Before I even start this article, I want to go ahead and link to an outstanding source of articles by Will Kinney that prove so much more thoroughly than I have here that the King James Bible is indeed the ONLY inspired, infallible word of God in the world today. I suggest starting with the article "Is King James onlyism scriptural?" and then going down through the list from there. Lots of good information!
Will Kinney's outstanding list of articles for King James onlyism
Now to get to my own humble article on this topic. I must warn you, the reader, that this article is very long and thorough. Some people have told me that the longer articles need to be broken down into smaller chunks, but I have a couple problems with that: I like for there to be one source of the information for people to link to, and I have noticed that people tend to use breaks as an excuse to wander off to something else. If you watch a video on youtube that's all in one chunk in one spot and divided into many chunks in another, the one with one huge chunk gets watched all the way through, but with the one divided into many chunks, the viewership falls off in the latter chunks. It's a mental thing, I guess. The breaks end up becoming excuses for a full stop. Anyway, since this article is already so long, let's get on with it:
The Bible warns that in the last days Christians will fall away from the faith, turning to false teachers and being carried away on the wind of every new, unsound doctrine that comes along (1st Timothy 4:1, 2nd Timothy 4:3-4, Ephesians 4:14). You know why this is? Because they don't have a final, settled, scriptural authority on which to base their doctrine and stay put.
People, we've got a generation of professing Christians today who follow an idea of God that is so un-inspired (like their Bibles) and so open to doubt and private interpretation, that they can fill the vacuum in with whatever they want. And that's exactly what they are doing. The Christianity we have today is 20% scriptural (at best) and 80% a self-styled re-interpretation of God. We have a Burger King God today because we have Burger King "Bibles" today. Have him your way.
In a lot of the apostate churches today, the agenda is to get the emphasis and focus off of the scriptures and onto undefinable and unproveable things like spiritual experiences, word of mouth and feelings. The ministers of Satan that are pushing this agenda say things like, "Last time I checked, the Godhead was made of the Father, the Son and Holy Spirit, not the Father, the Son and the scripture" - Quote from "pastor" Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, California.
Folks, the Bible is clear that the scripture IS God and God IS the scripture. The scripture is not adding another part to the Godhead. All three persons of the Godhead ARE the scripture, and this can be proven - get this - with SCRIPTURE. In many places you see the scripture talking to people and from the perspective of the person of God. Notice in Romans 9:17 that the scripture talks from the first person of God and not merely on behalf of God:
Romans 9:17 (King James Bible)
For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Do you see that folks? Who's talking here? The scripture. What perspective is he talking from? From God's. God is talking here. The scripture is God, people. The written scriptures of the Old Testament weren't even written yet at the time mentioned in this verse, by the way. The scripture is in heaven, it is already settled, it can be translated into any language at any time, and, most importantly it is God. Here's you another example:
Galatians 3:8 (King James Bible)
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Again, this was long before Moses wrote the Old Testament, so which scripture is it talking about here? The one already in heaven. The end of the Daniel chapter 10 and the beginning of Daniel 11 PROVE that the scripture is already in heaven and settled, too. At the end of Daniel chapter 10, Gabriel tells Daniel that he's going to soon give him the scripture from heaven that will make it into Daniel's book:
20. Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.
21. But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.
1. Also I in the first year of Darius the Mede, even I, stood to confirm and to strengthen him.
2. And now will I shew thee the truth. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings in Persia; and the fourth shall be far richer than they all: and by his strength through his riches he shall stir up all against the realm of Grecia.
Did you see that? Gabriel told Daniel he was ABOUT to give him the scripture. In other words, folks, this scripture already existed before Daniel wrote it down. No one else had written the scripture in Daniel before then, either. It only existed in heaven up to that point. I'm not trying to insult anyone's intelligence here. I'm just pointing out that the scriptures are spiritual and they ARE GOD.
That's one of the reasons these ministers of Satan want the focus off of the scripture, people. With the scriptures, you can PROVE things and settle spiritual matters. But here's the real reason I point out that the scripture IS God and vice-versa: A person's perception of the scriptures is their perception of God. Like Jesus says in john 5:39, the scriptures testify of Jesus. So, if you think that the scriptures are "un-inspired," possibly containing a few errors, open to correction, open to a wide, loose array of different interpretations, and should remain forever open to future re-interpretations, then that's what you think of God, whether you admit that or not. If you don't think that God's inspired word is in the world today, then you don't think GOD is in the world, whether you like that or not, or whether you admit that or not. People that adamantly oppose the idea of just one Bible want a flexible, patchwork, Frankenstein Bible with interchangeable parts, and they want that kind of Bible because they want that kind of God. They want a God who gives flexible commandments with interchangeable conditions.
Yes, I know some people just truly want as accurate of a Bible as possible, and I don't condemn searching this matter out at all. In fact, that's how a lot of people come to realize that the King James Bible was truly inspired by God and the rest are corrupted. But that's just it: The search will eventually end, not just keep on going and going on forever. Someone who's truly seeking out the truth will eventually come to know that the King James is the only inspired word of God in the world today. Those that claim to be seeking the truth, but keep on finding new excuses to balk at the King James Bible are looking for a flexible Bible with flexible commandments that they can hold in question any time they get to feeling too restricted by God's commandments. You're going to see proof that what's inside of the vast majority of these people who balk at the King James Bible is a spirit of rebellion that simply does not want God's word to be their final, settled authority on all matters of faith and practice. You're going to see the logic behind each of the allegations against the King James Bible contradict the logic of the other allegations made against it, leaving only the common denominator of a deeper, darker motive of hatred and rebellion towards God's word.
Let's get to it, then. Let's show how to answer these allegations that so frequently come against the King James Bible. First, let's list the allegations and then get to them, one by one. Please read through this whole list of questions before continuing on to the answers:
1. If the King James Bible was really the only inspired English Bible, then what about the poor people before 1611? What did they do for a perfect Bible? Did God really deprive 1,500 years of Christians of a perfect Bible?"
2. "Yeah, but no translation can be inspired because only the original Hebrew and Greek were inspired."
3. "Yeah, but why did God choose English as the language of the Bible for the end times? Why not Chinese? Or Spanish? Or Arabic?"
4. "Yeah, but the King James Bible is too archaic to read or understand!"
5. "Yeah, but, aren't some of the changes between the words in the King James Bible and the new versions like the New King James so negligible as to not matter? For example, can't we say 'cast' instead of 'throw' without it being such a big deal?"
6. "Yeah, but why just ONE Bible, though? If God inspired one Bible in English, couldn't he inspire another one?"
7. "Yeah, but a lot of the newer Bibles are better than the King James Bible, aren't they? I mean, the NIV is good, isn't it? The ESV is pretty good, right? And a lot of people I know say the NASB is way better."
8. "This whole Bible version issue creates confusion and division within the body of Christ, so quit arguing about it!"
9. "Yeah, but what about issues like Revelation 14:1 and Revelation 16:5? James White points these issues out. You just can't get around those things."
Here we go:
"If the King James Bible really was the only inspired English Bible, then what about the poor people before 1611? What did they do for a perfect Bible? Did God really deprive 1,500 years of Christians of a perfect Bible?"
Imagine asking the person who asks this question a similar question:
"If Jesus's work on the cross was perfect and was a far better covenant than the Mosaic law (Hebrews 8:5-13), then where was the perfect covenant for the people who lived before the crucifixion of Jesus? You mean to tell me for almost 1,500 years God ignored his chosen people, the Jews, and deprived them of the perfect covenant and stuck them with that cruel Mosaic law? Would God really do that?"
I wonder how they would answer that question?
God has this thing called *timing* and he planned out each his works from the beginning to the end (Acts 15:18). Each of his works has a perfect time and place, and that included a perfect Bible. God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."
Also, the Bible is clear that God can most certainly keep his works and plans secret, only to reveal them at a certain place and time:
Now to him that is of power to stablish 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.
It's easy to get a warm, fuzzy, altruistic and even sympathetic feeling by asking "what about the poor people before 1611?" But this question is argumentative suicide for a Bible agnostic who believes in the on-going revision process and let me show you how it plays out in a conversation: (I call them Bible agnostics instead of Bible correctors because they're not really sure WHAT scriptures they're trusting in, just like an agnostic doesn't know what spiritual power they believe in.)
"What about the people before 1611? Were they deprived of a perfect Bible? Do you really think God would deprive 1,500 years of Christians of a perfect Bible?"
King James Bible only reader:
"Can you name one modern English Bible that's better than the King James Bible?"
"Heck yeah! The [insert some modern Bible] is outstanding! With the manuscript tradition and the extensive, on-going revision process, we now have a better understanding of the Hebrew and Greek, and the translations are much closer!"
King James Bible only reader:
What date was it made?
"2011 [or whatever date]"
King James Bible only reader:
Well, then, what about all of the people before 2011? Were they just deprived of a better Bible? Do you think God would really deprive 1,900 years of Christians out of that better Bible?"
Bible agnostic: "........."
See, the Bible agnostic says that God works through a revision process and the Bibles are better today, but in doing so he invalidates his complaint about the people before 1611 because he's not only deprived everyone before 1611 of those future "better" Bibles, but everyone SINCE 1611, as well. In short, he accuses the King James onlyist perspective of excluding some people out of an inspired Bible, but HIS perspective excludes FAR MORE people from having an inspired Bible.
Funny thing is, I also often hear the Bible agnostics who have such sympathy for the Christians who lived before 1611 mention groups of Christians who relied on an earlier Bible than the King James Bible for decades or maybe even centuries and made out just fine. Their argument is that if those people made out just fine without a King James Bible, then there was no need for the King James Bible, and if there was no need for it, then it wasn't inspired. It usually goes something like this:
"The Puritans of late 17th century England used the Geneva Bible which came before the King James Bible. In fact, they HATED the King James Bible, and they got along just fine with their faith. In fact, lots of people since then have used an earlier Bible than the King James Bible, some of them for even hundreds of years, and they did just fine, so there was no need for God to make the King James Bible. It wasn't inspired. It's just another Bible."
Ever heard something like that? Guess what this person just did. They just invalidated their complaint about people before 1611 not having a good Bible because, according to them, the Bibles before the King James Bible were so good that the King James Bible was unneeded.
"Yeah, but no translation can be inspired because only the original Hebrew and Greek were inspired."
There two things we need to say here. First, now our Bible agnostic friend is even GUILTIER of his own accusation. Whereas he was just condemning us a moment ago for cheating so many people out of a perfect Bible with our King James only-ism, he has now locked the Bible away in two languages (Hebrew and Greek) that only 1% of the world's population speaks, thus, excluding 99% of the world's population from having an inspired Bible. And Hebrew was only fully revived and used again in the very early 1900's, leaving only Greek. So, while our Bible agnostic friend accuses KJB onlyists of excluding 1,600 years of Christians from having an inspired Bible, HE excludes almost EVERYONE for even longer from having an inspired Bible and is STILL excluding them.
And I've heard Bible agnostics who try to bring up this point about the original Hebrew and Greek say this to someone, as well:
"You say someone shouldn't have to learn Hebrew and Greek to read the Bible, but then you demand that people learn English to read the Bible? How hypocritical!"
But how is it more of a demand to ask people to learn the most widely used language in the world today (one they're likely going to learn anyway - English) than to learn two languages which less than 1% of the world speaks, one of which wasn't even fully revived and spoken again until the early 1900's?
And here's the second, and more important thing we need to point out: God most certainly CAN inspire translations. For example:
Acts 26:14 (King James Bible)
And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
That's Hebrew being translated into Greek by Dr. Luke, who wrote the book of Acts. Obviously, the original words that had been spoken to Paul in that verse were in Hebrew, and obviously they were inspired (spoken by Jesus), and obviously the translation into Greek was inspired, as well. Not only that, but we know those words were inspired in EXACT words.
"Yeah, but it's still just Hebrew and Greek, so those remain the only two inspired languages," someone might say.
Yes, but, we know from Acts 2:4-11, where the Holy Spirit is telling about the works of God in every language, that inspiration can come in ANY language:
Acts 2:8-11 (King James Bible)
8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judæa, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10. Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11. Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.
Bible agnostics are either ignorant of these verses and wrongfully think that God can't inspire a perfect Bible for today in the most widely spoken language in the world (English), or they aren't ignorant of those verses and they think he simply hasn't ~bothered~ to inspire one. In fact, you may even hear some Bible agnostics - particularly those that follow and faithfully echo James White - say that while we don't have the original autographs any more, we DO have the original texts out there, somewhere, in what they call the "manuscript tradition," and what they mean by "manuscript tradition" is that the originals were copied and scattered throughout all of the world by the early Christians and we are only finding bits and pieces of them now every so often. And as we find more and more of them, the Bible needs to be updated. This, according to them, is God's great way of giving us the Bible. (This is just their dodgy way of declaring that God has given us a Bible for today without having to actually name a specific Bible, because as soon as they name a Bible other than the King James Bible, the faults and errors in it can be pointed out. It also holds the door open for the Trojan Horse called "a more correct Bible" inside of which ride hundreds of corrupted Bibles. We'll cover that more when we answer the question "Yeah, but why just one Bible?" a little further below.)
In other words, the Bible agnostic admits with such statements that, if it were true that we don't already have a perfectly inspired translation, God could gather and translate all of the texts into a perfect English Bible RIGHT NOW, because the original texts ARE out there. King James onlyists not only know God COULD do that, but HAS done that.
So, to reiterate one more time: If someone says that the King James Bible is the only inspired Bible in English, the Bible agnostic accuses them of cheating everyone before then out of an inspired Bible. Yet, he excludes nearly everyone from having a perfect Bible by locking it away either far, far in the past or some point in the future that never arrives.
Are you following me? Do you see the major flaw in the Bible agnostic's logic so far? More importantly, do you see his lack of faith in God's character?
"Yeah, but isn't it a little bigoted to claim that God chose English as the language of the Bible for the end times? Why not Chinese? Or Spanish? Or Arabic?"
