Visitors from around the World

Translate blog:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Announcements

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

facebook: Discerning the World

Sign up to Receive Email Updates


powered by MailChimp!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Recent Comments

General Comments Section:

Click here for the General Comments Section Discerning the World - General Conversation Section

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Article Archive

Click here to find a List of all Articles List of all Articles
Click here to find a List of all Categories to search by Categories / Keywords

Website Stats

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What is KJV Only?

What is KJV Only?

KJV onlyWhat is KJV Only?

KJV Only is possibly the most ridiculous argument ever that if you do not read the KJV only you will fall into problems by reading the wrong translation and fall by the way side, i.e., lose your salvation.  Let’s sort this fallacy out once and for all shall we.

1)  Yes translation is important.  There are some translations out there that do leave VERY little to be desired like the Good News Bible and The Message among others.

2)  The Holy Spirit is the one who will tell you what is correct and incorrect.  So if you are a born again Christian you have nothing to worry as the Holy Spirit councils us daily and leads us into Truth. Of course you need to listen to His warnings when He tells you something is not right, and it is up to you to go and find out what is wrong as He guides you along the way.

3) There are currently 6912 languages today…

Statistical Summary provided by UBS World Report, March 2002

A summary, by geographical area and type of publication, of the number of different languages and dialects in which publication of at least one book of the Bible has been registered as of December 31, 2002. http://www.biblica.com/bibles/about/19.php

Region Portions Testaments Bibles Total
Africa 213 279 149 641
Asia 223 228 119 570
Pacific 168 204 33 405
Europe 110 31 62 203
North America 40 26 7 73
Central & South America 127 244 21 392
Constructed Languages 2 0 1 3
 
Total 883 1,012 392 2,287

Now there are currently millions upon millions of people out there who will never have the benefit of enjoying the KJV ONLY, but yet get by very well without it and use their ‘Northern Sotho’ ONLY bible because they rely on the Holy Spirit in their lives.

—————–

The language of Ainu

The first bibical text in Ainu appeared in 1887, when a tentative edition of 250 copies of Matthew 1-9, translated from the Greek with the aid of the Revised Version, by Rev. J. Batchelor, C.M.S., assisted by Ainu, was published. Matthew and Jonah, by the same translator, were issued in 1889, the proofs being read by Mr. George Braithwaite, the agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society in Japan. In 1891 Mr. Batchelor returned to England and published the remaining Gospels. In 1893 a tentative edition of 300 each of Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, by the same translator, was prepared, which was published at Yokohama by a joint committee of the three Bible Societies (British and Foreign, American, and National of Scotland) in 1894. The Psalms and revised Gospels were issued in 1895. In 1897 a revised New Testament, by the same translator, with Ainu aid, was published at Yokohama by the joint committee.[3]

Translation John 3:16
Batchelor, 1897 Inambe gusu ne yakuu, Kamui anak ne koro shinen ne Poho koropare pakno moshiri omap ruwe ne, nen ne yakka nei Poho eishokoro guru obitta aisamka shomoki no nei pakno ne yakka ishu ramat koro kuni ne kore nisa ruwe ne.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations_by_language

——————-

There are a few types of KJV readers:

  1. Those who insist you have to read the KJV otherwise you will end up losing your salvation – doomed if you read anything else.
  2. Those who read it solely because they can understand it and do so because they want to.
  3. Those who read it because they think it makes them look more Christian.
  4. and of course there are genuine Christians who read the KJV.

Just be thankful you can read and write English well.

Hope that solves this problem.

Signing off

Logical thinker.

PS:  Reading the KJV bible does not make one a Christian either.

————————-

If you don’t want to read the KJV because the English is too heavy for you and difficult to understand then I recommend you read the NKJV, NASB and the AMPLIFIED which I like a lot.

More...

120 comments to What is KJV Only?

  • carrie daniel

    Hi, I am going to stick with the King James. There is alot of good sources of info. on the subject, I understand that there are diffrent languages, but why should there be a truckload of english bibles? “Spiritual Deception in the Highest.” is an excellent report about the King James, also you can check out Pastor Mike Hoggard at kingjamescode.com(I think its .com) or simply google Mike Hoggard, or watchman video broadcast, he can thouroughly substantiate that the King James is the only correct english translation based on patterns and types that are only in the King James translation, plus other sources I haven’t mentioned but they are out there. Thanks, this is so worth checking out because my own research into this has been so enjoyable and worthwhile, its such an important topic. Sincerely–Carrie Daniel

  • Ruckmanism is a huge error where people believe that the KJV is “new revelation”. I believe KJVONLY is meant to discredit probably the best translated bible in English, and make people go to the other side of things, accepting corrupt Bible versions of the NIV. What is important is what were the Bibles translated from the Textus Receptus or the Vatican corrupted documents such as the Septainguint {know Im misspelling it} and Vaticanus? There are good Bibles in other languages.

  • I mean “like the NIV’ above.

    I have a rule avoid all Bibles Hort and Wolcott got their paws on or ones where they came from Vatican influenced corrupted books.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    carrie daniel

    That is great! stick to it, but don’t go and place a label on people that ‘if you don’t read the KJV… then…you are in big trouble’ that is what this article is about. Not saying you do this, just saying in general.

    The ‘KJV only’ people have nothing better to do than go around and place bondage over peoples lives. Amazlingly many people read the KJV and still get it totally wrong. Take my grandmother – got a KJV, so well read you would think she was the most saved person this planet, yet she is so far off the track it’s enough to make your hair stand up on end.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    BB

    What is this Ruckmanism stuff? This is some cult leader who no one even cares about let wants to follow up on.

    There are 2 types of KJV readers:

    – Those who insist you have to read the KJV otherwise you will land up with problems – doomed if you read anything else.
    – Those who read it solely because they can understand it and do so because they want to.

    I do not read the KJV. I use the Amplified, the NKJV, the NASV, the ESV and the NIV depending on what mood I am in and what day of the week it is – oh I also sometimes flop a coin.

  • Burning Lamp

    I used to use the NASV but then discovered the NKJV and find it both readable and reliable. I have nothing against the KJV except I find the archaic language and grammar distracting. Also, the use of the word “Easter” is offensive.

    The name “Easter” is never mentioned in the original Scriptures. However, one English translation of the Bible does use the word. The King James Version chose to translate Acts 12:4 like this:

    “And when he [Herod the King] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
    The book of Acts was originally written in the Greek language by the Christian Gentile and physician Luke. The Greek word that the King James Version translates as “Easter” is most certainly not the name “Easter,” it is actually the word “Pascha” (Hebrew: Pesach) which means “Passover”—and this is how all accurate translations show it. For example, the New King James Version says,

    “So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.”

    If one wants to nitpick, there are issues with the KJV. One of the things that has always bothered me is that they don’t capitalize pronouns referring to Deity and the NKJV does.I have seen a long list of examples of verses from the KJV that could be more clearly rendered. The translators no doubt did the best they could.

    Often I quote the KJV because it is pubic domain while the others are under copyright. I understand those who object to anyone taking ownership of the Word of God, but in this world there are legalities and procedures that require this.

    The “KJV Only” folks border on making the KJV an idol. And you are right Debs, this legalistic attitude often drives folks away from the KJV to pursue other bibles that may not be good. It is beyond me how pastors have been gone to using trash like The Message and calling it the Word of God.

    Thanks for this article – it is timely and much needed!

  • Deborah,

    I advise you to look up the textual issues. [URL removed] has some very good resources.

    I do not read the KJV because I “like” it. I read it because it is an accurate literal translation of the original autographs. The AV translators did the very thing that Westcott and Hort fraudulently claimed to do: They compiled a text that is the closest thing to the Original Autographs that we have.

