Clear Word teaches that Jesus is Michael the Archangel

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Hawaiiski, Jan 14, 2008.

  1. Hawaiiski

    Hawaiiski
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    70
    Likes Received:
    0
    The following verses are taken from The Clear Word version, produced by Jack Blanco who is a 7th-Day Adventist:

    "When Christ descends from heaven as the Archangel, He will give a shout..." (I. Thes. 4:16)

    "...the Lord Jesus, also called Michael the Archangel,..." (Jude 9)

    "...God's Son Michael and the loyal angels fought against the dragon and his angels." (Rev. 12:7)
     
  2. Armchair Scholar

    Armchair Scholar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    Blanco's false teaching sounds mildly reminiscent of Mormonism... and it adds to the word of God.
     
  3. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is The Clear Word version also the word of God?
     
  4. Linda64

    Linda64
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    2,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Sounds very similar to Charles Taze Russell, founder of the Jehovah Witnesses.
     
  5. MichelleinPA

    MichelleinPA
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2008
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    And that's why I stick with the tried and true KJB
     
  6. JFox1

    JFox1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't stand that Clear Word Bible. Blanco altered the Bible from Genesis to Revelation to reflect Seventh Day Adventist teachings. Those examples from the original post are just the tip of the iceberg.
     
  7. Keith M

    Keith M
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2002
    Messages:
    2,024
    Likes Received:
    0
    The CWT of the Seventh Day Adventists, the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Joseph Smith Translation (also known as the Inspired Version) of the Mormons should never be conidered as Scripture. These "translations" were mistranslated so that these cultic groups could have "bibles" that agreed with their errant teachings. These "translations" were created with the sole purpose of making the Bible say what it had never said before. Unlike the various KJVs, the NASB, the NKJV and other legitimate translations of God's word, these "bibles" should never be considered the written word of God.
     
  8. thomas15

    thomas15
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Guilt by association.
     
  9. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The CWT is the unofficial official bible of the Seven-Day-Adlibber...er...Adventist cult.
     
  10. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    And that's why I stick with the tried-n-true VALID VERSIONS, old and new.

    The CWT does not follow any known scriptural mss very well. Blanco skewed its text toward the Adlibber cult.
     
  11. JFox1

    JFox1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2005
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    0
  12. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    I suppose by "popular opinion" TCW modern version is not the word of God?

    And some still wonder why we should stay with a version so tried and true.
     
  13. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Which of the statements below are true? Can you distinguish which of these is the Clear Word rendering? Try to view them each objectively before knowing which translation is being quoted (the identification of versions is below) --
    (1) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
    that whosoever believeth on him, should not perish, but should have life eternal.

    (2) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son,
    that whoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life.

    (3) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
    that whosoever believeth on him, may not perish, but have everlasting life.

    (4) For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son to come here and die,
    that whoever believes in Him will not perish but will have eternal life.

    (5) for God has so loved the world, as to give his own begotten Son,
    that whosoever believes on him, may not perish, but obtain eternal life.

    (6) For God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son,
    that whosoever believeth on Him might not perish, but have everlasting life:

    (7) For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son,
    that every one who believes in him may not be lost, but have Immortal Life.

    (8) For God so loved the world, that he gave the only begotten Son,
    that every one who believeth in him may not perish, but may have everlasting life.

    (9) For God, so loved, the world, that, his Only Begotten Son, he gave,--
    that, whosoever believeth on him, might not perish, but have life age–abiding.

    (10) For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order
    that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.
    Which one is the actual word of God? All of them? None of them? If the Clear Word statement is true, then is John 3:16 in the Clear Word the word of God?

    [VERSIONS CITED: (1) Murdock, 1852; (2) Webster, 1833; (3) Wesley, 1755; (4) Clear Word, 1994; (5) Living Oracles, 1835; (6) Worsley, 1770;
    (7) Twentieth Century, 1904; (8) Noyes, 1869; (9) Rotherham, 1902 (10) New World Translation, 1961]


    Please do not miscontrue this post as an endorsement of the Clear Word. Thank you.
     
  14. Armchair Scholar

    Armchair Scholar
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    Messages:
    87
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think I know what you are saying. Even in "bibles" like this one of the SDA, where a man has added his own words and fallacies to certain verses or select portions, parts of God's word can still be found among the altered parts. Like in your example with John 3:16, all those versions say pretty much the same message, although the English wording is a little different. Personally, I am not crazy about the wording in the NWT version of John 3:16. Portions of God's word can still be found even in the worst translations, minus the parts altered by sinful men who make it say something doctrinally incorrect. This is an example of how Satan changes God's word, by using false teachers to add in doctrines that are contrary to what the rest of Scripture teaches. For this man to say that Jesus is the Angel Michael is false because this person can not back up his words with God's word. He cannot find in any true Bible MS that Jesus and Michael are the same. Therefore, he has added something onto God's word that is not a fact proven by God's word.
     
  15. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Why omit the KJB?

    If what is offered on John 3:16 validates TCW version as the word of God, in the places where false doctrine is espoused through the corrupting of the translation, does this mean it is the word of God just with holes it in?
     
  16. Salamander

    Salamander
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,965
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it alright for me to say a hearty "Amen!"?:wavey:
     
  17. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    It was not an accidental omission; I intentionally excluded the KJV. I also didn't cite from the NASB, NLT, HSCB, NET, or the NIV (and many others). Since you asked, I quoted from unfamilar versions, relatively free of bias and sentiment to increase the likelihood of an objective experience.
     
  18. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    We must remember that the SDA is a deceptive cult. They publicly state they don't believe or teach this or that, while, within their churches, they actually DO teach what they say they don't, outsida their churches.

    They say the CWT is not their Bible, but they frequently quote from it in their messages. Their guru, Ellen G. white, taught that Jesus is Michael, so naturally they embrace a bible that teaches likewise.

    I believe the CWT is a cult-specific version which targets the SDA, and is NOT a valid version.
     

Share This Page

Loading...