First off, if God was going to inspire his final Bible in any of those languages mentioned above in Acts 2:8-11, clearly he could have. But he didn't. Here's why he chose English:
It is not arrogant in the least to think that God chose English. English is the most universal and widely used language in the world today. It's the most common second language, spoken more as a second language than #2 (Chinese) and #3 (Spanish) combined. It's the language of the world, and God knew it would be.
But why did late English in particular have to become the language of the Bible and why did the Bible have to be inspired in Britain?
It probably had a lot to do with the fact that it was through the British people that God issued the declaration that returned the Jews to their homeland (Balfour Declaration of 1917). People always try to shoot that down by making character assassinations against Lord Rothschild, but I point them to Cyrus, the pagan Persian king, who God called his 'anointed' 150 years before he was even born (Isaiah 45:1). God can use anything and anyone to complete his work and that includes corrupt leaders. He used Cyrus to send the Jews home and rebuild their temple. He used Lord Rothschild and others to send the Jews back home and help them rebuild their land. God plans these things out far ahead of time (Acts 15:18) and they definitely have a process and a final fulfillment.
Also, God's choice of Britain to be the home of the perfectly inspired and translated King James Bible probably had something to do with the fact that it was the British ships, aka the ships of Tarshish, that first took the Jews home, as God prophesied:
9. Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God, and to the Holy One of Israel, because he hath glorified thee.
10. And the sons of strangers shall build up thy walls,
and their kings shall minister unto thee: for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee.
Don't forget, God blesses nations that bless Israel:
2. and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing:
3. and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
So, for being the nation that would issue the declaration that delivered the Jews to their homeland and for being the first ones to take them back home, God gave the British the honor of being the birthplace God's perfect, inspired Bible. And for anyone who has heard that Tarshish was located in south west Spain and not Britain, please refer to this link:
Proof that Tarshish is Britain and not Spain
Someone might say, "Yeah, but English is a much less reliable language than Hebrew or Greek. It's made up of bits and pieces of other languages. So many words can be interchanged, so many mechanics of it can be swapped out."
Then that's all the more reason to demand a stricter translation from it, and not a loose, widely scattered array of different interpretations.
"Yeah, but the King James Bible is too archaic to read or understand!"
When someone declares the King James Bible to be too archaic, simply ask them to cite what verse(s) are too difficult for them to understand. They rarely do so. They quickly realize that there's no verse they can post without being embarrassed from looking lazy and silly. They'll respond with something like, "Well, I can't think of any right now, but I know there are some."
Also, to hearken back for just a second to the argument that only the Hebrew and Greek were inspired, if someone finds it "difficult" to understand a word in his OWN language, what makes him think he will have better understanding in a FOREIGN language like Hebrew or Greek? It makes no sense.
Apparently we're supposed to dumb down the language for the kids today. But God doesn't want us to dumb down our language just because it has fallen into bad usage. In Nehemiah chapter 8, when the Jews were praising God for the newly built city, the Jews that were present couldn't speak Hebrew very good, but the language wasn't dumbed down for them. The Levites and others made sure they could understand the words being read to them distinctly by catching them up to speed:
Nehemiah chapter 8:7-8
7. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.
8. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.
If anything, reading the King James Bible would improve the English of these slack-jawed, vacant-eyed kids today who only know how to speak in acronymns. IKR? SMH.
Besides, In the old, old first King James Bibles, the translators had put in a preface explaining that they had left in some of the older English words such as 'ye' 'thee' and 'thou' because they helped convey and reveal particular details of the Hebrew and Greek languages, even though such words had been out of usage for nearly two hundred years by that point.
Honestly, though, I think God led them to do that so people would have to study a little bit before gaining insight into the revelations of the scriptures. With just a little time and research, I have gotten to the bottom of every textual and doctrinal allegation I have ever heard against the King James Bible and found them to hold no water at all. It's not really that hard, but it DOES require a little concern and effort.
The revelations of the Bible aren't going to jump off the page and land in the brain of someone with half-closed eyes who only manages to read half a chapter before they put the Bible down and start watching a movie or nod off to sleep. God's not going to respect laziness. God didn't intend for it to be easy. This requirement for hard study is one of the ways God exposes and filters out heretics, (such as James White). They come out with some heretical spin on the word and someone who's actually studied in the Bible side-swipes and derails their heresy with something they caught in the scriptures but that the heretic over-looked because they didn't look closely enough. That's why God said he conceals things and it's the honor of kings to uncover them:
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
He said study, especially of scripture, would be hard:
11. The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.
12. And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
But commanded us to do it any way:
2nd Timothy 2:15
Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
And he commends exposing frauds:
I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
The King James Bible doesn't need to be updated, folks, it just needs to be READ.
Besides, isn't it ironic that Bible agnostics will accuse the King James bible of being too archaic and difficult to read, but yet THEIR way of reading a Bible is to run frantically back and forth to the Hebrew and Greek, constantly falling into doubt over every new detail that pops up, and never knowing if they're really reading the Bible?
Also, these same Bible agnostics often admit that there are lots of bad versions out there that change major doctrine, so, instead of having just one Bible to know and learn, they have to go through every Bible out there to see if it's a bad version or not. With every new, "easier to read" Bible they get, they now have to proof-check the Bible all over again to make sure it's "good." And they go through so many of these difficult hoops...... all while claiming the King James Bible is too difficult to read. Arggghhh, it's enough to give you a headache.
What they'll say when you bring that particular point up is, "Well, we trust God to give us a good one." Yet, they don't think God has inspired a Bible in English and some of them think he never will because they think the revision process should stay open forever. Are you seeing all of this contradiction?
Also, have you noticed that a lot of King James Bible antagonists will say that it's a "good translation," but once you insist that it's the ONLY Bible, they suddenly say that it's full of errors?
And can anyone explain this one: If you ever read from any book written by Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, James White, et al, on the inerrancy of the Bible and why it is trustworthy, they will always tell the UNBELIEVER that "we have over 5,000 manuscripts to support the Bible," in which they know are the Textus Receptus texts underlying the King James Bible. But when they are discussing versions with CHRISTIANS they will criticize those very same 5,000 manuscripts that underlie the King James Bible. So why is it that "scholars" will borrow the 5,000 manuscripts from the King James Bible to prove the inerrancy of Scripture to a skeptic, but criticize them 2 minutes later to a believer?
What awful self-contradiction!
Sadly, at the end of the day, all the Bible agnostic will have accomplished is to declare what he thinks has NOT been inspired, never what HAS been inspired. For all of his academics and textual criticisms, he will never come to any final truth:
2nd Timothy 3:7
ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
And, tragically, the more work he does to "prove" what he thinks has NOT been inspired, the more he violates his own warm, fuzzy altruism by trying to deprive everyone of an inspired, perfect Bible.
"Yeah, but some of the changes between the words in the King James Bible and the new versions like the New King James so negligible as to not matter. For example, we can say 'cast' instead of 'throw' without it being such a big deal."
Well, if the changes are so negligible as to not matter, then why not just read the King James Bible?
"Yeah, but there doesn't have to be just ONE Bible, though. If God inspired one Bible in English, he could inspire another one."
Okay, then. Where is it? :) It wouldn't be any Bible with errors in it, of course, and, as you'll see below, there are all kinds of errors in the NIV, ESV, RSV, NASB, etc, etc, etc. The only one you'll find without errors is the King James Bible. Every single claim of errancy that has been levied against the King James Bible has been answered and settled.
As I stated in the intro, having only one Bible closes the doors on the Trojan Horse called "a more correct Bible," inside of which ride hundreds of modern, corrupt versions. No scripture can be changed any more because it's already been settled. If anyone comes along declaring that we need to update the Bible, they are denied and dismissed because the Bible is already settled. They wouldn't be able to sneak in corrupt Bibles under the banner of "a more correct Bible." And that's what the true motive is with a Bible "corrector."
See, so far, we've given our friend, Mr. Bible agnostic, the benefit of the doubt and assumed he is simply operating out of ignorance. But there are lots of Bible agnostics out there who aren't Bible agnostics at all... they KNOW the King James Bible is the true, inspired word of God and their satanic mission is to undermine the word of God by keeping the doors of "revision" wide open. Some people call these people Bible correctors. I call them Bible subverters. See, Satan isn't just interested in getting people away from the word of God. What he REALLY wants is to replace God's word with his OWN word. But Satan knows he has to work in small, subtle, incremental steps to pervert God's word, and if the door ever gets closed on new Bibles, he can't keep shifting the word of God away from the truth, little by little.
That is exactly what is happening, by the way. They are subtly changing the Bible and sneakily changing the original texts with corrupt, Alexandrian texts in order to slowly arrive at their new, perfectly corrupt Bible.
I'm going to provide links to two of David Daniel's videos: "Why the NWO hates the King James Bible" and "Where did the Majority go?" on the 'Chicktracts' channel on youtube, and I highly suggest you watch them so you can see how the Bible subverters are working towards a corrupt, satanic, globalist Bible for the future. Trust me, when they think they have it finished, there will suddenly be NOTHING wrong with declaring a translation to be inspired and perfect. And all of the Bible agnostics who are currently asking "What about the people before 1611?" will be holding up that awful, corrupted Bible out of ignorance, and the Bible subverters will be holding it up out of malice.
Link: David Daniels: Why the NWO hates the King James Bible
Link: David Daniels: Where did the Majority text go?
Just in case the links don't work, I want to show you some proof that the Luciferians who want a New World Order have known for a long time that they would have to alter the King James Bible to get people away from God's word. Just take a look at this letter:
"In the next ten years we will have to rebuild a world civilization. I hope for some psychologists and even philosophers to be among those appointed to administer this problem.
We will first perhaps try to make a great world plan. We will sit at a council table and figure how to iron out the troubles on the earth. World problems will not be solved except by creating a solution up through and out through the people themselves; and so, no postwar program can be successful unless at least three and probably five generations of social conditioning goes with it.
The way of that conditioning would be the one used in Central Europe to condition Nazi minds. There the circulation of an ideology began in the public schools, began with the small child; which is where we will have to begin, and educate not only our own people but the peoples of the world. And we will have to have five generations of the consciousness concept of democratic cooperation before we can create a world capable of mental and emotional tolerance.
To make things right we will have to undo much that is cherished error. The problem of revising the Bible shows how difficult it is to do this. For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What's wanted is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English. Now, if you can not get a correct translation of an existing work when the manuscripts are available, how are you going to work with the deeply seated prejudices of human beings, especially when they are so lacking in a common denominator?"
- Excerpts from the article, "Asia in the Balance of the Scales" in the magazine, "Horizon: The Magazine of Useful and Intelligent Living," Volume 4, No. 1, April, 1944, written by Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree Mason, highly connected occultist and Luciferian, discussing what needs to be done to socially condition society, Nazi style, and to install a New World Order.
Notice any particular Bible that Manly P. Hall didn't like? He and his fellow occultists knew that as long as people were reading that pesky, archaic King James Bible, they all had one final, settled, scriptural authority and could not be divided on spiritual doctrine that was holding them together.
Question: What does a Luciferian who doesn't like the Bible think should be done to "correct" the Bible?
Answer: change it, of course.
Which Bible did Manly P. Hall want to change? Not the Great English Bible, not the Geneva Bible, not the Dhouy Rheims Bible, nor any other English Bible that came before the King James Bible. He wanted to change the King James Bible.
I want to spotlight one sentence from his letter:
"For the last hundred years WE have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct;"
Emphasis on the word 'WE.' Who is 'WE?' The Luciferians who want a New World Order, of course.
Did they change the Bible? Are we closer to a New World Order?
Here's a link to an article that offers more info on that letter:
David Daniels: Letter from Manly P. Hall about the King James Bible
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Bible agnostics and Bible subverters say: "Yeah, but you CAN'T know the scriptures because we don't have the originals, God didn't inspire the translations, and the revision process isn't done yet."
Where does such a spirit come from? The Bible tells us:
Those by the way side are they that hear; then cometh the devil, and taketh away the WORD out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.
Like they say, you can't know a book by it's cover, but you CAN know a book by its enemies.
"Yeah, but a lot of the newer Bibles are better than the King James Bible. I mean, the NIV is good, the ESV is really good. And a lot of people I know say the NASB is way better."
The NIV has been changed three times since 1973 for a grand total of FOUR different NIV Bibles, and the last one is 40% different from the first one. That's not even the same Bible. Who in their right mind would base their faith on a Bible that changes that much? Why does it need to change every few years anyway??? Same with the ESV. It has changed three times since 2001 and the last version changed over 300 verses!! People, pray tell what kind of spiritual influence would change verses in the Bible to say something different every few years?!? Can you not see Satan's finger prints all over that??
"Yeah, but the NASB hasn't changed."
Yes it has. In fact, it has changed more than the other corrupt versions. Not only that, but, in places, some of its changes were reverted BACK to what previous versions read, such as with 1st Peter 5:2, for example. In the King James Bible, 1st Peter 5:2 reads, "Feed the flock of God which is among you, TAKING THE OVERSIGHT THEREOF". The phrase "taking the oversight thereof" is omitted by the NASB editions of 1963, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75 but finally put back into the 1977 edition. It might also interest the reader to know that Dr. Frank S. Logsdon, who led, organized and helped fund the effort to create the NASB Bible has since declared the NASB to be a work of the devil and that he is in trouble with God. He has also declared that the King James Bible is the only inspired Bible in English. See for yourself:
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version... I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the gorund work; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments [which Bible?]; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; it's frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?... You can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct."
- Dr. S. Franklin Logsdon, co-author, NASB
And since the Bible subverters have created rumors on the internet that the above quote is farcical and non-existent, I'm giving a link below to a video of the actual recording of Dr. Logsdon saying the above:
Amazingly, even after watching and hearing that confession, those people that especially like the NASB Bible will still proclaim it to be better than the King James Bible, and they'll even admit that it has errors.