    Westcott and Hort are the two Anglican scholars who gave us the “Critical Text”, which all the new versions are based on, with one or two exceptions. What those two men did was compile a text with all the errors that had ever crept into the Holy bible over the past 1800 years. Their main text was Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which had over 3,000 differences in the gospels alone. Their rule of thumb was “if the KJV has it, it must be wrong”. Therefore they discarded the KJV readings which either text contained and compiled an error laden text.

    Walter Veith, originally from South Africa, has done an excellent video on the bible versions issue. Do a google search for “Total Onslaught” 214B, and 215B. They are well worth watching.

    Dr. Veith is a SDA, and I disagree with him on a few points of prophecy, but the videos on the bible versions issue are very well researched and I stand with him on that issue. When he presents facts he does a very good job. When he delves into eschatological interpretation I am afraid he is a little too Reformed for me.

    Eat the meat and spit out the bones. We are all earthen vessels and subject to frailties, but that does not mean everything he says is of no value.

  • Deb,
    Years ago I was just about NIV only. When my wife’s grandparents gave us a KJV for Christmas I thanked them politely, and put it away, never to use it again. Inside I was angry at them for wasting the money on a gift that wouldn’t be used, and didn’t they know that?

    Only a few years later I came across Dr. Donald Waite, on a radio program and he made some very logical arguments. I decided to follow up and got some material from his ministry “The Bible For Today”. It turns out that one of the best arguments in favour of the Textus Receptus was made at the same time that Westcott and Hort were publishing their Textus Criticus. The author of the dissenting view was Dean John William Burgon, also of the Anglican Church.

    All of Burgon’s views are still valid some 125 years later, and no scholar has refuted any of them. They just ignore them. If Ruckman or Riplinger have any valid points, and they do, you can find most of them in Burgon’s work.

    By the way I have a Czech Kralicka of 1625. It also reads the same as the AV. All of the reformation bibles were translated from the same text and are in agreement. They are all more evangelical than anything produced post-1881.

    It is ludicrous to think that the devil would not attack the bible. For centuries people were burned or beheaded for having bibles. Now the Catholic Church has representatives on the board of the UBS. Did they change? Or, just change tactics?

    I dare you to check it out for yourself. I double dare you!!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dan

    I NEVER said the Devil would not attack the bible. You need to RE-READ my article.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Dan

    Ahhhhh DAN, you are a KJV ONLY ministry. Now… I am interested.

    Because I do not read the KJV as often as you would like am I in trouble?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    BL

    This whole KJV thing is a nightmare. Satan has taken what should be a normal situation and turned it into a circus.

    The Bible without the Holy Spirit is just a book. If it were more than that a non-believer would be able to understand it.

    Man I think I need to make that a quote… why does no one ever quote me… lol

    The Bible without the Holy Spirit is just a book. If it were more than that a non-believer would be able to understand it. — Deborah http://www.discerningtheworld.com

    …there we go haha.

  • Elmarie A

    Here is my 2zc worth.

    A Misionary is given a couple of thousand donated Bibles to distribute somewhere in a country in Africa, to people who need to hear the Gospel . The Bible donations are the let say the NIV or NKJ. The missionaries preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ and people turn to Jesus for their Salvation. So the NIV or NKJ Bibles are handed out. Now remember these people have no knowledge of man’s doctrine of salvation, they only heard the Word of God preached by the missionaries.

    Will these saved people go to Hell because they are reading the Message or NKJ ? I am not so sure because God know each of his children individually, He knows our hearts and minds and our abilities, With the gift of salvation comes the Holy Spirit who helps people to understand His Word. God knows that these saved people in Africa who was given A Bible will never ever receive another Bible so they will keep that NIV or NKJ for the rest of their lives. I cannot see that God will reject or send people to Hell just because they are reading one of the said over 200 Bible translations. All the translations was done written by man, all of the translations Will have mistakes and God knows that because we are imperfect humans all of us. I can not see that God will judge man on what Bible he reads. It is what is written in our hearts that interests God not what Bible we read.

    Jesus said to His disciples follow me and I will make you fishers of men. He did not say read the correct translated Bible. God inspired His chosen ones prophets and apostles to write the Bible and every word was God breathed and inspired. God also knew man would make mistakes when it comes to the translation of the Bible. No one has the right to claim that a specific translation is perfect and the only true translation. By making these kind of claims we don not give all the glory to God as we should do.

    Matthew 4:19
    “Come, follow me,” Jesus said, “and I will make you fishers of men.”

    Paul tells us :”Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),”

    Paul did not say to read a specific translation.

    2 Timothy 3:15-17 (Amplified Bible)

    15And how from your childhood you have had a knowledge of and been acquainted with the sacred Writings, which are able to instruct you and give you the understanding for salvation which comes through faith in Christ Jesus [through the [a]leaning of the entire human personality on God in Christ Jesus in absolute trust and confidence in His power, wisdom, and goodness].

    16Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] for training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God’s will in thought, purpose, and action),

    17So that the man of God may be complete and proficient, well fitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.

  • Grant C

    When one considers what the purpose of translating the Bible has been, it is incorrect to submit that only the KJV is an acceptable translation. To make the Gospel available to all peoples, it stands to reason that the Bible has to be translated into as many languages as possible.

    Most of these languages are still developing in themselves, therefore one cannot expect that they could have formulated a word for every possible action or item, let alone an accurate or appropriate word. The same can be said for English, for, although it is an old language, it is certainly still developing. It is therefore also incorrect to assume that the KJV or any other translation could be inerrant. It is furthermore incorrect to simply assume that Erasmus, who formulated the Textus Receptus, did so with divine inspiration, as was the case with those chosen to document the Word of God.

    Advocates of KJV ONLY persuasion should bear in mind that historical bible recording goes back far beyond AD1500. One needs to ask what the reason would have been for God to have waited for Erasmus to firstly and finally produce a correct translated interpretation? Additionally, is the KJV ONLY advocate solely concerned with those Bible readers fortunate enough to have been instructed in the English language?

    If the Textus Receptus, Textus Vaticanus, Textus Siniaticus and other early transcripts were used to produce Bibles, for example in Mandarin Chinese or Swahili, chances are very great that there did not exist in those languages, at the time of translation, words to accurately portray the original. (I would love to have included Americans and Australians in this statement, but that would be simply me being ridiculous again!):)

    Furthermore, it is evident that most of the KJV ONLY advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but to KJV itself, which is irrelevant in light of their contention. English readers should not be expected to read the Bible in archaic language, when readers in other languages have the advantage of reading it in their language form of the day. When the Holy Bible is translated into a new language today, it is done in the form of that language spoken today, not the form which was spoken hundreds of years ago. The English language should be no exception.

    Many subsequent translations have been done using the same Textus Receptus, with the advantage of having had the passage of time to more accurately translate the original scripts. Many thousands of ancient scripts have been discovered, not necessarily of a Biblical nature, but certainly benefiting the progression of understanding the languages of Biblical times.

    Determining the accuracy of translation is the forte of linguistic scholars, not necessarily religious scholars. Understanding the translated Word of God is the forte of the true Christian, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Deborah, your quote is particularly accurate, and it is really that simple:

    The Bible without the Holy Spirit is just a book. If it were more than that a non-believer would be able to understand it.

    We should regard the original manuscripts written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek as the only inspired Word of God, and all translations as attempts to communicate what was said in another language. None of these could possibly be perfect. The closest we could hope to get to a faultless understanding, if required, would be to use numerous ‘trusted’ translations including, of course, the KJV.

    Our loyalty should not be to any particular translation, but rather to the inspired Word of God as communicated to us by the Holy Spirit through the various translations at our disposal.

