledge that you want to have a
clear conscience with the leadership that you have been baptized to. But you may also
oppose the leadership that you are baptized to. Some are in legal opposition through
opposing political parties. They do not then oppose their country, but its present
leadership. Others go a lot further in their opposition and start rebel activities or even
join terrorist organizations within the country and the system they have been
baptized, subjected, to.
So much about regular baptism. But then remains another big question: Being
baptized to or by the Holy Spirit. This is not something that happens automatically
just because you have taken the baptism of water. The spiritual baptism by the Holy
Spirit only applies to those who have a special election, in the Bible referred to as
holy, ‘the elect.’ I will explain about the baptism by the Holy Spirit in John.
381
Christ — the Hourglass of the World
Millions of years ago God generated Michael, later the Messiah, as the first of his
work of creation. (COL 01:15, REV 03:14) After this Michael, through God’s authority, created everything that was later created. And therefore the Messiah is called
‘the first and the last’ because God has only generated him. Everything else came into
being through Christ — through the power of God. (JOH 01:03)
Finally God created adama, the man of earth, Adam. ‘Let us create a man in our picture —’ (GEN 03:21) And God’s plan was that Adam was symbolically to eat from
the tree of life — be obedient to God — and live on the earth in ages — without sin.
But Adam fell and God’s original plan was destroyed! Therefore God decided that
what Adam had destroyed Michael, the Messiah, the Christ, or Jehowshuwah, or Joshua, would reestablish. (GEN 03:15, ACT 03:21) And all of the First Pact is about
the bringing forth of the Semen which God called him in Genesis 03:15. No matter
what would happen, the Semen, which is Christ, was to be brought forth.
Just imagine the hourglass!
The time until the birth of Christ is nearing and Jesus is finally born. The first half
of the hourglass has run out! After this we even get a new calendar. And through
Jesus’ death and resurrection both the law and the prophecies were fulfilled! Yes,
Jesus said it best himself when he breathed his last: ‘It has been fulfilled.’
But that cannot possibly be correct! Just imagine Revelation and the prophecies that
John writes about there! Not a single prophecy of Revelation had been fulfilled by
Jesus’ resurrection! And the same with Paul! Correct! But all the prophecies that
were not fulfilled by Jesus’ resurrection, will yet be fulfilled through Christ, but now
as the ruler of the heavens and the earth. In addition: It was Jesus himself who chose
John when he elected him as one of his apostles. And it was also Jesus who chose
Paul, directly, when on his way to Damascus to persecute the Christians there.
Turn the hourglass!
When the hourglass has run out this time we have entered God’s ages — we are back
to were Adam was before he sinned. And all of the law and the prophecies have been
fulfilled through Christ! And John the Baptist, ‘the greatest born by a woman,’ who
died under the First Pact, has been resurrected to a life in ages on the earth! Only then
may we learn why God did not rescue him from Herod. He will without doubt be
resurrected to one of the greatest assignments on the earth! (HEB 11:35)
382
Father in the heavens
MAT 06:09-13
pater ho ouranos
pat-ayr ho oo-ran-os’
Father in the heavens
father you on high
hagiazo onoma
hag-ee-ad’-zo on’om-ah
let your name be holy.
hallow name
basilaia erchomai
bas-il-i-ah er’-khom-ahee
Let your Realm come,
realm come
thelema ginomai
thel’-ay-mah ghin’-om-ahee
and let your will be done
will happen
ge ouranous
ghay oo-ran-os
on earth and in the heavens.
earth on High
didomi semeron
did’-o-mee say-mer-on
Give us today
give today
semerom epiosios artos
say’-mer-on ep-ee-oo’-sees ar’-tos
the bread we need for this day,
today needing bread
aphiemi opheilema
af-ee’ay-mee of-i-lei’ma
and forgive us our debts
forgive debt
aphiemi opheiletes
af-ee’ay-mee of-i-let’ace
the way we forgive our debtors.
forgive debtors
eisphero eis peirasmos
ice-fer’-o eis pi-ras-mos’
Let us not be led into temptations,
lead temptation
rhuomai poneros
hroo’-om-ahee pon-ay-ros’
but free us from the evil One.
free evil
[sou basileia
[soo bas-il-i’-ah
[For the Realm is yours ,
[your realm
dunamis doxa
doo’-nam-is dox’-ah
the power and the glory
power glory
aion amen]
ahee-ohn’ am-ane’]
in ages. Amen.]
(i) time amen]

Wrongly Translated Verses - Church of God and Christ

Transcription

Similar documents

Sales Sheet

PRAYER CARE SHARE GET`M THERE

Sunday Paper $1

A. His Word is True

Open PDF

Through the Fifth Gospel - Jerusalem Center for Biblical Studies

Recursos para la Parroquia Encíclica del Papa Francisco

What About . . . Jesus Rising From The Dead?

1 – Bread of Life

Explore the Core - Lancaster Mennonite Conference