Maybe that what's most shocking to me: That there are people calling themselves Christians who would feel more content believing that there is not a perfect copy of God's word in the world today, written in the most influential and most widely used language. They are more content believing that the word they use to defend their belief in God is not perfect, than believing that it is. Heck, they even FIGHT to believe that! Some of them have spent their LIFE fighting to believe that they don't have God's perfect word. Personally, I think Sam Gipp stated it best: It's not the King James Bible that a lot of these Bible agnostics and Bible subverters have a problem with; it's a PERFECT Bible that they have a problem with. And he's right. A questionable, patchwork Bible that contains errors puts God's word into subjection to man's will and interpretation. A perfect Bible, however, puts man's will into subjection to God's word. These Bible correctors that hate the King James Bible are simply looking for excuses to indulge their sins. If one version restricts their sin in a way they don't like, they can simply look to another version in the hopes of being told something different. Their "Bible" ends up being a patchwork, Franken-Bible made out of interchangeable jello. Their Christian walks often show a LOT of compromise, as a result because they have nothing solid to stand on.
While I'm at it, I might as well throw in another video I highly recommend, wherein Peter Ruckman addresses so many of the typical arguments against the King James Bible. Seriously, you will be blessed with some good insight from watching it:
"The KJV is just an English translation of Erasmus's work (the Textus Receptus). He was a Catholic priest, so any translation derived from his work would be Catholic, and that would include the King James Bible."
Okay, let's look into that and see how faithfully and devoutly Erasmus adhered to Catholicism. Let's see what the Catholics thought of him. Here is a concise, informative article from www.chick.com and you can read the article and more at this link:
Proof that Erasmus was NOT a "good Catholic"
"This whole Bible version issue creates confusion and division within the body of Christ, so quit arguing about it!"
First, what you call an argument, I call a much needed discussion to get to the bottom of what is CLEARLY an issue. Second, you've got it backwards. The arguments are the RESULT of the confusion, not the CAUSE of it. The new versions are the cause of the confusion and division, and they never would have created this confusion and division if they hadn't been allowed in the first place. Unfortunately, they WERE allowed, and now the arguments are needed to expose them.
People, if someone plants false evidence on different members of a family to where everyone is accusing everyone else of doing them wrong in some way, arguments are GOING to ensue. Now, imagine as they argue and try to figure out what happened that someone says, "You're all just creating a bunch of confusion and division with all of this arguing! Just be quiet!" Is everyone supposed to just stop arguing and try to "keep the peace" by accepting that their families did them wrong without any resolution? No, that would only clamp a lid down on a boiling pot and would only create an even bigger fight later on. The arguments weren't the cause of the confusion and division, they were the result of the confusion and division, and are needed to eventually come to the truth of what happened. People, the division has already been created. The arguments and discussions help sort out where that division lies and where it came from.
"Yeah, but issues like Revelation 14:1 and Revelation 16:5 pretty much prove the King James Bible has errors. James White points these issues out. You just can't get around those things."
If you get into a debate over the King James Bible being the only inspired English Bible, you're going to hear about these two verses, since many Bible agnostics haven't gotten the memo that these two particular textual allegations against the King James Bible have now been thoroughly answered and dismissed.
Here are two great links that thoroughly debunk the allegation against the King James Bible regarding Revelation 16:5...
The King James Bible got Revelation 16:5 correct - by Will Kinney
More proof that the King James Bible got Revelation 16:5 correct
And the Revelation 14:1 issue can be addressed right here in this article:
Here's what Revelation 14:1 says in the King James Bible:
Revelation 14:1 (King James Bible)
And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads.
Bible subverters like James White think it should say what the modern versions say:
Revelation 14:1 (NASB)
Then I looked, and behold, the Lamb was standing on Mount Zion, and with Him one hundred and forty-four thousand, having His name and the name of His Father written on their foreheads.
Revelation 14:1 (ESV)
Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads.
Revelation 14:1 (RSV)
Then I looked, and lo, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him a hundred and forty-four thousand who had his name and his Father’s name written on their foreheads.
The difference is that the modern versions add "his name and" to the verse, making it sound like the 144,000 have TWO names on their foreheads: that of the Lamb (Jesus) and God the Father. And the Bible subverters then usually throw in a speculative insult and say something like, "If the modern Bibles had left those words out and the King James had put them in as it should have, the King James onlyists would be accusing the modern Bibles of denying the diety of Jesus!" But here's the thing: Revelation 22:4 shows us how many names the servants of God have in their foreheads:
Revelation 22:3-5 (King James Bible)
3. And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him:
4. and they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads.
5. And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever.
Notice how many names they have in verse 4: ONE.
And here's the important part: In Revelation 22:4, both the ESV and RSV - three Bibles that Bible subverters like James White often refer to as "better" - say that there is only ONE name:
Revelation 22:4 (NASB)
they will see His face, and His name will be on their foreheads.
Revelation 22:4 (ESV)
They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads.
Revelation 22:4 (RSV)
they shall see his face, and his name shall be on their foreheads.
So, just how many names will there be in the foreheads? Out of those Bibles, only the King James Bible has scripture that agrees with itself. Throughout the book of Revelation there are lots of names written on people, on white stones, on thigh and vesture, but there is only ONE name written in the foreheads of the servants of the Lamb.
This one name on the forehead of the 144,000 is so they will be protected from the destruction that happens during Daniel's 70th week and it is reminiscent of the (single) mark placed on the foreheads of the godly men spared from destruction in Ezekiel chapter 9:
2. And, behold, six men came from the way of the higher gate, which lieth toward the north, and every man a slaughter weapon in his hand; and one man among them was clothed with linen, with a writer’s inkhorn by his side: and they went in, and stood beside the brasen altar.
3. And the glory of the God of Israel was gone up from the cherub, whereupon he was, to the threshold of the house. And he called to the man clothed with linen, which had the writer’s inkhorn by his side;
4. and the Lord said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof.
5. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity:
6. slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark; and begin at my sanctuary. Then they began at the ancient men which were before the house.
7. And he said unto them, Defile the house, and fill the courts with the slain: go ye forth. And they went forth, and slew in the city.
With all of that out of the way, let's do a truly in depth study of the actual corruptions found within these perverted, Alexandrian Bibles...
The Importance of God's Word
Matthew 24:35 reads, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my WORDS shall not pass away."
Psalms 138:2 says, "...for thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name."
Psalms 119:89 says, "For ever, O LORD, thy WORD is settled in heaven."
The spiritual life-blood of the human race is the word of God:
It brings salvation: "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God..." [1 Peter 1:23]
It produces faith: "...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" [Romans 10:17.]
It produces spiritual growth: "...desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:" [1 Peter 2:2]
Jesus Christ said in John 6:63, "...the words that I speak unto you, they are SPIRIT, and they are LIFE." And the first time Satan attacks the human race was a direct attack on the word of God!
Genesis 3:1 says, "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, YEA, HATH GOD SAID...?" Satan planted a small seed of doubt into the mind of Eve. And as Eve questioned the truthfulness of God's Word - the fall of mankind was only a bite away.
Satan's aim of attack hasn't changed! In Luke 8, Jesus Christ tells the parable of the sower, verses 11,12 read, "Now the parable is this: The SEED is the word of God... THEN COMETH THE DEVIL, and taketh away the word..."
Satan knows - if he can supplant even a small seed of doubt in God's word, MANKIND WILL LOOK ELSEWHERE.
Never in history has such doubt and confusion over the Bible existed as is today. And nothing has flamed the fire of confusion and doubt over the Bible more than the scores of different translations flooding the scene. Time magazine [April 20, 1981 p.62] reports, "...there is an UNPRECEDENTED CONFUSION of choices in Bibles. Never have so many major new translations been on the market." Since 1880, over 200 different translations have appeared. Every six months a new English version appears.
NO WONDER PEOPLE ARE CONFUSED
The question has to be asked - is God the author of this flood of new versions? Is God the author of CONFUSION in His word? 1st Corinthians 14:33, clearly states, "God is NOT the author of CONFUSION."
BUT SATAN IS. He knows, if he can plant the smallest seed of doubt and confusion - that individual will not take God's word serious.
God promised to preserve His word:
God promised in Psalms 12:7 that He would preserve His word, "Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
And God keeps His promise. I believe, without a doubt, the King James Bible is the preserved word of God. And the new versions are satanic counterfeits to cast doubt, cause confusion and ATTACK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. And I'm going to prove that on the remainder of this message. If you've come this far, please keep reading - what you're about to read - may be the most important words YOU WILL EVER READ.
Most people believe the different versions are basically the same. They believe the newer versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand. NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.
One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1st Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH..." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh."
The New International Version [NIV] says, "HE appeared in a body." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE." "He appeared in a body?" Big deal...Everyone has "appeared in a body." The KJV is clear and definite, "GOD was manifest in the flesh." "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context, and so the statement does not even make grammatical sense.
They attack the deity of Jesus Christ:
In Philippians 2:6, The KJV again, clearly declares the deity of Jesus Christ: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery TO BE EQUAL WITH GOD" The new translations completely re-word the verse to deny the deity of Jesus Christ. The NIV, RSV, NASV, NRSV, NKJV [1979 ed.,] etc. reads, "Who, being in very nature God, DID NOT CONSIDER EQUALITY WITH GOD something to be grasped."
Someone is attacking the most important doctrine in the Bible - the deity of Jesus Christ! WHO WOULD DO SUCH A THING?
They attack the virgin birth:
In Luke 2:33, The King James reads, "And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him." The NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. reads, "The CHILD's FATHER and mother marveled at what was said about him." The "CHILD's FATHER?" Do you believe that Joseph was Jesus's father? Not if you believe the virgin birth! Not if you believe John 3:16, that Jesus Christ was the Son of God...A subtle attack at the virgin birth.
Think these are just isolated cases? NOT BY A LONG SHOT! There are over 6,000 changes.
They remove the Blood:
Consider Colossians 1:14: the KJV reads, "In whom we have redemption THROUGH HIS BLOOD, even the forgiveness of sins:" The NIV reads, "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV and co. rip the precious words "THROUGH HIS BLOOD" out. Friend, salvation is only "THROUGH HIS BLOOD." That old song says, "What can wash away my sins, NOTHING BUT THE BLOOD OF JESUS."
They attack John 3:16:
And something has to be done with John 3:16...so the NIV and company read, "For God so loved the world that he gave his ONE AND ONLY SON, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" - removing the critical word "BEGOTTEN." If Jesus was "the one and only" then what happens to the wonderful promise to believers like 1st John 3:2, "Beloved, now are we the sons of God...?" AN OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION APPEARS!
They tell lies:
A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way - a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah. "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1. The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS..."
A better translation... Easier to understand... BY A LIE
Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE..." John 17:17 says, "...thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "God, that CANNOT LIE."
How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 in these new versions? Either the translators of the other versions can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi (which is likely) or somebody is deliberately tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT.
Who would do such a thing? I'll give you a hint - he's called the "A LIAR, and the father of it" in John 8:44.
Oh, by the way, it was David who killed Goliath, right? Well, not according to the other Bibles. In 2nd Samuel 21:19, they erroneously read, "...Elhanan son of JaareOregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."
They make Lucifer and Jesus Christ the same:
In Isaiah 14:12, the father of the new versions removes his mask. The King James reads, "How art thou fallen from heaven, O LUCIFER, son of the morning!..." The NIV, NASV, NRSV etc. reads, "How you have fallen from heaven, O MORNING STAR, son of the dawn..." The new per-versions change "Lucifer" to "morning star." According to Revelation 22:16, the "morning star" is the Lord Jesus Christ. What blasphemy! What perversion! And there's no basis whatsoever for the change, as the Hebrew word for star (kokab) is not even found in Isaiah 14:12. (It's no wonder that those poor, deceived Catholics praise Lucifer by name in their Easter Exsultet, thinking that they're giving praise to God!) Is there any doubt who is the father of these new versions?
They take out hell:
If Satan is the author of these new versions, one subject he will aim his attack is the place the Bible calls hell. And the new versions go to extents to remove it.
Many times they change "hell" to "grave" or "death," but the word "hell" is far and few in the new versions. Like Psalm 9:17: in the King James reads, "The wicked shall be turned into HELL..." The NIV, reads, "The wicked return to the GRAVE..." We ALL "return to the GRAVE."
Many times when the new versions come to the obvious word "hell" - they replace it with the Greek word "Hades" or Hebrew "sheol." [See Matt. 16:18, Luke 16:23, Acts 2:31 and many, many more, the NEW King James does this 29 times.] Rather than translate into the obvious word hell - THEY REFUSE TO TRANSLATE IT.
And this is a better translation? And these new versions are "easier to read" and "understand?" Who in their right mind thinks Hades or Sheol is "easier to understand" than hell? Why didn't they leave in the Greek word "Ouranos" for heaven? It's obvious! Because someone is trying to remove and cast doubt on the place called hell.
In Isaiah 14:15, the King James Bible condemns Lucifer to hell: "Yet thou shalt be brought down to HELL ..." The new versions refuse to send Lucifer to hell! The NIV reads, "But you are brought down to the GRAVE..." The NASV, NRSV, NEW King James [NKJV] places him in "Sheol."
hmm... I wonder which one the Devil prefers?
Did you know that people who support abortion often use the NIV to say that God supports abortion as well? Here take a look for yourself:
Numbers 5:27 (NIV)
If she hath made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse.
Did you catch that? It says, "her womb will miscarry." This is basically saying that God himself will kill the child in a mother's womb if the woman commits adultery. Now, compare that to what the King James Bible says:
Numbers 5:27 (KJV)
And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people.
Nowhere in there does it say anything about a womb miscarrying. It says her thigh shall rot. Tell me, how in the WORLD did the NIV translators get from such a deviance in translation?
The Lord's or The Devil's Prayer?
An alarming display of Satanic perversion is found in Luke 11. The "The Lord's Prayer" is subtly [see 2nd Corinthians 11:3] transformed into "The Devil's Prayer."
The King James Bible in Luke 11:2-4, reads, "...Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil." Incredibly, the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. take out: "WHICH ART IN HEAVEN... Thy will be done, AS IN HEAVEN, so in earth... but DELIVER US FROM EVIL." Heaven is completely removed! The "father" of the new versions is NOT IN HEAVEN and DOES NOT DELIVER FROM EVIL.