  • Jess

    I just came across this website yesterday, and I have enjoyed reading some of the articles here. I find it interesting that you will remove articles by a calvinist because you believe calvinism is heresy, yet you will post articles by someone who is KJV only (David Cloud). It seems from what you wrote that you would consider a KJV only stand as heresy as well. Maybe you don’t because you didn’t actually say it was, but I would assume so from the nature of your article. Please correct me if I am wrong!

    Your grouping of KJV onlyites into 2 categories is also very narrow. I know many KJV only believers who fall into neither of those categories. I would challenge you to really research this area if you have not already. You may be surprised to learn that KJV only people do not believe all others are doomed to destruction if they read other versions. KJV only believers are loving, caring, evangelising Christians too. We just happen to believe a perfect God can have a perfect Word.

    Oh and btw, God can preserve His Word in any language! He’s God!!! He can do anything!!! Amen!

  • mom4truth

    Dan K-

    I visited your website. Do you have another website you maintain with articles? Or do you just have the one that promotes your book? Contact me via my website…Thanks!

  • Lourens H

    Deb’s / Burning Lamp & all others following this thread (don’t know if this will stay up) :-(

    I understand Deb’s point totally about the ‘placing of labels’ on people who do not focus on reading ONLY the KJV.

    However here we are talking about the ENGLISH bibles and when bible versions have been proven TIME & TIME again to be error filled then why read anything else than the KJV.

    It’s true that this translation issue has been turned into a circus but I believe that just as when one just became a baby christian, it takes time to grow into more spiritual knowledge.

    Therefor when one starts to study this bible translation issue and you are showed that new translations have adulterated the Word, then you should truly commit to reading the correct bible.

    The KJV is the most hated and loved Bible of all times. It is true that many Bibles have been written in other languages. Every Bible during the Reformation period was good for the language of the people at the time.

    For example, the Italian Diodati is the right Bible, but not the Italian Diodati of today that is from corrupt manuscripts such as Wescott and Hort’s Greek text. The French also have a pure text in their language called the “Olivetan.”

    The Germans have a pure version called the “Heilige Schrift.” Don’t lack discernment when it comes to which version is the correct one for the ENGLISH speaking people.

    Deb’s I totally agree with your quote about the bible being a SEALED / LOCKED book to anyone who is not saved (Holy Spirit filled) but using the NIV (& many other translations) is a sure way to get some misguided ideas about doctrine.

    The NIV translation is one of the most corrupt versions around. (won’t go into it here as everyone seems to be internet savvy so just research it)

    The only version that has been proven without error in the ENGLISH language is the KJV.

    Some (Burning Lamp & Dan)have even commented on the originals. There are no originals. The argument that we have a close translation of the originals is not true.

    We either have the words of God today in the English language or we do not. For example, when Jesus Christ read from Isaiah in Luke 4 did He have the original scroll from Isaiah that was written 500 years before?

    The answer is “no.”

    This would indicate that the copies of Isaiah were just as preserved and inspired as the original. (this is another endless topic that could be easily studied)

    Next, why would a person need to compare all other versions with the KJV – UNLESS they were trying to discredit the KJV?

    This argument is so old. There is plenty of information out on the web to prove that there is only one Bible for the English speaking people and that is the KJV.

    Interesting fact is that Cults love new versions. There is money in producing new versions and their is nothing, but confusion with new versions. 1Cor. 14:33.

    Second, I would not take teaching from a woman as that violates scripture- 1Tim. 2:10-13. Now there is something to REALLY PONDER for all the males coming to this site…

    Don’t get me wrong I think 99% of what you share here is truly great information but still I have been wondering for a long time what it is that is actually going on here… I hope your husband is teaching you and not the other way around..

    Anyway…

    Blessings ;-)

  • Burning Lamp

    Lourens H.
    You said:

    I would not take teaching from a woman as that violates scripture- 1Tim. 2:10-13. Now there is something to REALLY PONDER for all the males coming to this site.

    Debs is exercising her God-given gift as are El Marie and Amanda. God’s gifts are not gender-specific. Men and woman can both have the same gift. It seems that more women seem to have the gift of discerning of spirits than men. This is not “teaching” from a pulpit in a church setting as the Apostle Paul was referring to. There is no usurping authority from men here. The Bible is clear on the qualifications for pastor and elders which does not include women. But this is not a church and the women who post here are simply being good stewards of the gift the Lord has given to them as a blessing and help to the Church.

    It takes a ton of courage to run this site and I am sure that Debs has a husband who is a great cheerleader.

  • Grant C

    Jess

    We just happen to believe a perfect God can have a perfect Word.

    That is most certainly true, but it is not the KJV. (See my posting above for further detail on this)

    Oh and btw, God can preserve His Word in any language!

    Exactly, a statement which, in itself, refutes a KJV only stance.

  • Charl

    To all the other people who support other Bible versions, Let me make it simple for you check out this one verse in all translations and see which one will have this verse in there.

    Acts 8:37

    This is only one verse that is completely missing in most Bibles.

    Now if that is missing from the perversions, ask yourself what else is missing and changed?

    Sorry brothers and sisters but i have to side with the KJV on this one (King Jesus Version)

    Act 8:34-40 (KJV)
    (34) And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man?
    (35) Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
    (36) And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
    (37) 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.
    (38) And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him.
    (39) And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.
    (40) But Philip was found at Azotus: and passing through he preached in all the cities, till he came to Caesarea.

    This verse is in the NKJV but with footnotes that read the following Acts 8:37

    8:37 * NU-Text and M-Text omit this verse. It is found in Western texts, including the Latin tradition.
    NKJV

    So actually they want to say that it is not meant to be there. Check out the footnotes in your Bibles, One would also notice that there is no footnotes in the KJV.

    Shalom

  • Elmarie A

    Lourens H wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong I think 99% of what you share here is truly great information but still I have been wondering for a long time what it is that is actually going on here… I hope your husband is teaching you and not the other way around..

    Keep on wondering ……till eternity comes……………I wonder…..I wonder…….I wonder…..

  • Grant C

    Lourens H

    Therefor when one starts to study this bible translation issue and you are showed that new translations have adulterated the Word, then you should truly commit to reading the correct bible.

    You are arguing from the assumption that the KJV is the correct Bible and the blueprint against which other translations should be measured. This is categorically refuted and faulty logic. (See my previous comment on this thread)

    For example, the Italian Diodati is the right Bible, but not the Italian Diodati of today that is from corrupt manuscripts such as Wescott and Hort’s Greek text. The French also have a pure text in their language called the “Olivetan.”

    The Germans have a pure version called the “Heilige Schrift.” Don’t lack discernment when it comes to which version is the correct one for the ENGLISH speaking people.

    This argument is grounded only in personal opinion and bears no relevance to the KJV only issue.

    The only version that has been proven without error in the ENGLISH language is the KJV.

    That is incorrect. Although the KJV is an excellent Bible, it is certainly not without error. As there have been numerous revisions, exclusions and additions made to the KJV over time, which version would you submit as being without error? The 1611 version or the 1613 version with it’s 300 changes, or some other one of choice?

    There are no originals. The argument that we have a close translation of the originals is not true.

    While this is true, there are over 5300 known Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, another 10000 or so Latin Vulgates, 9300 other early versions, over 230 of these pre-dating 600 A.D. and a number of them pre-200 A.D. In addition there are another 15000 copies in existence written in the Latin and Syriac (Christian Aramaic), some from as early as 150 A.D. Then there are the Old Testament manuscripts, which were the most meticulously preserved documents, backed up by more recent discoveries. The Textus Vaticanus, Textus Sinaiticus, Textus Alexandrinus and Textus Receptus and other… certainly sufficient to substantiate and validate any translation, if it were required.

    Next, why would a person need to compare all other versions with the KJV – UNLESS they were trying to discredit the KJV?