I wonder who it could be? [hint: see John 8:44]
Are you getting the picture? Do you see how subtle [see Genesis 3:1,] seemingly harmless the changes are - AND YET HOW DEADLY THEY ARE TO THE INTEGRITY OF GOD's WORD.
They attack the Lord Jesus Christ
They attack the plan of salvation
They glorify Lucifer
And they deny hell
Yes friend. Satan has launched an attack on your Bible.
YOU'D BETTER BELIEVE IT
Did you know, the King James Bible is the only English Bible in the world that has a command to "study" your Bible? That's right - 2nd Timothy 2:15, "STUDY to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" - has been changed in every English Bible on the face of this earth! BUT ONE.
They take out whole verses:
In Acts 8:37, the King James reads, "And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." The other versions read - woops, they took the whole verse out! One of the best verses in the Bible on salvation through Jesus Christ and they ripped it out...why?
Why is it that every time a sinner is saved by grace in the book of Acts - THEY ATTACK IT? In Acts 9:5-6: Paul is getting saved, and they take out 20 words. In Acts 16:31 when the Philippian jailor is getting saved, the word "CHRIST" is delicately removed. Why do these new bibles so fiercely attack God's wonderful plan of salvation?
Who would do such a thing?
Several times the Lord warns against "adding and taking away" from His Word.
Deuteronomy 4:2 reads: "YE SHALL NOT ADD unto the word which I command you, NEITHER SHALL YE DIMINISH ought from it..."
Deuteronomy 12:32 reads: "What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."
Proverbs 30:6, reads, "ADD THOU NOT unto his words..."
And just in case you missed it, GOD's LAST WARNING is Revelation 22:18,19, "...IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD unto these things... And if any man shall TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life..."
And despite these clear warnings, the new versions, take out and add text over and over. One of the greatest verses in all the Bible, Matthew 18:11: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." - and they took it out.
They took out: Romans 16:24, Mark 11:25, Acts 15:34, Luke 23:17, Acts 28:29, John 5:4, Mark 7:16, 9:44,46 and many, many more - your Bible has literally been cut apart.
Jesus Christ says, in Luke 4:4, "...It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD OF GOD." Not according to the perversions. In fact, they even "tear out" the last half of Luke 4:4 - "BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD."
You might say, "Yes, but the new versions have the deity in other places. They contain the plan of salvation in other places. There is good in them." Did you know ONE tiny, microscopic AIDS virus will "defile" a whole batch of perfectly "good" blood? It has some "good" in it - BUT IT WOULD BE DEADLY!
Would you "inject" it into your child, loved one, or congregation? And would you "inject" them with a Bible that is "defiled" because it has some "good?" It could be far more costly than their physical life - THEIR ETERNAL SOUL! Galatians 5:9 says, "A LITTLE leaven leaveneth THE WHOLE lump."
But aren't the new versions easier to read?
One of the lies used to promote these perversions is "they're easier to read and understand." But according to a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level research study, The King James Bible is by far the easiest! Out of 26 different categories - the King James graded easier in a whopping 23! [New Age Bible Versions, Riplinger, pp.195-209]
But haven't "older and more reliable" manuscripts been discovered?
Dr. Sam Gipp writes, "The fact is, that the King James translators had ALL OF THE READINGS available to them that modern critics have available to them today." [The Answer Book, Gipp, p.110] Not only that, but most of the recent discoveries support the King James Bible! And furthermore, it is a well documented fact that 85 - 90 per cent of all readings agree with the King James Bible! SO WHY ALL THE CHANGES? See Genesis 3:1.
What about the "ORIGINALS?"
Your King James Bible is attacked by preachers, some intentional and some simply out of ignorance, by "correcting" it with "THE ORIGINALS." There is one itsy-bitsy problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "THE ORIGINALS." We don't have the "originals" Moses, or Paul, or David wrote. There are no set of "ORIGINALS" on the face of this earth! The ghost of "THE ORIGINALS" is a LIE! See John 8:44!
Preachers, by the thousands, will stand weekly in the pulpit and "correct" your King James Bible by saying, "This is an unfortunate translation" or "a better reading would be" or "this word in the "Greek" can also be translated..." Friend, where is the Lord God? The One that "spoke" the worlds into existence - can He not preserve His word as He promised in Psalm 12:7 and Matthew 24:35? Did God Almighty NOT know what He was "inspiring?" Does the Lord need these "Bible correctors" to "help" Him "straighten-out" His word?
As God promised, He has preserved His word for the English people in the King James Bible. Proverbs 16:10 says, "A divine sentence is in the lips of the KING..." Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a KING is, there is power..." "James" is not an English word but a Hebrew word. Did you know the Hebrew word for James is Jacob! You"ll never guess what Psalms 147:19 says, "He showeth His WORD unto JACOB..."
2nd Timothy 2:9, reads, "... the word of God is NOT BOUND." Anybody can freely [there's that word Eve omitted in Genesis 3:2] print, distribute, and reproduce the King James Bible, without asking anybody for permission! All other translations are "bound" by copyright laws. New American Standard - copyright © Lockman Foundation; New International Version - copyright © New York International Bible Society; New King James Version - copyright © Thomas Nelson Publishers. Who with a brain would seriously think the word of Almighty God is "BOUND" by copyright laws?
Dr. Frank Logsdon was co-founder of The New American Standard Version. As people begin confronting Dr. Logsdon on some the NASV's serious omissions and errors. He re-examined the evidence and this was his verdict:
"I must under God denounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord...I wrote the format...I wrote the preface...I'm in trouble;...its wrong, terribly wrong; its frighteningly wrong ...The deletions are absolutely frightening...there are so many...Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?"
Are You Washed in the Blood?
Have you been to Jesus for the cleansing power?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you washed in the blood of the Lamb?
Not according to the new Bible Per-Versions...
Not according to the New International Version [NIV;] New American Standard Version [NASV;] New Living Bible, New Revised Standard Versions [NRSV;] Revised Standard Version [RSV;] The Living Bible [TLB;] Today¹s English Version; Contemporary English Version [CEV;] International Standard Version [ISV;] and the other Per-Versions.
Revelation 1:5 clearly reads in the King James Bible:
And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, [KJB]
But you are NOT "washed in the blood" in the New Per-Versions . . American Standard Version [ASV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loveth us, and loosed us from our sins by his blood;
Amplified Bible reads:
and from Jesus Christ the faithful and trustworthy Witness, the First-born of the dead [first to be brought back to life] and the Prince [Ruler] of the kings of the earth. To Him Who ever loves us, and has once [for all] loosed and freed us from our sins by His own blood.
Contemporary English Version [CEV] reads:
May kindness and peace be yours from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness. Jesus was the first to conquer death, and he is the ruler of all earthly kings. Christ loves us, and by his blood he set us free from our sins.
Good News for Modern Man reads:
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn Son who was raised from death, who is also the ruler of the kings of the earth. He loves us, and by his death he has freed us from our sins
International Standard Version [ISV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ, the witness, the faithful one, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To the one who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood;
Living Bible [TLB] reads:
and from Jesus Christ who faithfully reveals all truth to us. He was the first to rise from death, to die no more. He is far greater than any king in all the earth. All praise to him who always loves us and who set us free from our sins by pouring out his lifeblood for us.
New American Standard Version [NASV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood
New Century Version [NCV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ, Jesus is the faithful witness, the first among those raised from the dead. He is the ruler of the kings of the earth. He is the One who loves us, who made us free from our sins with the blood of his death.
New International Version [NIV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood,
New Living Bible reads:
and from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness to these things, the first to rise from the dead, and the commander of all the rulers of the world. All praise to him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by shedding his blood for us.
New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To him who loves us and freed us from our sins by his blood
New Testament in Modern English [J.B. Phillips] reads:
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, firstborn of the dead, and ruler of kings upon earth. To him who loves us and has set us free from our sins through his own blood
Revised Standard Version [RSV] reads:
and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood
Today¹s English Version reads:
and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first to be raised from death and who is also the ruler of the kings of the world. He loves us, and by his sacrificial death he has freed us from our sins The shocking FACT is NOWHERE in the new Versions do they read "you are washed in the blood."
I repeat NOWHERE do the new Versions read "you are washed in the blood."
What can wash away my sins? Nothing but the blood of Jesus. What can wash away my sins? Nothing...According to the new Per-Versions Oh Happy day when Jesus washed my sins away! Not according to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV, et al!
According to the NIV, NASV, NCV, CEV and other Per-Versions Jesus Christ did not wash your sins away!
Why don¹t we "update" our "archaic," "hard to understand" song books?
Have you been to Jesus for the loosing power?
Are you freed in the blood of the Lamb?
Are you fully trusting in His grace this hour?
Are you loosed in the blood of the Lamb?
What can loose away my sins?
Nothing but the blood of Jesus
Isn¹t it irreverent and sacrilegious that these new Per-Version people will "update" the words of God ‹ without "batting an eye" and yet would not dare even consider "messing with" the song "Are You Washed In the Blood."
Portions of this document are derived from New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger, pp. 446-449. For more information on New Age Bible Versions by Gail Riplinger and other material contact A.V. PUBLICATIONS, P.O. Box 280, Ararat, VA 24053 1-800-435-4535
A peculiar phenomenon kept surfacing during my research into the life of these "scribes." God apparently "cut off" their power to speak.
Regression: A third symptom which accompanies spirit possession in the bible is the inability to speak. It is called a "dumb spirit" in Mark 9:17, 25 and Matthew 9:32,33, 12:22, 15:30,31. Those verses disclose the corresponding "frog" in the throat [Revelation 16:13] that accompanies unclean spirits of this kind.
[H]e was casting out a devil and it was dumb...when the devil was gone out, the dumb spake... Luke 11:14
The Living Bible: Taylor
The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things. Psalms 12:3 The popular press has made note of author, Kenneth Taylor's, loss of ability to talk. Time magazine, July 1972, states:
Mysteriously half way through the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor's psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the Word of God.
New American Standard Version
Let the lying lips be put to silence. Psalm 31:18
Also silenced was Philip Schaff, collaborator on the New Greek Committee and director of the American Standard Version, which formed the foundation of the New American Standard and The Living Bible. Paralleling Taylor's pathology, Schaff's son finds the same "frog" in Philip Schaff's throat. Even as early as 1854, the warning was given, "his voice so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard." Finally by 1892...
the power of articulated speech gone.
[David S. Schaff, The Life of Phillip Schaff (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1897,) pp.171, 446]
A friend corresponds to Schaff, "It is with great sorrow that I have learned of the affliction which has befallen you." This malady followed his activity with Westcott and Hort on the RV committee and his American Standard Version. Still in 1893 his pathoses "deprived him of the power of speech." [Ibid., p.492]
"New" Greek Text: Tregelles
Schaff himself writes of S.P. Tregelles, author of a "New" Greek Text which preceded and strongly influenced the Westcott and Hort revision. Of Tregelles Schaff writes, he was "scarcely able to speak audibly." [Ibid., p.246]
Westcott and Hort Greek Text:
[RV, NRSV, NIV, NASB, CEV, New Century Version, Good News for Modern Man, Jehovah Witness bible, The Book, The Everyday Bible, All Catholic bibles et al.]
Westcott's biographer cites that in 1858 "he was quite inaudible" [Life of Westcott, Vol. I, p. 198] and by 1870 "His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer." [Ibid., p.272]
The New Testament in Modern English: J.B. Phillips
[T]he forward tongue shall be cut off. Proverbs 10:31
J.B. Phillips tells in his own autobiography, "I was still doing a fair measure of speaking in schools and churches until the late summer of 1961. And then quite suddenly my speaking, writing and communication powers stopped. I was not in panic but I was certainly alarmed, and when a few weeks rest brought no improvement I cancelled all speaking engagements for the rest of the year [age 55.]" The Price of Success, the title of his autobiography, is apropos. [J.B Phillips, The Price of Success [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1984,] see pp. 163-196]
The speechless sphinx syndrome can even happen to a believer, as is did to Zacharias, because "...thou believest not my words" [Luke 1:20.]
NOTE TO THE READER:
Dr. Samuel Gipp was contacted personally and verified that the following incident occurred as reported. For more information and video tapes call 1-800-311-1823.
Shocker! Bible Scholar Loses Voice on the John Ankerberg TV Show
You can call it pure justice, a sign from God, or whatever you want, but eyebrows were sure raised recently during the tapings for Christian TV's The John Ankerberg Show.Ankerberg, a bitter opponent of the King James Bible, had wanted to do a series of TV programs in which the heads of the new version translation committees - the NIV, RSV, NASV, NKJV, etc. - would debate King James Bible advocates.
Afraid that the King James people would get the upper hand and win the debate, Ankerberg attempted to "stack the deck." He invited five new version scholars but only three King James advocates. Since Ankerberg is himself a fervent promoter of the NIV and other false versions, that made the odds six to three. But the three King James men - Dr. Joseph Chambers, Dr. Samuel Gipp, and Dr. Thomas Strouse, weren't deterred by the odds. They accepted John Ankerberg's invitation anyway so that they could get out their vital and important message - that the King James Bible is the only trustworthy, accurate, scholarly, and whole Bible available in the world!
The John Ankerberg programs are taped in advance in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and then shown later to a national TV audience. For the Bible version debate, eight shows were taped. However, on one of these shows, Ankerberg and the new Bible version people were forced to call an abrupt halt right in the midst of the taping.
It happened when Ankerberg asked Dr. Don Wilkins, of the New American Standard Version translation committee, a key question. Is it true, asked Ankerberg, as Gail Riplinger reported in her bestselling book, New Age Bible Versions, that a number of the scholars who worked on the new translation committees lost their voice as punishment by God?
As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth to answer‹ and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear his throat, but he couldn't respond. Ankerberg and the other new version scholars were visibly startled. Finally, an embarrassed and frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost inaudible manner, "I... I've... lost... my voice!"
A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here," Chambers insisted.
But Ankerberg was hearing none of it. After a brief delay, the TV cameras began to roll again, after the amazing segment of Dr. Wilkins losing his voice had conveniently been excised!
But our miraculous God wasn't through yet. Ankerberg had taped eight programs in all, but after broadcasting only two of them, he pulled the others off the air and refused to continue the series. When we called his office to ask why, we were pointedly told that it was because the series was a financial flop. When the first two of the eight programs aired, people did not send in enough contributions. In other words, Ankerberg claims that the series wasn't making enough money!
I watched one of the two programs that did air, however, and I believe there is another, quite different reason why Ankerberg and the false new version folks decided to pull the remainder. At one point, the new version "scholars" were clearly frustrated when Dr. Chambers asked them why, an astounding 46 times in the NIV, the title of "Master" for our Lord Jesus had been changed to "teacher!" Obviously, there is a vast difference between one who is our Master and one who is a mere "teacher."
Such poignant episodes as this make me doubt Ankerberg's rationale as to why he quickly jerked the remaining programs from the broadcast schedule. If, as he claims, Ankerberg pulled the series because he wasn't bringing in enough money, what does that tell us about his "ministry?" Is John Ankerberg in it only for the money? Is filthy lucre the sole measure for the programs he airs ‹ or doesn't air?
Galatians 6:1 in the NIV vs. the KJV by Lance Schmidt
The NIV has a very weak rendering as they use dynamic equivalency of thought [man's opinion of the meaning] rather than take the precise approach of translating from the original language to the new language of English using literal precision accuracy as did the KJV translators. The KJV renders the Greek text word for word [Textus Receptus] even retaining the right word order to communicate and preserve faithfully God's full-intended meaning.
Brothers, If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:1
The problems are subtle but serious...
1] "is caught in a sin" is not equivalent to "be overtaken in a fault" The NIV's "thought" implies we can get away with sin or get "caught"...The phrase "overtaken in a fault" turns our attention not to a specific act or thought but a weakness and pattern of sin that might be besetting us. If we lose the term "fault," we lose the important link to a key companion verse:
James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. This is the concept of fellow believers in the body of Christ helping one another overcome "faults." Admitting need and then praying together is the source of "healing" spiritually from the problem. This relates directly to the Lord's command to "resist the devil and he will flee from you" [James 4:7.] The NIV makes the same grievous word choice in this companion verse thus supporting the very Roman Catholic error in their dogma and rite of "auricular confession" as part of their doctrine of a progressive salvation experience.
James 5:16 Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. Roman Catholic teaching justifies their use of the confessional with this rendering. Further compounding of this error with even greater errors then comes as a result. In their salvation doctrine, we "are being saved" which reflects the wording in certain verses of the NIV whereas the AV uses "are saved" as a once for all and conclusive action with results that continue on in the present and future. See 1 Cor. 1:18, II Cor. 2:15.
2] The plural form of "ye" is better then "you" which is not specific enough. "You" implies that an individual may take this responsibility on by himself whereas "ye" implies that it should be a group of spirit filled believers joining together to claim the victory in this restoration ministry. This guards against the spiritual pride of any one individual taking the initiative and credit.
3] "restore him gently" is not equivalent to "restore such an one in the spirit of meekness" "Gently" is a very general and vague term when compared to the rich meaning of "in the spirit of meekness." It places the wrong connotation upon the whole process. Meekness is "power under control." It implies firmness, resolve, confidence in the Lord's grace, strength in standing for righteousness sake and submission to the will and word of God. "Gently" could easily cause the improper use of empathy. It could lead to the rationalizing or excusing of the sin, the trivializing of the root problem and over indulgence in the sinner's grief or pain. It could cause some accommodation of the flesh's weakness, biblical compromise and plainly stated a "going soft" on the person rather than being led by God's spirit in meekness.
4] "watch yourself is not equivalent to "considering thyself" The use of the word "consider" carries much more weight than "watch." It involves more than one of the five senses. In fact, we need to use all of our faculties, especially our spiritual discernment. We are to look at all the principles and precepts from God's word and not just the obvious things in front of our "eyes" that might cause us to "stumble." Looking carefully at our heart through the lens of God's word is what is implied in the statement "consider thyself." God is interested in the hidden and secret things of the heart and not the outward "appearance." When we only "watch" we are more concerned at what others see as though we are just looking at a mirror. It is too easy to pretend being right with God by putting on an outward show. "Consider" causes us to look inward and see what God sees so that we might confess our sin to Him, seek His correction and be changed by His transforming grace. We can also confess our "faults" in general terms referring to our sinful tendencies to our fellow believers for support and prayer warfare. God does not want us parading the details of our sin to others and thus involving them indirectly in the same enticements, which gave birth to our lust, which in turn gave birth to our sin. This confessing of "sins" could lead that person into problems of their own. This is indeed the very thing that happens with Roman Catholic priests, especially in the area of sexual temptations. This pattern in the Church of Rome is on the record for those willing to face the truth.
5] "or you also may be tempted" is not equivalent to "lest thou also be tempted" The use of the word "may" leaves it uncertain if temptation will come to the person[s] ministering to the man overtaken in the fault, whereas, the AV states with certainty, "lest thou also be tempted" if you don't "consider thyself." This requires humble admission that it is only by God's preserving grace that the ministering person is not also overtaken in the same manner. As stated earlier, specifics and details should be avoided in the discussion of "faults." Specific details of "sins" are only to be shared with the Lord and the person offended and involved in the sin if appropriate for healing and restoration.
In conclusion, it is not just in areas of key doctrinal conflicts that the NIV is a problem but in it's assault upon God's word in diluting the richness of meaning in almost every aspect of the text. The AV is the English translation that God ordained from His trustworthy pure preserved text that the martyrs shed their blood to protect.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
The perfect transmission of the sacred text is a wonderful truth. God's promise to preserve His word for every generation is clear in scripture.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. The AV was the seventh in a godly lineage of English Bible efforts. It was purified further in seven editions culminating in the 1769 edition that we have today. The text was never changed, just spellings and printing errors that perfected the book. It is interesting to note that the word ENGLISH has seven letters. Try that with other languages. This alone would hint to us that God had special plans for His word in English. But to further fuel that thought, English was the seventh language that God's word appeared in for His people!
Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. Psalm 12:
Let's Compare Bibles
Here you will see several good examples of how modern Bible versions are attacking God's word. We have selected eight modern translations for evaluation. The translations evaluated are as follows:
NIV....... New International Version
NASB... New American Standard Bible
NRSV... New Revised Standard Version
REB...... Revised English Bible
LB......... Living Bible
NWT..... New World Translation
NAB ..... New American Bible
NKJV.... New King James Version
Although we have limited this study to eight new translations, you will find many of these attacks manifested in ANY new translation. You will find that some of the most important doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a New Century Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of Scripture, you are going to see the Devil hard at work on the revision committees of the new translations. The King James reading will appear first, followed by a brief comment, and then the perverted readings of the modern perversions.
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
The above promise from the King James Bible tells us that God intends to preserve His WORDS forever. Notice how the new versions destroy this promise by making you think the context is God's PEOPLE rather than His WORDS:
NIV....... you will keep us safe
NASB... Thou wilt preserve him
NRSV... You, O Lord, will protect us
REB...... you are our protector
LB......... you will forever preserve your own
NAB...... You, O Lord, will keep us
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.
Notice how some new versions attack the Virgin Birth of Christ by robbing Mary of her virginity. As anyone well knows, a young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin:
NRSV... young woman
REB...... young woman
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Here the new versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling us that Joseph was Christ's father:
NIV....... The child's father
NASB... His father
NRSV... the child's father
REB...... The child's father
NWT..... its father
NAB...... the child's father
I Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Notice how the King James is very clear in telling us WHO was manifest in the flesh: GOD was manifest in the flesh. Now watch the new perversions throw God clear out of the verse:
NIV....... He appeared in a body
NASB... He who was revealed in the flesh
NRSV... He was revealed in flesh
REB...... He was manifested in the flesh
LB......... who came to earth as a man
NWT..... He was made manifest in the flesh
NAB...... He was manifested in the flesh
But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.
This is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the verse tells us that He had no beginning. As the Second Member of the Trinity, He is ETERNAL, or from everlasting, but not in most modern translations:
NIV....... from ancient times
NRSV... from ancient days
REB..... in ancient times
NWT.... from the days of time indefinite
NAB..... from ancient times [vs. 1]
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
Revelation 22:16 tells us that Jesus Christ is the "Morning Star." The King James Bible never gives this title to anyone else. However, in some new versions, Jesus Christ and Satan are the same, because some versions have taken the liberty to call Satan the "morning star" in Isaiah 14:12. Although some versions do not go so far as to call Satan the "morning star," they still throw out the name "Lucifer."
NIV....... morning star NASB... star of the morning
NRSV... Day Star
REB...... Bright morning star
NWT..... you shining one
NAB...... morning star
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that Jesus Christ existed long before He was born in Bethlehem. Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan foolishness:
NIV....... a son of the gods
NASB... a son of the gods
NRSV... a god
REB..... a god
LB........ a god
NWT.... a son of the gods
NAB..... a son of God [vs. 92]
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Satan hates the Atoning Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, so we shouldn't be surprised to find the blood missing in modern translations:
NIV....... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NASB... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
NRSV... redemption, the forgiveness of sins
REB..... our release is secured and our sins are forgiven
NWT.... we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of sins
NAB...... redemption, the forgiveness of our sins
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. If you'll read the above verses carefully, you will notice how it magnifies Jesus Christ. According to verse 10, we will stand before the Judgment Seat of CHRIST, and verse 12 says that when we do we will give account to GOD. When we stand before Jesus Christ we will be standing before God - an excellent text on the Deity of Christ. Now watch as the new versions throw Jesus Christ clear out of the passage by replacing the word "Christ" in verse 10 with "God:"
NIV....... God's judgment seat
NASB... Judgment seat of God
NRSV... judgment seat of God
REB...... God's tribunal
LB......... Judgment Seat of God
NWT..... judgment seat of God
NAB...... judgment seat of God
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
This verse is very important because it places a definite condition upon water baptism: one must first BELIEVE ON CHRIST. Many modern versions throw the entire verse out of the Bible:
NIV....... entire verse missing
NRSV... entire verse missing
REB...... entire verse missing
NWT..... entire verse missing
NAB...... omits entire verse, but re-numbers the verses so you won't miss it
II Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
You can imagine how this verse must be a thorn in the flesh to the modern translators who are busy CORRUPTING the word of God day and night. So, do they repent of their sins and get right with God? Of course not:
REB...... adulterating the word of God for profit
NAB...... trade on the word of God
II Timothy 2:15
Studyto shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
This is the one command in the New Testament to "study" and "rightly divide" God's word, and the Devil does NOT appreciate it:
NIV....... Do your best...correctly handles
NASB... Be diligent...handling accurately
NRSV... Do your best...rightly explaining
REB...... Try hard...keep strictly to the true gospel
LB......... Work hard...Know what his word says and means
NWT..... Do your utmost...handling the word of truth aright
NAB...... Try hard...following a straight course inpreaching the truth
NKJV.... Be diligent...rightly dividing
I Timothy 6:20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
Many lies are being propagated today in the name of "science" [evolution for example,] but I Timothy 6:20 has been warning us about it all along - except in the new perversions:
The New International PER-Version!
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."
"And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak,... because thou believest not my words,..."Luke 1:20
Reasons for Accepting the KJV as God's Preserved Word
God promised to preserve His words [Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35.] There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?
It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
The KJV produces good fruit [Mat. 7:17-20.] No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn"t.
The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period [Rev. 3:7-13.] The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway [Rev. 3:14-22,] but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals [1700-1900.] The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word [Rev. 3:8.]
The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we"d know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book - the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.
The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God [I Ths. 2:13.] Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?
The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. [There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We"ll deal with this later.]
No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.
The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ [John 5:39.] There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!
Questions for the KJV Critics
Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?
Do you have a perfect Bible?
Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ["the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.]?
Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word?"
Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher [John 16:12-15; I John 2:27,] who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?
Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?
There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles?"
Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?
Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS [plural,] rather than just one?
Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 [the RV,] the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan?