    Again, you found your argument on assumption and your point of departure is irrelevant and misguided. We would not use the KJV as the comparative source, but rather the manuscripts to which the KJV itself owes it’s existence.

    There is plenty of information out on the web to prove that there is only one Bible for the English speaking people and that is the KJV.

    I would suggest that you not limit your studies of this subject to what is available on the internet only. To effectively argue a point such as this based on internet information only, is certainly an exercise in futility and will prove inconclusive and incomplete. Similarly, there is sufficient information on the web to that you are wrong in your assumption.

    Interesting fact is that Cults love new versions.

    Certain cults follow the Satanic bible as well. Does that necessarily make the Satanic bible a ‘wrong’ translation? Do you see how unsubstantiated your argument is?

    Second, I would not take teaching from a woman as that violates scripture- 1Tim. 2:10-13. Now there is something to REALLY PONDER for all the males coming to this site…

    Based on your comments here, you would not take teaching from anyone, male or female. You quote Scripture out of context and portray an incorrect understanding of Paul’s words. That rather seems to be violation of Scripture. (See BL’s comment)

    I hope your husband is teaching you and not the other way around..

    You are either a die hard Angus Buchan fan, or you could well do with a wife who might keep you better informed and teach you to mind your Christian manners. You have insecurity issues which I suggest you take to the Lord. I am sure I speak on behalf of the many real Christian men on this site. No offense to any? Mrs Lourens H intended.

    PS. If anyone wonders, I probably refer to the KJV myself, among other translations, every day.

  • Grant C

    Charl

    Like I said to Lourens H in an earlier posting, and I don’t want to seem nasty by any means, we should not approach these matters assuming certain things as fact, but we do need to find the truth in all things.

    As far as the omissions from some newer translations are concerned, we should ask ourselves why the translators would choose to omit certain verses, when they are aware that their readers will apply discernment when reading their Bible. They would know that a verse left out will be picked up quickly by good Bible scholars and that the fact would become public knowledge very soon.

    This would damage not only the publisher’s reputation, but also the sales of their Bible version. It makes no sense for them to do something like that mischievously or for obscure reasons. Therefore, there has to be more valid reasons. Of course there are certain Bible versions like The Message, and other similar ones, which are anti-Christian and written with obviously evil intent, carrying grossly falsified messages.

    If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g. the New International Version, New American Standard, New Living Translation, etc.) – you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Mark 16:9-20 is another example, although it is always placed in the text or in footnotes. Why do these translations not have these verses? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible?

    The answer is that the translators did not believe these verses should have been in the Bible to begin with. Since the KJV was translated in A.D. 1611, many Biblical manuscripts have been discovered that are older and more accurate than the manuscripts the KJV was based on. When Bible scholars researched through these manuscripts, they discovered some differences. It seems that over the course of 1500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible (either intentionally or accidentally). The verses mentioned above are simply not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in the margin because they do not truly belong in the Bible.

    It is important to remember, however, that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death, burial and resurrection, Christ as the only the way of salvation, heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations.

    You see, we must beware of the so-called truth as told by man, trust only the Holy Spirit’s guidance in all things. Also see my comments earlier in this thread regarding what constitutes the inspired Word of God.

    Maranatha! Shalom also to you.

  • Jess

    Lourens: Your comments are great! I agree wholeheartedly. Thank you for bringing up some very good points about the KJV, and preserved Scriptures in other languages.

    Grant said:
    “Although the KJV is an excellent Bible, it is certainly not without error. As there have been numerous revisions, exclusions and additions made to the KJV over time, which version would you submit as being without error? The 1611 version or the 1613 version with it’s 300 changes, or some other one of choice?”
    What are the errors in the KJV? I haven’t found one yet, and I’ve read it through entirely at least twice a year in my personal devotions, not to mention church, Bible studies, and other such times when the Bible is read.

    As for the so-called “revisions” of the KJV; most of those have to do with spelling mistakes made in the first several printings, as well as updating Old English spellings into more current forms. There is much documentation to this FACT if one is willing to do the research. I guess if you think correcting spelling is an “exclusion and addition” then you are entitled to that opinion. It certainly does not even come close to the changes made in the NIV or other new translations.

    As for comparing all other versions to the KJV, the reason is simple. The KJV is the ONLY English translation that is a direct translation of the textus receptus. ALL other versions are based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Consequently there is nothing else to compare to. It’s KJV versus everything else because the source of translation is different. No other modern translation consulted the received text. You’ll probably think I faulty logic here, but that’s okay :).

    I agree research should not be limited simply to the internet (even though there is MUCH valuable information available online). Neither should research be limited to studying only one side of this issue. Personally, I read literature by many scholars on both sides of this issue before coming to my own conviction that the KJV is God’s perfect English translation.

    Lourens said:
    “It’s true that this translation issue has been turned into a circus but I believe that just as when one just became a baby christian, it takes time to grow into more spiritual knowledge. Therefor when one starts to study this bible translation issue and you are showed that new translations have adulterated the Word, then you should truly commit to reading the correct bible.”

    Thank you for this comment. I agree totally!

    Grant: One more question. How does believing God can have a perfect Word in any language refute a KJV only stand? This is where the branding and labelling of KJV only believers becomes very unfair. Everyone ASSUMES that KJV only means that everyone has to learn English in order to have a perfect Bible. There are some who do believe this, but I would put them in the minority of KJV only advocates (albeit a very vocal minority). KJV only means that I believe that the King James Bible is the inerrant Word of God for English speaking people. I will certainly not limit the power of God, Who created and personally named billions of stars, by saying He cannot have a perfect Word in other languages. I’m just not sure how that nullifies a KJV only position for the English Language???

    I still find it shocking that Christians today have such a lack of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture. How does that reconcile with Psalm 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, and Isaiah 40:8? The Bible is full of proclamations to the truth of God’s Word.
    We believe Romans 10:13 that the Jesus will save “whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord”
    We believe John 14:3 that Jesus will one day receive us unto Himself.
    We believe Jesus is the Son of God, He was born of a Virgin, and He will return again to earth. All these truths are found in Scripture. Yet the Scripture proclaims that God will preserve His holy, untarnished, true, and inerrant Word and many REFUSE to believe He has done that. If we’re going to choose not to believe God when He said (not me saying) He would preserve a perfect Word, then how can we believer anything else He said is true? I just don’t get it. If the KJV is not the inerrant Word of God in English, please tell me which version is. God said He would give me a pure Word. I want to be sure I’m reading the right one! The fact is that when the comparison is done there are vast differences in what the English versions are saying. There simply can’t be 2 or more “versions” of the truth. It just doesn’t happen.

    As the Psalmist said. “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3. The truth of the Bible is the very foundation of Christianity. One sin would have made Jesus a sinner. LIkewise one error makes God’s Word untrue, and thus, God becomes a liar. Just a thought.

    I hope this thread continues. Please don’t think I am attacking anyone for his or her beliefs. I am simply trying to make my points as best I can, in a loving and gentle spirit. Thank you!

  • Amanda

    Verdraaiings in die Nuwe Vertaling

    Prof. J.S. Malan, Universiteit van die Noorde

    Opsomming: Die Nuwe Afrikaanse Vertaling van die Bybel bevat veranderings en weglatings wat sowel uit die eksegetiese vertaalmetode as uit die onvolledige grondteks spruit.

    In die jare sedert die Nuwe Afrikaanse Bybel (NAB) in 1983 deur die Bybelgenootskap vrygestel is, het ‘n skokkende lang lys vertaalfoute, verdraaiings, afgewaterde stellings en weglatings aan die lig gekom. Hierdie foute kan gedeeltelik herlei word na die onvolledige grondteks wat gebruik is, en andersyds na die willekeurig eksegetiese vertalingsmetode, nl. die dinamies-ekwivalente metode, wat gevolg is.