Seventy-five Common Sayings
The King James Bible is supposedly written in an "old and archaic language" that people today have trouble understanding, but please notice how so many of our modern sayings come from between it's covers. Hundreds could be presented, but we"ll limit ourselves to seventy-five:
1. Genesis 4:2-5: can't get blood from a turnip
2. Genesis 7: don't miss the boat
3. Genesis 11:7-9: babbling
4. Genesis 15:5: teller
5. Genesis 43:34: mess [of food]
6. Exodus 19:16-18: holy smoke
7. Exodus 28:42: britches
8. Exodus 32:8: holy cow
9. Leviticus 2:14: roast ears
10. Leviticus 13:10: the quick [raw flesh]
11. Leviticus 14:5-6: running water
12. Leviticus 16:8: scapegoat
13. Leviticus 25:10: Liberty Bell
14. Numbers 21:5: light bread
15. Numbers 35:2-5: suburb
16. Deuteronomy 2:14: wasted him
17. Deuteronomy 24:5: cheer up
18. Deuteronomy 32:10: apple of his eye
19. Judges 5:20: star wars
20. Judges 7:5-12: under dog
21. Judges 8:16: teach a lesson
22. Judges 17:10: calling a priest father
23. I Samuel 14:12: I'll show you a thing or two
24. I Samuel 20:40: artillery
25. I Samuel 25:37: petrified
26. II Samuel 19:18: ferry boat
27. I Kings 3:7: don't know if he's coming or going
28. I Kings 14:3: cracklins
29. I Kings 14:6: that's heavy
30. I Kings 21:19-23: she's gone to the dogs
31. II Chronicles 9:6: you haven't heard half of it
32. II Chronicles 30:6: postman
33. Nehemiah 13:11: set them in their place
34. Esther 7:9: he hung himself
35. Job 11:16: it's water under the bridge
36. Job 20:6: he has his head in the clouds
37. Psalm 4:8: lay me down to sleep
38. Psalm 19:3-4: he gave me a line
39. Psalm 37:13: his day is coming
40. Psalm 58:8: pass away [dying]
41. Psalm 64:3-4: shoot off your mouth
42. Psalm 78:25: angel's food cake
43. Psalm 141:10: give him enough rope and he'll hang himself
44. Proverbs 7:22: dumb as an ox
45. Proverbs 13:24: spare the rod, spoil the child
46. Proverbs 18:6: he is asking for it
47. Proverbs 24:16: can't keep a good man down
48. Proverbs 25:14: full of hot air
49. Proverbs 30:30: king of beasts
50. Ecclesiastes 10:19: money talks
51. Ecclesiastes 10:20: a little bird told me
52. Song Solomon 2:5: lovesick
53. Isaiah 52:8: see eye to eye
54. Jeremiah 23:25: I have a dream [MLK, Jr]
55. Ezekiel 26:9: engines
56. Ezekiel 38:9: desert storm or storm troopers
57. Daniel 3:21: hose [leg wear]
58. Daniel 8:25: foreign policy
59. Daniel 11:38: the force be with you [star wars]
60. Hosea 7:8: half-baked
61. Jonah 4:10-11: can't tell left from right
62. Zephaniah 3:8-9: United Nations Assembly
63. Matthew 25:1-10: burning the midnight oil
64. Matthew 25:33: right or left side of an issue
65. Matthew 27:46: for crying out loud
66. Mark 5:13: hog wild
67. Luke 11:46: won't lift a finger to help
68. Luke 15:17: he came to himself
69. Romans 2:23: breaking the law
70. Philippians 3:2: beware of dog
71. Colossians 2:14: they nailed him
72. I John 5:11-13: get a life
73. Revelation 6:8: hell on earth
74. Revelation 16:13: a frog in my throat
75. Revelation 20:15: go jump in the lake
If you've checked these references, then you can easily see how our all-wise God has played a beautiful joke on the modern revisionists. People who do not even believe the KJV quote it every day! Furthermore, if you'll grab yourself a NIV, a NCV, a TEV, or anything else, you'll find that many of these modern sayings have been destroyed by the "better language" of the Laodiceans.
For example, I always thought that when I was a young boy my father and I crossed the Mississippi on a ferry boat [II Sam. 19:18,] but I guess we must have crossed at the ford instead [NIV.] Then there were times when I got out of line and dad would really set me in my place [Neh. 13:11.] Too bad he didn't have a NIV, for he could have stationed me at my post. I guess there was nothing dad loved more than going out early on Saturday mornings and catching a mess of fish [Gen. 43:34.] it's a good thing we didn't have a NKJV in those days, for he would have only caught a serving. We usually had hushpuppies with that fish dinner, but sometimes we just had light bread [Num. 21:5.] That is, until the neighbors came over with their New American Bible. Then we had wretched food. Then dad would always say, "Cheer up, son, it"ll be better next time!" [Deu. 24:5] Too bad he didn't have a NKJV, for I'm sure he would have said, "Come on, boy, bring happiness to yourself!"
So you get the point: the new versions don't stand a chance when competing with the KJV to use the most "modern" speech! Go ahead, have yourself some fun. Learn to appreciate God's sense of humor! Grab a new translation and see first hand how the modern versions are still stuck in the Dark Ages when it comes to keeping up with modern speech.
Antioch vs. Alexandria
We hear much talk these days about "older" and "more authoritative" manuscripts, but we aren't hearing much about the origin of these manuscripts. It is a well established fact that there are only two lines of Bibles: one coming from Antioch, Syria [known as the Syrian or Byzantine type text,] and one coming from Alexandria, Egypt [known as the Egyptian or Hesycnian type text.] The Syrian text from Antioch is the Majority text from which our King James 1611 comes, and the Egyptian text is the minority text from which the new perversions come. [Never mind Rome and her Western text, for she got her manuscripts from Alexandria.]
The manuscripts from Antioch were mostly copied by Bible-believing Christians for the purpose of winning souls and spreading the word of God. The manuscripts from Alexandria were produced by infidels such as Origen Adamantius and Clement of Alexandria. These manuscripts are corrupted with Greek philosophy [Col. 2:8,] and allegorical foolishness [not believing God's word literally.] The strange thing is that most Christians aren't paying any attention to what God's word says about these two places! Notice how the Holy Spirit casts Egypt and Alexandria in a NEGATIVE light, while His comments on Antioch tend to be very positive:
Egypt and Alexandria
Egypt is first mentioned in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife [Gen. 12:10-13.]
One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave [Gen. 37:36.]>
Joseph did not want his bones left in Egypt [Gen. 50:25.]
God killed all the firstborn of Egypt [Exo. 12:12.]
God calls Egypt "the house of bondage" [Exo. 20:4.]
God calls Egypt an "iron furnace" [Deu. 4:20.]
The Kings of Israel were even forbidden to get horses from Egypt [Deu. 17:16,] so why should we look there for a Bible?
The Jews were forbidden to go to Egypt for help [Jer. 42:13-19.]
God plans to punish Egypt [Jer. 46:25.]
God calls His Son out of Egypt [Hos. 11:1; Mat. 2:15.]
Egypt is placed in the same category as Sodom [Rev. 11:8.]
The first time Alexandria is mentioned in the Bible, it is associated with unbelievers, persecution, and the eventual death of Stephen [Acts 6:9; 7:54-60.]
The next mention of Alexandria involves a lost preacher who has to be set straight on his doctrine [Acts 18:24-26.]
The last two times we read about Alexandria is in Acts 27:6 and Acts 28:11. Here we learn that Paul was carried to his eventual death in Rome by two ships from Alexandria .
Alexandria was the second largest city of the Roman Empire, with Rome being the first. It was founded in 332 B.C. by Alexander the Great [a type of the Antichrist in Daniel 8.] Located at the Nile Delta, Alexandria was the home of the Pharos Lighthouse, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient world. Also, during the second and third centuries B.C., it was the home of a massive library containing between 500,000 and 700,000 volumes. It was also the home of a catechetical school once headmastered by the great apostate Adamantius Origen [185-254 A.D..]
QUESTION: In light of what God's word says about higher knowledge and philosophy [I Cor. 1:22; Rom. 1:22; Gen. 3:5; Col. 2:8; I Cor. 8:1,] why would any serious Christian expect to find the true word of God in Alexandrian manuscripts?
Upon it's first mention, we find that Antioch is the home of a Spirit-filled deacon [Acts 6:3-5.] Do you suppose it is a mere accident that the Holy Spirit first mentions Antioch in the same chapter where He first mentions Alexandria?
In Acts 11:19, Antioch is a shelter for persecuted saints.
The first major movement of the Holy Ghost among the Gentiles occurs in Antioch [Acts 11:20-21.]
Paul and Barnabas taught the Bible in Antioch for a whole year [Acts 11:26.]
The disciples were first called "Christians" at Antioch [Acts 11:26.]
The church at Antioch sends relief to the poor saints at Jerusalem [Acts 11:27-30.]
The first missionary journey is sent out from Antioch [Acts 13:1-3.]
Antioch remains the home base or headquarters of the early church [Acts 14:19-26; 15:35.]
The final decision of the Jerusalem council was first sent to Antioch [Acts 15:19-23, 30,] because Antioch was the home base.
Antioch was the location of Paul setting Peter straight on his doctrine [Gal. 2:11.] Founded in 300 B.C. by Seleucus Nicator, Antioch was the third largest city of the Roman Empire. Located in Syria, about twenty miles inland from the Mediterranean on the Orontes River, Antioch had it's on sea port and more than it's share of travelers and tradesmen. In His infinite wisdom, God picked the ideal location for a "home base." Antioch was far enough away from the culture and traditions of the Jews [Jerusalem and Judaea] and the Gentiles [Rome, Greece, Alexandria, etc] that new Christians could grow in the Lord. Meanwhile, it's geographical location was ideal for taking God's word into all the world.
So, friend, you have a choice. You can get your Bible from Alexandria, or you can get it from Antioch. If you have a KJV, then your Bible is based on manuscripts from Antioch. If you have a new version, then you are one of many unfortunate victims of Satan's salesmen from Alexandria, Egypt.
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text [1851-1871] on which the new versions are based.
Vaticanus [B] is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus [Aleph] was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:
Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.
Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea [260-340 A.D..]
Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.
Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.
While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 [just to name a few.]
It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work [which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can.] Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.
The Dutch scholar, Erasmus [1469-1536,] who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.
Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta [145 A.D.,] and the Old Syriac [400 A.D.] both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.
Facts about Westcott and Hort
Brooke Foss Westcott [1825-1901] and Fenton John Anthony Hort [1828-1892] were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions:
Together, the Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott and the Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort run over 1,800 pages. A personal salvation testimony is not given once for either man, and the name "Jesus" is found only nine times!
Westcott was a firm believer in Mary worship, and Hort claimed that Mary worship had a lot in common with Jesus worship.
Hort believed in keeping Roman Catholic sacraments.
Hort believed in baptismal regeneration as taught in the Catholic church.
Hort rejected the infallibility of Scripture.
Hort took great interest in the works of Charles Darwin, while both he and Westcott rejected the literal account of Creation.
Westcott did not believe in the Second Coming of Christ, the Millennium, or a literal Heaven.
Both men rejected the doctrine of a literal Hell, and they supported prayers for the dead in purgatory.
Hort refused to believe in the Trinity.
Hort refused to believe in angels.
Westcott confessed that he was a communist by nature.
Hort confessed that he hated democracy in all it's forms.
Westcott also did his share of beer drinking. In fact, only twelve years after the Revised Version was published, Westcott was a spokesman for a brewery.
While working on their Greek text [1851-1871,] and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version [1871-1881,] Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" [I Tim. 4:1.] Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead [necromancy.]
The Westcott and Hort Greek text was SECRETLY given to the Revision Committee.
The members of the Revision Committee of 1881 were sworn to a pledge of secrecy in regard to the new Greek text being used, and they met in silence for ten years.
The corrupt Greek text of Westcott and Hort was not released to the public until just five days before the debut of the Revised Version. This prevented Bible-believing scholars like Dean Burgon from reviewing it and exposing it for the piece of trash that it was.
QUESTION: Does this sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?
Translating the King James Bible
Unlike Westcott, Hort, and the R.V. Committee, King James went through great efforts to guard the 1611 translation from errors. Please note the following:
In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrew and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by the time the work formally began in 1607.
Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge.
Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate.
Each scholar made his own translation of a book, and then passed it on to be reviewed by each member of his group.
The whole group then went over the book together.
Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five groups.
All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted, and then it was returned to the original group for consideration.
A special committee was formed by selecting one leader from each group. This committee worked out all of the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611.
This means that the King James Bible had to pass at least FOURTEEN examinations before going to press.
Throughout this entire process, any learned individuals of the land could be called upon for their judgment, and the churches were kept informed of the progress.
QUESTION: Does THIS sound like an HONEST work of God or a DISHONEST work of the Devil?
The New King James Version
We will now give some special attention to one of the deadliest translations on the market - the New King James Version, first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because it's editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:  That it's a King James Bible [which is a lie,] and  that it's based on the Textus Receptus [which is only a partial truth.] The following information should be helpful when dealing with Christians who have been swindled by the Laodicean lovers of filthy lucre:
The text of the NKJV is copyrighted by Thomas Nelson Publishers, while there is no copyright today on the text of the KJV. If your KJV has maps or notes, then it may have a copyright, but the text itself does not.
There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries. It was also used by satanist Aleister Crowley around the turn of this century. The symbol can be seen on the New King James Bible, on certain rock albums [like Led Zepplin's,] or you can see it on the cover of such New Age books as The Aquarian Conspiracy. [See Riplinger's tract on the NKJV.]
It is estimated that the NKJV makes over 100,000 translation changes, which comes to over eighty changes per page and about three changes per verse! A great number of these changes bring the NKJV in line with the readings of such Alexandrian perversions as the NIV and the RSV. Where changes are not made in the text, subtle footnotes often give credence to the Westcott and Hort Greek Text.
While passing off as being true to the Textus Receptus, the NKJV IGNORES the Receptus over 1,200 times.
In the NKJV, there are 22 omissions of "hell," 23 omissions of "blood," 44 omissions of "repent," 50 omissions of "heaven," 51 omissions of "God," and 66 omissions of "Lord." The terms "devils," "damnation," "JEHOVAH," and "new testament" are completely omitted.
The NKJV demotes the Lord Jesus Christ. In John 1:3, the KJV says that all things were made "by" Jesus Christ, but in the NKJV, all things were just made "through" Him. The word "Servant" replaces "Son" in Acts 3:13 and 3:26. "Servant" replaces "child" in Acts 4:27 and 4:30. The word "Jesus" is omitted from Mark 2:15, Hebrews 4:8, and Acts 7:45.
The NKJV confuses people about salvation. In Hebrews 10:14 it replaces "are sanctified" with "are being sanctified," and it replaces "are saved" with "are being saved" in I Corinthians 1:18 and II Corinthians 2:15. The words "may believe" have been replaced with "may continue to believe" in I John 5:13. The old straight and "narrow" way of Matthew 7:14 has become the "difficult" way in the NKJV.
In II Corinthians 10:5 the KJV reads "casting down imaginations," but the NKJV reads "casting down arguments." The word "thought," which occurs later in the verse, matches "imaginations," not "arguments." This change weakens the verse.
The KJV tells us to reject a "heretick" after the second admonition in Titus 3:10. The NKJV tells us to reject a "divisive man." How nice! Now the Alexandrians and Ecumenicals have justification for rejecting anyone they wish to label as "divisive men."
According to the NKJV, no one would stoop so low as to "corrupt" God's word. No, they just "peddle" it [II Cor. 2:17.] The reading matches the Alexandrian versions.
Since the NKJV has "changed the truth of God into a lie," it has also changed Romans 1:25 to read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie." This reading matches the readings of the new perversions, so how say ye it's a King James Bible?
The NKJV gives us no command to "study" God's word in II Timothy 2:15.