    Die vertalers het hulleself die vryheid veroorloof om in terme van hul eie teologiese raamwerk verklarend te vertaal en in die proses die betekenisse van baie tekste te verander. ‘n Doelbewuste poging is ook aangewend om Ou Testamentiese messiaanse profesieë só te verdraai dat die leser nie moet agterkom dat dit op die Here Jesus dui nie.

    Indien hierdie vertaling as ‘n parafrase bemark is, sou dit minder misleidend gewees het. Om dit egter ten spyte van die vrysinnige vertaling, weglatings en subjektiewe veranderings nog steeds DIE BYBEL te noem, is om die minste te sê aanmatigend.

    Die Here sê duidelik:

    “Julle mag by die woord wat Ek julle beveel, niks byvoeg nie, en julle mag daar niks van weglaat nie; sodat julle die gebooie van die Here julle God mag onderhou, wat Ek julle beveel” (Deut. 4:2).

    ‘n Aantal van die belangrikste verskille tussen die ou vertaling (1933 soos in 1953 hersien) en die nuwe vertaling word hieronder aangetoon. Slegs enkele tekste word uit die Ou Testament aangehaal:

  • Amanda

    The first person to recognise the next verse, wins a smiley :)

    Jesus sê toe: “Laat Ek dit so stel: Ek is die ‘pad’ en my Vader die ‘adres’. Wie hierdie pad loop, kom by die ware lewe uit. As iemand ‘n ander pad loop, sal hy nooit by my Vader uitkom nie.”

    My translation:

    Jesus then said: “Let me put it this way: I am the ‘road’ and my Father the ‘address’. Whoever walks this road, gets to the true life. If someone walks a different road, he will never reach my Father.”

    Van Die Boodskap. Die Bybel in hedendaagse Afrikaans. Redakteurs Jan van der Watt, Stephan Joubert.

  • Elmarie A

    Burning Lamp & Grant

    Thank you both for your Gracious input here as usual :-).

  • Elmarie A

    Amanda

    Van Die Boodskap. Die Bybel in hedendaagse Afrikaans. Redakteurs Jan van der Watt, Stephan Joubert.

    Dit is nou vir jou n ding ek het dit nie geweet nie. Dankie vir die uitwys hiervan.

  • carrie daniel

    Hi, I do not have internet acess in my home so I do not get on here everyday. For one thing I am KJV only because I have read all the other bibles and believe all christians are in the same boat, I do not beat people over the head with threats if they read an niv. I do beleive the other bibles in english are corrupt and from corrupt texts which do promot a works salvation as oppose to the King James which promotes justification through faith. It is in a persons best interest to take the time to research this english bible issue, and its not a sin to be KJV only. I am glad to only have to read one bible now instead of trying to figure out if I stick with amplified or New King James which are corrupt bibles. Sincerely–Carrie Daniel

  • Grant C

    Jess

    Lourens: Your comments are great! I agree wholeheartedly.

    So do you also agree wholeheartedly with Lourens’ misinterpretation of the Apostles Paul’s words to Timothy regarding women and preaching? Seems the KJV only attitude didn’t help one bit in this regard.

  • Grant C

    Jess

    I haven’t found one yet, and I’ve read it through entirely at least twice a year in my personal devotions, not to mention church, Bible studies, and other such times when the Bible is read.

    So, because you haven’t found the errors yet, does that indicate that they aren’t there? If so, you certainly have an inflated regard of your linguistic skills.

    How did you come to this conclusion, did you compare the KJV to the early manuscripts?

    As for the so-called “revisions” of the KJV; most of those have to do with spelling mistakes made in the first several printings, as well as updating Old English spellings into more current forms.

    So then, which version is the perfect Word of God? It can’t be the original KJV or others that have been changed, because if that was the perfect Word, then it would have been God who inspired the spelling errors.

    It certainly does not even come close to the changes made in the NIV or other new translations.

    What changes? New translations do not contain changes to the manuscripts from which they are translated. You seem to think that if the newer translation has differences to the KJV, that the newer translation is automatically the wrong one. Some newer translations contain corrections, where the KJV was incorrect. For details please see my earlier posting to Charl

    As for comparing all other versions to the KJV, the reason is simple

    That is irrelevant, because we don’t do that; it would be pointless. We compare other versions to the earliest available manuscripts.

    The KJV is the ONLY English translation that is a direct translation of the textus receptus

    That is quite simply, a lie. It is senseless argument to employ untruths and half-truths in defense of your stance.

    You’ll probably think I faulty logic here,..

    It’s not faulty logic, it’s just not true.

    you should truly commit to reading the correct bible.”

    You should truly commit to Jesus and understanding His Word. It is irrelevant which Bible version you read, if you are not led by the Holy Spirit into understanding it. To commit to a specific version of a text is religious sectarianism not Christianity.

    I still find it shocking that Christians today have such a lack of faith in the inerrancy of Scripture

    True Christians do not doubt a single letter of the Word of God. You seem to think that the KJV is that inerrant Scripture. It is not, it is simply another translation, an attempt to communicate the Word to believers. There is no comparison to be made between believing in the inerrancy of Scripture and believing that the KJV is the inerrant version thereof.

    If the KJV is not the inerrant Word of God in English, please tell me which version is.

    None of them are inerrant, they are all translations and all attempts at communicating the inerrant Word of God. For details please see my earlier posting to Charl

    I want to be sure I’m reading the right one!

    The Holy Spirit has been sent to guide true believers in these matters. Without salvation and the Holy Spirit, you won’t understand any version. Now don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly not saying that you do not have the Holy Spirit to guide you. What I am saying is that the Holy Spirit is the only one who can guide you to the truth. Neither the KJV nor any other version can do that.

    It is quite obvious that you have not read much of the comments above, but you certainly want to make your indefensible point regarding this issue. You are welcome to whatever belief you choose, and to attach whatever value you will to a Bible version, but you certainly cannot debate an issue effectively by applying only opinion and ignoring fact.

  • Burning Lamp

    Touche Grant!

    No one is ganging up on the KJV, but only addressing the position that many take that it is the ONLY Bible and horror of horrors would anyone even consider reading another translation, elevating it to a status of near idolization.

    The King’s English is archaic – the KJ translators are not infallible. We don’t speak with “thee” and “thou” and it is unnatural. There is nothing sacred about the King’s English!

    Consider the following:

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html

    A writer who respects the KJV version acknowledges that there are errors in translation. This is for the benefit of those who consider it infallible.

    Here is a partial listing of King James Version
    translation errors:
    Genesis 1:2 should read “And the earth became
    without form . . . .” The word translated “was” is
    hayah, and denotes a condition different than a
    former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.
    Genesis 10:9 should read “ . . . Nimrod the mighty
    hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD.”
    The word “before” is incorrect and gives the
    connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is
    false.
    Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is “scapegoat”
    which today has the connotation of someone who
    is unjustly blamed for other’s sins. The Hebrew is
    Azazel, which means “one removed or separated.”
    The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no
    scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.
    Deuteronomy 24:1, “then let him” should be “and
    he.” As the Savior explained in Matthew 19,
    Moses did not command divorcement. This statute
    is regulating the permission of divorce because of
    the hardness of their hearts.
    II Kings 2:23, should be “young men”, not “little
    children.”
    Isaiah 65:17 should be “I am creating [am about to
    create] new heavens and new earth . . . .”
    Ezekiel 20:25 should read “Wherefore I permitted
    them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are
    not good, and judgments whereby they should not
    live.” God’s laws are good, perfect and right. This
    verse shows that since Israel rejected God’s laws,
    He allowed them to hurt themselves by following
    false man made customs and laws.
    Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which
    substitutes “evening morning” for “days.” Too bad
    William Miller didn’t realize this.
    Malachi 4:6 should read “ . . . lest I come and
    smite the earth with utter destruction.” “Curse”
    doesn’t give the proper sense here. Same word
    used in Zechariah 14:11.
    Matthew 5:48 should be “Become ye therefore
    perfect” rather than “be ye therefore perfect.”
    “Perfect” here means “spiritually mature.”
    Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the
    aid of the Holy Spirit.
    Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify
    the meaning. It should say “there should no flesh
    be saved alive.”
    Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the
    original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV
    puts it in a footnote: “And another took a spear and
    pierced His side, and out came water and blood.”
    The Savior’s death came when a soldier pierced
    His side, Revelation 1:7.
    Matthew 28:1, “In the end of the sabbath as it
    began to dawn toward the first day of the week . .
    .” should be translated literally, “Now late on
    Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day
    of the week . . . .” The Sabbath does not end at
    dawn but at dusk.
    Luke 2:14 should say, “Glory to God in the
    highest, and on earth peace among men of God’s
    good pleasure or choosing.” That is, there will be
    peace on earth among men who have God’s good
    will in their hearts.
    Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the
    Greek word miseo, Strong’s #3404, as “hate”,
    when it should be rendered “love less by
    comparison.” We are not to hate our parents and
    family!
    John 1:31, 33 should say “baptize” or “baptizing
    IN water” not with water. Pouring or sprinkling
    with water is not the scriptural method of baptism,but only thorough immersion in water

    http://www.servantsnews.com/PDF/kjverr01.pdf

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Gosh, what a can o’ worms did I only open here…

    Such a ‘easy to understand’ article brings out some really mean and nasty people out of the cracks.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Amanda

    Jesus then said: “Let me put it this way: I am the ‘road’ and my Father the ‘address’. Whoever walks this road, gets to the true life. If someone walks a different road, he will never reach my Father.”

    I don’t think I am gonna be winning any smilies. I am the road and my Father the address? Wow… Wonder what kinda marijuana Stephan Joubert was smoking when he helped translate that.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Lourens H wrote:

    Don’t get me wrong I think 99% of what you share here is truly great information but still I have been wondering for a long time what it is that is actually going on here… I hope your husband is teaching you and not the other way around..

    This is the type of comment I get when the commenter (yourself) has nothing nice to say, but says it anyhow. This type of situation usually also arises when the commenter can’t give an argument on the topic at hand using biblical scripture so attacks people personally instead.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Charl

    Absolutely true. Many things missing here and there from the bible. Let’s take the example you gave above. Acts 8:37. Does that verse that should never be there in the first place change your salvation in any way? No it doesn’t does it!

    The point of my article is this.

    There are a few types of people out there.

    1) The KJV ONLY – If you don’t read the KJV you will loose your salvation because of it
    2) Those who read the KJV because they can understand it and want to read it.
    3) Those who read the KJV and the NKJV etc for easier reading.

    But understand this.

    There are people out there who read the KJV and know it inside out and back to front and they act like they are christians when they are not.

    So the bible without the Holy Spirit means nothing.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Lourens H

    Did you actually READ my article PROPERLY? Go back and READ IT AGAIN.

    Oh wait, you can’t. I am a woman and I am speaking. Which means you have to cover your ears and eyes and run away.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Jess

    Firstly, does David Cloud hold the KJV over people’s heads and threaten them that they will loose their salvation if they do not read the KJV? That is the type of KJV ONLY PEOPLE I AM SPEAKING ABOUT. Do you understand????

    We just happen to believe a perfect God can have a perfect Word.

    AND I NEVER SAID THAT THE WORD OF GOD IS NOT PERFECT!!! HOW DARE YOU!!!

    Oh and btw, God can preserve His Word in any language! He’s God!!! He can do anything!!! Amen!

    You just agreed with exactly what I said above in my article!! And other language bibles are not the KJV. So what on earth is your point!

  • Elmarie A

    Lourens H

    Second, I would not take teaching from a woman as that violates scripture- 1Tim. 2:10-13. Now there is something to REALLY PONDER for all the males coming to this site…

    Don’t get me wrong I think 99% of what you share here is truly great information but still I have been wondering for a long time what it is that is actually going on here… I hope your husband is teaching you and not the other way around..

    So Lourens H why are you even reading or commenting here when you don’t accept what woman have to say after all it was an woman writing the post. The points you made have been refuted by BL and Grant. There is no point to your comment and you have proven no valid or Biblical point. You have not acted in Love toward anyone especially in your last two paragraphs.

    As Deborah says: “This type of situation usually also arises when the commenter yourself can’t give an argument on the topic at hand using biblical scripture so attacks people personally instead.”

    Louwerens H you should be ashamed of yourself for even having made a comment here. You seem to have had an ulterior motive for commenting I would say launching a personal atack toward some one you don’t even know. You should speak the truth in love and you did not do that. What you said was based on your own opinion and not Biblical at all.

  • Elmarie A

    Jess

    Lourens: Your comments are great! I agree wholeheartedly.

    Did you notice what Lourens H said about woman violating Scripture in his attack of his last two paragraphs?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Elmarie

    You seem to have had an ulterior motive for commenting I would say launching a personal atack toward some one you don’t even know.

    Exactly. Never ceases to amaze me.

  • Elmarie A

    Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Exactly. Never ceases to amaze me.

    For the gate is narrow and constricted. They have no idea how difficult it is to go trough the narrow gate. again a case of man thinking he is above our Lord Jesus.

    Matthew 7:13-14
    Enter through the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and spacious and broad is the way that leads away to destruction, and many are those who are entering through it. 14 But the gate is narrow (contracted by pressure) and the way is straitened and compressed that leads away to life, and few are those who find it.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Funny joke I received in the email. Thanks Donna, boy did I only laugh.

    I was walking across a bridge recently. I spied this fellow who looked like he was ready to jump off. So, I thought I’d try to stall him until the authorities showed up. “Don’t jump!” I said. “Why not?” he said. “Nobody loves me.”
    “God loves you,” I said. “You believe in God, don’t you?”
    “Yes, I believe in God,” he said.
    “Good,” I said. “Are you Christian or Jewish?”
    “Christian,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Protestant or Catholic?”
    “Neither,” he said.
    “What then?” I said.
    “Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Independent Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
    “Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “New Evangelical/Moderate Independent Baptist or Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Lose-Your-Salvation Armenian Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Historical Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or For Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Strict Separation of Church and State Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Anti-Disney Boycott Pro-Choice Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “KJV Only Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Modern Versions Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “MODERN VERSIONS Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist” he said.
    “Auugghh!!! You heretic!” I said. And I pushed him over.

  • Bible Study

    The KJV is the only version that I personally have tried. I know it to be sufficient in order to find the truth about God. The other versions I am not so sure about, for I have not read any of the others but NIV and I don’t believe it to be the inspired word of God.

  • Burning Lamp

    You are correct about the NIV. You should try the NKJV. I have used it for several years now and it is my favorite. The King’s English in the KJV is distracting for me. We don’t talk that way and saying “thee” and “thou” does not make one more spiritual.

  • Matthew P

    Hi!

    Burning Lamp wrote:

    I used to use the NASV but then discovered the NKJV and find it both readable and reliable. I have nothing against the KJV except I find the archaic language and grammar distracting. Also, the use of the word “Easter” is offensive.

    The name “Easter” is never mentioned in the original Scriptures. However, one English translation of the Bible does use the word. The King James Version chose to translate Acts 12:4 like this:

    “And when he [Herod the King] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
    The book of Acts was originally written in the Greek language by the Christian Gentile and physician Luke. The Greek word that the King James Version translates as “Easter” is most certainly not the name “Easter,” it is actually the word “Pascha” (Hebrew: Pesach) which means “Passover”—and this is how all accurate translations show it.