The word "science" is replaced with "knowledge" in I Timothy 6:20, although "science" has occurred in every edition of the KJV since 1611! How say ye it's a King James Bible?
The Jews "require" a sign, according to I Corinthians 1:22 [and according to Jesus Christ - John 4:48,] but the NKJV says they only "request" a sign. They didn't "request" one when signs first appeared in Exodus 4, and there are numerous places throughout the Bible where God gives Israel signs when they haven't requested anything [Exo. 4, Exo. 31:13, Num. 26:10, I Sam. 2:34, Isa. 7:10-14, Luke 2:12, etc.] They "require" a sign, because signs are a part of their national heritage.
The King James reading in II Corinthians 5:17 says that if any man is in Christ he is a new "creature," which matches the words of Christ in Mark 16:15. The cross reference is destroyed in the NKJV, which uses the word "creation."
As a final note, we"d like to point out how the NKJV is very inconsistent in it's attempt to update the language of the KJV. The preface to the NKJV states that previous "revisions" of the KJV have "sought to keep abreast of changes in English speech," and also that they too are taking a "further step toward this objective." However, when taking a closer look at the language of the NKJV, we find that oftentimes they are stepping BACKWARDS!
The New Scofield Reference Bible
Another counterfeit "KJV" is the New Scofield Reference Bible [NSRB.] "King James Version" is clearly printed on the cover, but since when has it been safe to judge a book by it's cover? Please note the following:
Dr. C.I. Scofield had been dead many years when the NSRB was published in 1967. He would have never approved of having his name on a "bible" that alters the text of the KJV. The 1909 and 1917 editions of the Scofield Reference Bible do NOT change the text. Therefore the NSRB of 1967 is NOT a Scofield Bible and it is NOT a KJV.
Dr. Scofield would have never referred to baptism as a "sacrament," but the NSRB takes the liberty to do so in an Acts 8 footnote.
The NSRB changes the KJV with "better readings" in over 6,500 places.
In the introduction to the NSRB, 1967 edition, E. Schuyler English tries to justify changing the KJV text on the basis that Dr. Scofield saw the need to update his reference Bible after only eight years. Yes, Dr. Scofield did update his Bible after only eight years, but HE NEVER CHANGED THE TEXT!, and he never granted anyone else permission to do so. Only the NOTES were revised! [The Judgment Seat of Christ is going to be very interesting to say the least!]
In many places the NSRB agrees with the readings of the new translations, rather than the KJV, so it cannot possibly be a KJV. For example, "a son of the gods" appears in Daniel 3:25, rather than "the Son of God" [KJV.] In Genesis 1:28, Adam is told to "fill" the earth, instead of "replenish" it, which isn't the same at all. A great reference to television and magazines is destroyed when the NSRB replaces "pictures" with "stone idols" in Numbers 33:52. Then, of course, the NSRB lines up right behind the ASV in places like I Timothy 6:20, Acts 4:27, and Romans 1:25.
Dr. William Grady addresses the NSRB in his book, Final Authority. His research includes the following on page 316: "A random survey of the NSRB margins in Philippians alone revealed a total of 29 changes from the King James Bible. Of these, twenty-one [72%] were traced to either the RSV or the NASV. The skeptic can ckeck it out for himself: Philippians 1:7, 8, 23, 27; 2:1, 15, 25, 27, 28; 3:1, 8, 17, 19, 20, 21; 4:3, 6, 14, 15, 21, and 22." The "New Scofield Reference Bible" in the "King James Version" is NOT new, is NOT a Scofield Bible, and it is certainly NOT a King James Version.
The Various Editions of the 1611 A.V.
If someone decides to produce a "new Bible version," then they must also convince Christians that there is a NEED and a justifiable CAUSE for the new version. One of the deceitful excuses being used today for producing new versions is that the King James Bible has been revised several times since 1611, and that a new revision is needed once again. While spreading this piece of deceitful misinformation, the KJV critics hold their breath, hoping that no one will be intelligent enough to ask for specific details about these "revisions." The many revisions that have occurred since 1881 bear NO RESEMBLANCE to the various EDITIONS of the KJV prior to 1881. The modern revisors are just trying to justify their sins!
There were only FOUR actual EDITIONS of the King James Bible produced after 1611: 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. These were not translations [like the new versions SINCE 1881,] and they really weren't even "revisions." The 1629 edition was simply an effort to correct printing errors, and two of the original King James translators assisted in the work.
The 1638 edition of the KJV also dealt with printing errors, especially words and clauses overlooked by the printers. About 72% of the textual corrections in the KJV were done by 1638, only 27 years after the first printing.
Please bear in mind the fact that printing was a very laborious task prior to 1800. Publishing a flawless work was almost impossible. Even today, with computers and advanced word processors, printing errors are still frequently made. Imagine what it was like in the 1600's!
Then, in 1762 and 1769, two final editions of the KJV were published. Both of these involved spelling changes, which became necessary as the English language became more stabilized and spelling rules were established. There were no new translations, and there were really no new revisions published in 1629, 1638, 1762, or 1769. These were simply EDITIONS of the 1611 KJV, which corrected printing errors and spelling. Those who try to equate these editions with the modern translations are just being deceitful or stupid - or both. The many other so-called "revisions" of the KJV that occurred in 1613, 1616, 1617, and 1743 are nothing more than running changes and touch-up work at the printers. The REAL revisions and translations do not start appearing until 1881 [RV] and 1901 [ASV.] So if some punk walks up with a smirky grin on his face and asks you, "So which King James Bible do you have, the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?," you can simply state that you have a 1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version.
Dr. David F. Reagan has an excellent pamphlet available on this subject. It can be ordered from: Trinity Baptist Temple Bookstore, 5709 N. Broadway, Knoxville, TN, 37918. Telephone: 615-688-0780.
Why the KJV Translators Did Not Accept the Apocrypha as Scripture
Another favorite lie of the critics is that the original KJV of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which no true Christian today accepts as Scripture. The Apocrypha is a collection of several pagan writings which the Catholic church accepts as inspired Scripture. In fact, the Council of Trent  pronounced a CURSE upon anyone who denied that these books were inspired. The King James translators did NOT consider the books to be inspired Scripture, nor did they include them in the canon as such. They merely placed the Apocryphal books BETWEEN the Old and New testament as a historical document, not as Scripture. Their reasons for not accepting the Apocrypha as Scripture are listed on page 185-186 of the book Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure. The seven reasons are basically as follows:
Not one of them is in the Hebrew language like the rest of the Old Testament books.
Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian church.
They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves. For example, in the Books of Maccabees alone, Antiochus Epiphanes dies three times in three places!
It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
"Errors" in the King James Bible
Critics of the KJV have a nasty habit of pointing out what they believe to be errors, contradictions, and mistranslations in the Authorized Version. The sad fact is that they usually point these things out to young men and women in Christian colleges who do not know any better. Many young Christians, including young preachers, are having their faith in God's word destroyed by the very people they look to for spiritual guidance!
These so-called "errors" that are presented by such infidels have been explained and written about so many times that it's a shame to even have to mention it again. There isn't enough space in a booklet of this size to embark upon a lengthy rebuttle of such claims. Besides, it has already been done quite well by others. Nevertheless, for the sake of showing the reader the nature of the so-called "errors" in the AV, we will take the time to briefly deal with just a few:
1. According to the critics, the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistranslation, because the Greek word is"pascha," and it is translated "passover" twenty-eight times in the New Testament, and it should be translated likewise in Acts 12:4.
This is what happens when a man is so hung up on "the Greek" that he can't read plain English. It should NOT be translated "passover" because the Passover had already passed. The "days of unleavened bread" had already begun [vs. 3,] which means the Passover was over [Num. 28:16-18; Exo. 12:13-18.] The Passover was always the fourteenth day of the first month, while the days of unleavened bread ran from the fifteenth through the twenty-first. Herod could not have been waiting for the Passover. Besides, why would a Gentile king like Herod be concerned about a Jewish feast day? "Easter" is from the pagan "Ishtar," the goddess that the pagans worshipped - Rome included. Herod wanted to wait until his pagan holiday was over before bringing Peter out to the people.
2. I John 5:7 is also the subject of much debate. It is argued that the verse lacks manuscript evidence and does not belong in the Bible. Being one of the greatest verses in the Bible on the Trinity, we should be suspicious of any oppositions to it.
The verse should NOT be omitted from the Bible. It is found in Greek manuscript 61, which probably forced Erasmus to include it in his third edition Greek text of 1522.
I John 5:7 is also found in Codex Ravianus, and in the margins of 88 and 629. It is also found in Old Latin manuscripts r and Speculum. It was quoted by Cyprian around A.D. 250, and two Spanish Bishops quoted it in the fourth century [Priscillkian and Idacius Clarus.] Several African writers quote it in the fifth century, and Cassiodorus quotes it in the sixth century in Italy. The fact that Siniaticus and Vaticanus do not include the verse means nothing to a true Bible believer. After all, Vaticanus omits the entire book of Revelation, while keeping the Apocrypha!
3. Many argue that the KJV is in error with it's use of the word "devils" instead of "demons." Again, this is due to an over emphasis on "the Greek" as well as a lack of faith in God's ability to preserve His words in English. While protesting that "daimon" should be translated "demon," many have overlooked a great truth which the Holy Spirit has preserved in the King's English. There is one true "Son of God," but many "sons of God." There is one true "Church," the Bride of Christ, but many local "churches." Likewise, there is one "Devil," but many "devils" under his control.
The word "demon" itself does not necessarily imply an evil spirit. Even Webster's 1828 dictionary states that "the ancients believed that there were good and evil demons...," and New Agers of today believe likewise. Therefore, God led the KJV translators to translate "devils" instead of "demons" because every "daimon" in the Bible IS an evil spirit. The word "devil" makes that clear. Every "devil" in the Bible is under the authority of their father "the Devil."
4. Then we have "contradictions" like Exodus 24:10 and John 1:18. Exodus says the Israelites SAW God, while Jesus said in John that "no man hath seen God at any time." Contradiction, right? No, it's only a matter of rightly dividing the word of truth [which you may not be practicing if II Tim. 2:15 has been altered in your "bible."] God is a Trinity, just like you and I. We"re a body, a soul, and a spirit [I Ths. 5:23.] The Israelites saw a physical manifestation of God, but not the SOUL of God, just as no one has ever seen your soul.
5. Numbers 25:9 says that 24,000 people died in a plague, but I Corinthians 10:8 says that only 23,000 died. Read I Corinthians 10:8 again and notice that 23,000 fell "in one day." The 24,000 died altogether in a few days. You see, these are the kind of "errors" in the King James Bible. These are the reasons given for you to throw away your Bible and buy a new one. don't fall for it. I have learned to always give God the benefit of a doubt, and to count the critics guilty until proven innocent. So far I've been right. Anytime I see an "error" in the KJV I just assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I just pray about it and trust God. I NEVER correct the Book that God has honored for so long. Thank God, I'm not that stupid.
Fifty Stumbling Stones of the Laodicean Translations
In this final section, I'd like to point out one of the best things about the new versions. What might that be? It is the fact that we know where they're going to alter God's word before they do it! We know how to "check"em out" without having to waste our God-given time reading the whole translation. The following list includes fifty "check points" which anyone can use to expose a new translation. No translation will be guilty on all fifty counts, but any translation since 1881 will alter God's word enough to prove that the revisionists do not have God's best interest in heart. For emphasis, I'll present these items from Satan's standpoint, briefly illustrating his purpose for many of the changes:
Genesis 1:29. Omit the word "meat" since there is no real flesh in the verse, only plant life. This will destroy the cross reference to the "meat offering" of Leviticus 2, which is really a GRAIN offering with no flesh. The Bible has it's own built in dictionary, but let's not allow people to know it.
Genesis 3:5. Alter the word "gods" and the cross references to Psalm 82, I Corinthians 8:5, and II Corinthians 4:4 will be destroyed.
Genesis 22:1. The word "tempt" in the verse should be replaced with "try." Here's another case of the "built-in dictionary." James 1:2-3 explains the kind of tempting that this was, but let's hide it from as many Christians as possible.
Numbers 33:52. Someone might use the word "pictures" as a reference to television. Throw it out!
Isaiah 7:14. Attack the virgin birth by omitting the word "virgin." After all, the Hebrew word "almah" can mean a virgin, a damsel, or just a young woman. Laodicean Christians are too lazy to check Matthew 1:23 to see how Matthew translated it.
Daniel 3:25. There's Jesus Christ in the Old Testament! can't have that! Someone might get the idea that he's eternal. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of the gods."
Micah 5:2. Another chance to attack the eternal existence of Christ. Throw out "everlasting."
Zechariah 9:9. We"re not interested in anyone being SAVED, so omit the words "having salvation."
Matthew 1:25. Omit "firstborn" because it shows the reader that Mary had other children after Jesus and did NOT remain a perpetual virgin. They"ll never think to check Psalm 69:8, Galatians 1:19, or John 7:5.
Matthew 5:22. Let's create a contradiction by omitting the words "without a cause." This will make Jesus contradict Paul in Ephesians 4:26.
Matthew 6:13. Omit the "kingdom," the "power," and the "glory."
Matthew 27:54. Change "the Son of God" to "a son of God."
Mark 1:1. This is the only Gospel which refers to Christ as the "Son of God" in the very first verse. Throw it out.
Mark 16:9-20. Either throw out the last twelve verses of Mark or raise doubt about them in the margins and footnotes. The less we read of a resurrected Christ the better.
Luke 1:34. Change Mary's words "I know not a man" to "I have no husband." This will allow for possible fornication between Mary and Joseph, which could make Joseph the father of Jesus.
Luke 2:33. Attack the virgin birth again by replacing "Joseph" with "father."
Luke 4:4. Omit "by every word of God." No one will think to check Deuteronomy 8:3.
Luke 23:42. Here's a sinner being saved by calling upon the name of the "Lord," which is in perfect tune with Romans 10:13. Replace the divine title "Lord" with the human name "Jesus."
Luke 24:51. Raise doubt about the ascension of Christ by omitting the words "carried up into heaven." Hopefully, no one will check Luke's later comments in Acts 1:1-2.
John 1:14. Omit the word "begotten," just like in John 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18.
Acts 1:3. Omit the word "infallible." Nothing is infallible.
Acts 4:27. Jesus wasn't God's "child." He was only His "servant."
Acts 8:37. Either omit the entire verse or raise doubt about it, because this verse states that scriptural water baptism is conditional upon BELIEF.
Acts 12:4. Change "Easter" to "passover." No one will ever read Exodus and Numbers to find the truth.
Acts 17:22. Change "superstitious" to "religious."
Romans 1:18. Let's change "hold the truth in unrighteousness" to "suppress the truth," which is a much weaker reading.
Romans 1:25. Let's say they "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" instead of "changed the truth of God into a lie."
Romans 1:29. Throw out "fornication."
Romans 10:17. Replace the word "God" with "Christ." This will teach that faith comes by rallying around the person of Jesus alone and not by feeding on every word of God [Luke 4:4.]
Romans 14:10. Change the word "Christ" to "God." This will prevent anyone from realizing that Jesus Christ is God when they read verse twelve.
I Corinthians 1:22. Change "require" to "request," and destroy the great truth about signs being for Israel.
II Corinthians 2:17. Since we are guilty of corrupting the word of God, replace the word "corrupt" with "peddle."
II Corinthians 5:17. Replace the word "creature" with "creation," although Mark 16:15 says "creature."
Ephesians 1:7. Throw out the "blood."
Philippians 3:21. People don't have "vile" bodies. They just have "lowly" bodies.
Colossians 1:14. Throw out the "blood."
I Thessalonians 5:22. Omit the word "appearance" so Christians will not be very concerned about their testimony.
I Timothy 3:16. The verse says that "God was manifest in the flesh." Attack the Deity of Christ and the Incarnation by throwing "God" clear out of the verse.
I Timothy 6:10. Change "all evil" to "all kinds of evil." 40. I Timothy 6:20. Since many heresies are taught today in the name of "science," and this verse gives a strong warning against "science falsely so-called," change the word "science" to "knowledge."
II Timothy 2:15. This is the only command in the Bible to "study" the word of God. Omit the word "study."
James 5:16. Let's justify Roman Catholic confessionals by changing the word "faults" to "sins."
I Peter 5:11. Omit "glory" and "dominion."
I John 1:7. Omit the word "Christ."
I John 4:3. Omit the words "Christ is come in the flesh."
I John 5:7. There's the Trinity! Throw out the whole verse or insert marginal notes to raise doubt about it.
Revelation 1:5. Omit the word "blood."
Revelation 5:9. Omit the word "blood."
Revelation 11:15. Change the many "kingdoms" that Jesus Christ will receive to one singular "kingdom."
Revelation 11:17. Attack the Second Coming of Christ by omitting the words "art to come."
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado [CNN] -"Sons of God" are becoming "children of God" and "brothers" will now be "brothers and sisters" in a top-selling translation of the Bible.
The changes in some gender-specific terms are among several revisions readers will discover in Today's New International Version of the Bible when it becomes available this spring.
"We firmly believe that to effect positive change in our world, we must communicate with today's generations in the English they are being taught and that they speak," Peter Bradley, president of the Colorado-based International Bible Society, said in a prepared statement.
"To accomplish this mission, we must make certain that Scripture is presented in a way that is unquestionably accurate and perfectly clear."
The update of the New International Version, first published in 1978, replaces some gender-specific terms with language that could apply to both sexes. But it only does so where the text clearly didn't intend to refer to a particular gender, according to the IBS, which sponsored the translation.
The revision occasionally uses a generic plural pronoun, like "they," in the place of a masculine singular pronoun, the IBS says, but retains male terminology in all references to God.
IBS communications director Larry Lincoln said some are erroneously referring to the change as "gender-neutral."
"The TNIV is, in fact, gender-accurate," he told CNN.
Among other changes, the IBS says the revision has incorporated more commonly used language when it improves understanding without changing the meaning. Mary, for example, is described as "pregnant" instead of "with child."
The Today's New International Version also features changes in spelling and syntax along with some word changes. The term "O," for example, was omitted because it's no longer commonly used.
The updated translation of the New Testament will be released this spring, but a compete version including the Old Testament won't be available until 2005. it's being published in North America by Michigan-based Zondervan, a division of HarperCollins Publishers.
In addition to the updated option, the New International Version will continue to be published in its current form.
Development of the earlier version started in 1965 when committees from the Christian Reformed Church and the National Association of Evangelicals saw a need for a new English translation. More than 150 million copies of the version have been distributed worldwide.
FEMINIST NIV TO APPEAR SOON IN A BOOKSTORE NEAR YOU
by David Cloud
I obtained copies of both of those for my library and wrote an article about them on April 19, 1997, titled "An NIV for Every Person."
Because of pressure from various evangelical groups, including Focus on the Family, J.I. Packer, and some of the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention, the IBS announced on May 27, 1997, that they had dropped their plans for an inclusive language NIV in the United States. They stated, "IBS has abandoned all plans for gender-related changes in future editions of the New International Version."
Two days later, we published an article titled "Inclusive Language NIV to Be Discontinued?" in which we warned that the IBS would eventually break their promise and publish a feminist NIV in the States. We observed that " this new position does not reflect a change of heart in regard to corrupting the Word of God, but was a response to the potential loss of sales." We further stated, "It is too early to know the future of inclusive language editions of the NIV. Could it not be that the IBS is planning merely to wait a few more years when the climate is a little more lenient and then publish its inclusive language NIV in the States? Given the history of these Bible publishers, we are convinced this is precisely what will happen."
In the May 29, 1997, article, we also made the following observation about the opposition of James Dobson and other evangelical leaders to the inclusive language NIV:
"WE FIND IT INTERESTING THAT POPULAR CHRISTIAN LEADERS WILL TAKE A STAND AGAINST INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE TRANSLATION BUT THEY TURN A BLIND EYE TO OTHER SERIOUS ISSUES AFFECTING BIBLE TEXTS AND VERSIONS. J.I. Packer criticized the inclusive language NIV, calling it the "feminist edition." Focus on the Family's James Dobson wrote an article opposing the inclusive language NIV, concluding with these words: "If we would not change a comma in the Gettysburg Address, why in the name of heaven would we tamper with the Word of God?" Dobson quoted Revelation 22:18-19 in support of his position against tampering with the Word of God. That is an excellent position. The problem is that these same men seem to care almost nothing about the thousands of words that are changed in the modern critical Greek text. They also support various undependable English versions. In 1984, Dobson came out in support of the International Children's Version New Testament, which is written on a third-grade level. It is impossible to translate the Bible on a third-grade level without perverting it, for the simple fact that God did not write it on a third-grade level. Dobson criticizes the International Bible Society for changing the Word of God to conform to feminist thinking. Why is this more serious than changing the Word of God to conform to a lower reading level? We do not believe man has the right to change the Word of God for any reason. In 1995, J.I. Packer praised Eugene Peterson's translation entitled "The Message," a new paraphrase or dynamic equivalency version. [Consider, for example, this perversion of John 3:5 as it appears in "The Message": "Jesus said, you're not listening. Let me say it again. Unless a person submits to this original creation - the wind hovering over the water creation, the invisible moving the visible, a baptism into a new lifeit's not possible to enter God's kingdom."] These same men also look askance at the defender of the Received Text and the King James Bible, implying that such are fringe trouble makers who cannot be taken seriously, even though the King James Bible defender is standing on precisely the same principle as that stated in opposition to inclusive language versions: God's Word is pure in every detail, and we will not accept textual and translational changes from the preserved text. When, for example, the critical Greek text removes the word "God" from 1 Timothy 3:16, we do not say, "Well, that is only one word and it is therefore relatively insignificant." No, we say, the word "God" was in our Bibles in this verse through the centuries and we will not allow modern textual critics to remove it. We will fight for every word of the Bible. For this we are labeled fanatics by most Christian leaders today. Thus, we are not impressed with this attempt on their part to be defenders of a pure Bible. Their defense has a hollow ring to it. It is "too little, too late.""
EXAMPLES OF THE CHANGES IN THE INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV
The Today's New International Version New Testament will not appear in bookstores until the spring, and we have not seen a copy of it; but the inclusive language editions of the New International Version already in print make such changes as the following: "brethren" is changed to "brothers and sisters," "man" is changed to "humankind" or "people," "he" is sometimes changed to "they," and sons of God is changed to "children of God."
Following are some examples from the Hodder & Stoughton New International Inclusive Language edition of 1995:
KJV: "What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?"
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV: "What are mere mortals that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?"
KJV: "He keepeth all his bones: not one of them is broken."
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV: "He protects all their bones, not one of them will be broken."
This translation corrupts a key prophetic passage. Psalm 34:20 refers to Christ and the fact that His bones were not broken on the cross. John 19:32-36 was a direct fulfillment of Psalm 34:20. The inclusive language NIV changes the singular masculine pronoun "his" to the plural pronoun "their," thereby destroying its prophetic significance.
KJV: "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him."
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV: "Rebuke a brother or sister who sins, and if they repent, forgive them."
KJV: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day."
KJV: "Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him."
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV: "Those who love me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them."
This is typical of the incredible perversion of Scripture represented by the inclusive language NIV. The singular pronouns are changed to plural. Christ's sweet and lovely promise to individuals is rendered ineffective by the change to general plural pronouns. Further, "my words" is changed to "my teaching," thus rendering Christ's emphasis on the words of Scripture ineffective by replacing it with the more general idea of teaching.
KJV: "Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."
INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE NIV: "I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with them, and they with me."
Again, Christ's tender promise to individuals who receive Him is destroyed by the corrupt inclusive language rendition.
TO PLEASE THE FEMINISTS
We believe the inclusive language NIV is a response to the pressure from clamoring feminists and their sympathizers, though the NIV publishers deny that this is the case. The NIV Committee for Biblical Translation [CBT] has been working on the inclusive language edition for years. Larry Walker, a member of the NIV's CBT, noted that pressure for such a version came from women who "felt left out" by the traditional language. Pressure also came from the publishers of the NIV in Britain [Hodder and Stoughton.] "In England, sales of the New Revised Standard Version, a unisex language revision of the RSV, put such pressure on the NIV that Hodder and Stoughton demanded a new version in order to compete" [World, March 29, 1997, p. 12.] Thus, we see the money factor, which plays such a large role in the modern Bible version issue.
OTHER BIBLE PUBLISHERS INVOLVED
In its letter of Jan. 18, 2002, the International Bible Society noted that its ongoing inclusive language work has been conducted "in accordance with its own guidelines and the guidelines established by the International Forum of Bible Agencies." This agency brings together 18 Bible translation and publishing organizations that are allegedly "responsible for more than 90 percent of the translation work done around the world."
Following are the organizations that, according to the International Bible Society claim, are involved somehow with the IBS's inclusive language work:
The Bible League
Book of Life
Evangel Bible Translators
Institute for Bible Translation [IBT]
International Bible Society [IBS]
Lutheran Bible Translators [LBT]
Lockman Foundation [publishers of the New American Standard Version]
New Tribes Mission
Pioneer Bible Translators
Scripture Gift Mission International [SGM]
Scripture Union [SU]
Summer Institute of Linguistics [SIL]
United Bible Societies [UBS]
If these organizations are opposed to inclusive language Bible translation, they need to speak up and be heard and they need to separate themselves from the International Forum of Bible Agencies and the International Bible Society.
NIV PUBLISHING HOUSE OWNED BY PUBLISHER OF IMMORAL MOVIES AND BOOKS
Zondervan, the publisher of the New International Version, is owned by Harper Collins Publishers. As we reported some years ago, this is a subsidiary of The News Corporation, the chairman and chief executive officer of which is Rupert Murdoch. He also owns 20th Century Fox Films, the London Times, and the New York Post. It was observed recently by a reader, "The same man and his enterprises that puts out the New International Version also puts out some of the sleaziest television content, movies, and hard-core pornography magazines. The same group that holds the copyright of the text of the NIV used in churches across the land publishes books such as Making Out, the Book of Lesbian Sex and Sexuality."
STAND IN THE OLD PATHS
Friends, I am glad that God has given me a dependable Bible in the English language, and that I don't have to base my Christian life upon the ever-changing world of the modern versions. When I stand on the Authorized Version, I am standing on a translation that is the product of an intensive series of scholarly revisions beginning with the masterly version of the martyr William Tyndale and ending with the unparalleled committee appointed by King James I. It came from the fires of persecution. It was created at the apex of the development of the English language. It has stood the test of time, and I have found that those who want to understand it can do so. Every type of Bible study tool is available to help people understand the Authorized Version.
I am also glad for those churches which stand in the old paths and do not entertain every innovation that comes along, that have an absolute Biblical authority in the Authorized Version, and have, therefore, true biblical unity of mind and heart in that the members accept the same Bible standard.
Those who don't like absolute Biblical authority are delighted with the modern versions. The ecumenical crowd loves the modern versions. Rome loves them [in addition to her papal pronouncements, traditions, and dogmas, of course.] The modernist loves them [though he doesn't believe a word of them.] The cults love them [though they love their own authoritative writings more.] New Evangelicals love them [especially that part about "judge not."] The charismatic crowd [when they are not too busy flopping around on the floor and laughing hysterically or otherwise occupied with some weird experience] loves them.
An absolute "thus saith the Lord" has been replaced with "some manuscripts say this and some say that and we aren't sure of anything but we are definitely scholarly." Every man can be his own little god and can pick and choose among the plethora of versions the "word of God" which feels right for him.
That's not for me, and I trust it is not for you, either, dear reader. Stand in the old paths. You won't regret it.
The prediction we made in 1997 is now a reality, but it was not a difficult one to make. Even a cursory look at the Bible publishing industry today would convince most people that they are in the business for money. Period. If Revelation 22:18-19 is true, they are in BIG trouble.
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."