    This really bothered me for a long time too until I came across this: http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=02.htm. It is an interesting account of why “Easter” is not a mistranslation based upon Leviticus 23:5-8 or Numbers 28:16-18.

    I do use the KJV exclusively, while my wife reads from the NKJV. My reason has to do with researching Wescott & Hort like some others have mentioned. It is certainly a heretical teaching that one cannot be saved by another translation or will lose it by reading it. Personally, I think though that after reading something like the Message, with phrases like “God of green hope,” “light-bearers,” or “Self-sacrifice is the way, my way, to saving yourself, your true self.” (Mk 8:35, Emphasis Mine) Or falling under a spell and getting “Lucky!” are other terms that appear. A lot of phrases are “new age” phrases which could possibly lead to one believing a different Jesus.

    Other than this particular “translation,” I will stick to the non-Roman Catholic manuscripts and the combined text of the Textus Receptus.

    God Bless You

  • PASTOR MARK CHINCHEN

    THE KJV IS FOUR HUNDRED YEARS OLD AND I LIKE IT BUT IT IS A LITTLE HEAVY FOR THOSE OF THE FLOCK HOWS MOTHER TONGUE IS NOT ELIZABETHAN ENGLISH

  • JR

    The NKJV removes the word “Lord” 66 times!

    The NKJV removes the word God 51 times!

    The NKJV removes the word “heaven” 50 times!

    In just the New Testament alone the NKJV removes 2.289 words from the KJV!

    The NKJV makes over 100,000 word changes!

    And most will match the NIV, NASV, RSV, or RSV!

    And Thomas Nelson Publishers have the audacity to claim in an ad for the NKJV (Moody Monthly, June 1982, back cover), “NOTHING HAS BEEN CHANGED except to make the original meaning clearer.”

    The New King James is a COUNTERFEIT.

    It’s NOT NEW. The changes are already in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, or RSV!

  • Chris

    If we are to turn to the bible for all our answers, what version (translation) of the bible can i use? There are so many out there that i am feeling lost. the KJV is full of errors, so is the GNB, NIV, MKJV etc etc. Please help

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Chris

    If you can read the KJV, get it. If your battle reading the English, get a NKJV. Another nice STUDY BIBLE is the Amplifed (I like it for studying).

    It is not the bible that maketh the Christian Chris, it is the Holy Spirit. He guides you into ALL TRUTH.

    Even though there are mistakes in the KJV and more in the NKJV it does not matter, as you study you will find them (if ever – to be honest I hardly do). Just get a bible and start reading it and ask Jesus to open your eyes to the TRUTH. Also get a Concordance, or even a Chain reference bible for studying – that helps but big time.

  • Burning Lamp

    Chris, I agree with Debs – I find the archaic language in the KJV to be distracting and it bothers me when they don’t capitalize the pronouns for Deity. I prefer the NKJV as it does capitalize pronouns that refer to the Lord and also it is clear. I have found it to be a good rendering of the KJV. I have seen some accusations made against it that are far-fetched.

    But I definitely stay away from any of the thought-for-thought paraphrases, dynamic equiv. such as NIV and the NLT, etc. And The Message is a mess.

    Debs is right about the study tools and I like to have a trusted commentary on hand by a doctrinally solid expositor. That would not include any living people because they all have made a name for themselves. My personal preference is H.A. Ironside and if you look online you can find his works and they have been a blessing to me. One must be very careful and test the spirits, especially in these perilous times.

  • Chris said –

    “If we are to turn to the bible for all our answers, what version (translation) of the bible can i use? There are so many out there that i am feeling lost. the KJV is full of errors, so is the GNB, NIV, MKJV etc etc. Please help”

    First of all, God said He would preserve His Word and He has. He has to preserve His Word for the final judgement. So to say that His Word hasn’t been preserved makes the Lord a liar.

    Psalm 12:6-7 – “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

    Even though I don’t endorse Chris Pinto because I don’t endorse anyone, I do believe Chris has done an excellent job at presenting the facts concerning the Bible in his 3 hour documentary “A Lamp in the Dark”. You can see how the scriptures have been preserved through the complete & preserved Textus Recptus line of manuscripts.

    Here is a YouTube of that documentary –

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNZ-sOzXWEk

    The other manuscripts Textus Sinaiticus & Textus Vaticanus are not only corrupted by the Gnostics but are also incomplete.

    The importance is OBEDIENCE to The Word Of God. I find people who aren’t obedient even to the corrupted manuscript versions.

    There are differences between the KJ & NKJ. Many (but not all) of the words “repent” and “evil” have been either removed or changed. The Word Of God should offend our sinful flesh and these types of “changes” don’t help us to that end.

    Personally, I want to be obedient to the COMPLETE, UNCORRUPTED, and PRESERVED Word Of God in the effort of doing all I can to show my love for Him.

    I spent 20 years on a NASB, NIV, NKJV until I did the research and saw how vast the differences are. After I did the research, I just couldn’t continue in what I had been using.

    It’s something each person has to realize on their own.

    Obedience is when we receive the Holy Spirit, that’s where “the rubber meets the road” –

    Acts 5:32 – “…the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey Him.”

  • Marion

    Deb…I submitted a comment…never got an “awaiting moderation” note…thought it didn’t go through and sent along several others…all without the “awaiting moderation” note. If you got any…please use the last one I sent (actually, I needed to do some editing..I’m afraid it’s not just quite right.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Marion

    >> thought it didn’t go through and sent along several others…

    I checked the SPAM section and none of your comments are there, so I am not sure what is going on. There is only 1 comment and that is this one.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Chris

    If you can’t speak English properly, (Americans seem to think everyone speaks American) then please don’t bother with the KJV because you wont understand it anyhow. I struggle too and it’s not because I lack the Holy Spirit either.

    There is this thing now-a-days that if you don’t read the KJV you are doomed to go to hell or something. Nonsense. I know of people who read the KJV and are going to hell because they are not saved.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    If anyone has a similar problem with comment not going through they must let me know.

  • Burning Lamp

    I have personally used the NKJV and found it to be a true rendering far above the NIV and other thought-for-thought versions.

    It seems that the major critics of the NKJ are KJV-only types, Gail Riplinger, and Jack Chick. They all have their bias and gravitate toward the sensational. If someone can recommend a reasoned comparison that exposes error, I would welcome it.

    As I stated before, the NKJ shows respect for the Lord and our Savior by capitalizing pronouns related to Deity. I equate this to spelling “God” using a small “g”. This bothers me when I read the KJ. Also, there are documented errors in the KJ, but those who consider the KJ the superior Bible to the NKJ do not address these issues. I don’t like the use of the term “Easter” in the KJ which is pagan. The archaic language is foreign to our conversation and awkward. Calling God “Thee” is not holier.

    I hope that I value the integrity of God’s Holy Word and am against any efforts to water it down or take away from what the Holy Spirit spoke through the Apostles and prophets.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Marion wrote in an email (because she could not comment):

    ———

    (Chris)
    Some thoughts; there are 2 issues I see in relation to Bible matters (there may be more). However when researching this and any other matter, we need to be willing to consider that we may have been deceived; and we all have been, and about many things. This is a good thing to recognize, for then we can receive truth. I am presenting the information and links below that I and others have found helpful, for you to examine, letting the Lord be your guide.

    Issue 1: a. Bible Versions – http://av1611.org/biblecom.html
    b. KJV Bible Dictionary – http://av1611.com/kjbp/kjv-dictionary/kjv-dictionary-index.html
    (as well as many other helpful articles on those 2 sites above)
    c. Bible words removed – comparison chart – http://av1611.org/biblewrd.html

    When Jesus came to earth (the living Word of God), we know that Satan tried to have him destroyed (King Herod being one example). During the persecution of the saints throughout the centuries, their Bibles (the written Word of God) were burned with those burned at the stake. Killing the saints and burning the Word of God did not destroy Christianity, rather, that persecution further spread the Gospel – converting souls – around the world!
    Another of the schemes of the devil is to question and/or CHANGE the word of God; this we know started in the Garden of Eden. When one CHANGES the input, of course, outcomes will be changed – substituting “another Jesus” for the real one via “another gospel”…after all, isn’t that the goal of Satan as revealed by God in His Word?

    “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! For thou has said in thine heart I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.” (Isaiah 14:12-14)

    BTW: The KJV and the NKJV are the only Bibles that identify the “fallen one” as Lucifer!

    When the Word of God is changed into the words of man (moved by an anti-christ spirit) that word is impotent. And the enemy of our souls, the deceiver, is “subtle.”

    “For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing assunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Heb.4:12)

    Now, if “another Jesus” is presented via “another gospel” (words of man – corruptible), and believed on, we now have the making of a “pseudo-Christian”!

    True Christians are “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of the incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.” (1 Peter 1:23)

    Since “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works”. (2 Tim. 3:16-17) It sure explains what’s going on in the churches!

    And WHY does everyone want to change the KJV? To be able to answer you need to read links 1 & c above.

    Issue 2: Who are writing these new translations?
    Recall that Chuck Missler yoked with a New Ager and Jesuits for the writing of his “International Standard Version” in a recent article on this site?

    How about the New King James Version?

    –Thomas Nelson Publisher initiated the New King James Version

    “The meeting of the North American Overview Committee met at Nashville and Chicago in 1975 to assist in preparing guidelines for the NKJV> Members of that committee and the Nashville Convocation of 1984 included the following high profile member of the Religious Roundtable and Council for National Policy: Tim LaHaye, D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, Ben Haden, Mary C. Crowley, W.A. Criswell, E.V. Hill, Henry Morris, Bill Bright and Charles Stanley.” (NKJV Translators link http://www.dtl.org/versions/misc/translators.htm
    —————————————————————————-
    The Council for National Policy is a 500+ member consortium of globalists, cults, secret societies, subversive organizations, corporate enterprise and evangelical ministries. Membership of the CNP is comprised of high profile evangelical leaders who establish “conservative” policies and the evangelical agenda in collaboration with the Knights of Malta, Opus Dei, Freemasons, Moonies, CFR members, Ku Klux Klan officials, former Nazis and Nazi collaborators, neo-Nazis, Roman Catholics and members of the Eugenics societies. The “Family” is also associated with them. For understanding of the globalist character of the organization, refer to the following link which provides in-depth reports. WARNING: Be prepared for more of your “christian” world to fall apart!

    http://www.seekgod.ca/topiccnp.htm

    (use of the above site is not an endorsement – I don’t endorse sites – I did check their info – I suggest you use as a source and double-check for yourself)

    –ALSO in reference to the NKJV see http://av1611.org/nkjv.html

    Read it and weep…things are not as they seem; people are not necessarily who we think they are!
    “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked who can know it?” (Jer. 17:9)

    “He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. I will say of the Lord, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.” (Psalm 91:1-2)

    ——————–

  • Burning Lamp

    Marion quotes KJV-only links.

    Check out these for balance:
    http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

    http://www.watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

    The KJV cannot be used in working with Spanish-speaking people – guess they just shouldn’t read the Bible?

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    >> The KJV cannot be used in working with Spanish-speaking people – guess they just shouldn’t read the Bible?

    And we have 11 official languages here in South Africa – 10 of them have their bibles written in their language and many battle or can’t speak English. I am guessing they are all going to hell now.

    My goodness what about all those people throughout history who didn’t have a bible BEFORE 1611?? They must all be in hell too. And what about all those people who just read the NIV when the NIV was the ONLY bible that was available back in the day over and above the KJV? My goodness they too must all be in hell. Everyone is in hell according to the KJV onlyist.

    Maybe if we all just ignored these KJV only people no one would be in hell except those who are genuinely not saved LOL.

  • Marion

    Hmmm…

    Did anyone EVEN bother to check the links and the comparisons? No? Big mistake!
    Did anyone look into the people who actually “translated” these new versions? No? Big mistake!

    Did above paragraph about the CNP not disturb anyone or cause you to check this out? No? WOW!

    Did anyone know that the CNP was a “secret organization” founded in 1981; unknown until recently, because information about them started leaking out, and now they have a “front” website? Did anyone actually look into what the CNP is, whose involved, where the money comes from and what the agenda is? No? REALLY big problem! (Who they are, what they do, and their agenda is seen in the world around us!) BTW – it’s DOMINIONISM!

    >>On 1-22-12 above Deb said, “Chris If you can read the KJV, get it. If your battle reading the English, get a NKJV.”
    I don’t assume that makes you “KJV Only”.

    I recommended KJV sites for HELPS…that’s a problem??? AND as most reliable translation for English speaking…Chris is able to speak English as evidenced by his comment.

    Did you choose to “see” “King James onlyism” and FAIL TO SEE THE OTHER INFORMATION?…Big mistake!

    To encourage people to just take any of our word for it, and not research for themselves…is a REALLY BIG MISTAKE!
    To dismiss the concerns and contributions of others, without even looking, when God’s desire is that we help one another…is a REALLY BIG MISTAKE!

    WE are all fallible!

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Marion

    Your big mistake is that you mistake that we have not read that info already. Your big mistake is that you push the KJV with a do or die attitude forgetting that the person you are speaking to might not speak english. – You create bondage over people, thinking that if they can’t not read the KJV they are in trouble- Big Mistake! By placing the KJV on such a high pedestal you negate the Holy Spirit and his work in the average believer who has a normal bible in another language.

    I can’t believe you can’t understand that 80% of the world does NOT RESIDE IN THE US oF A.

  • Burning Lamp

    Marion, Debs is right – I have read much info on those who consider the KJ the ONLY reliable Bible translation. The links you gave are just more of the same.

    I offered some balance and I wonder if you checked these out?

    http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

    http://www.watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

    Yes, the information you gave IS troubling, but you don’t offer any alternative to those we mentioned such as Spanish-speaking and other languages. Surely God can use the NKJV and the Reina valera effectively.

    You choose to ignore the issues regarding the accuracy of the King James Bible. Why is that?
    And the inclusion of the Roman Catholic Apocrapha Books. Does THAT not trouble you?

    The use of Easter and failure to give proper respect to the Lord by capitalizing His name? In the KJ that would read “his name” which could be Joe Schmoo. God and our Lord Jesus Christ are holy and their names and all pronouns referring to their names should be capitalized.

    With all due respect and Christian charity, why don’t you address these issues?

  • Marion

    Debs…
    I’m sorry you missed the place where I stated that the KJV was the most reliable translation for English speaking people.

    In my earlier, 1st post above, for example, I quoted Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” When the mouse is placed over the reference, the ESV changes the word “wicked” to “sick”…clearly…not the same…is it?

    I made no mistake in the comment above…I asked questions; one of them being “No?”…it was a question, not a conclusion. The conclusion being, IF the materials were not examined, THEN, that would be a Big mistake. I can’t possibly have any idea as to what materials have been examined by others or not.

    It seems information on the translators of the NKJV was not adequately reviewed – for instance, Bill Bright (an ecumenical/dominionist), was a disciple of the same Henrietta Mears that you have exposed in other articles on your site – related to, for one, Chuck and Nancy Missler. And there is so much more!

    We each have an opinion. Folks need not be swayed by the words of men/women, however well-intentioned. We do a service to our brothers and sisters when we present information and encourage them to do their own research; checking the information for themselves, to read the Word of God, and seek His leading. We are fallible!

    I have presented information. I don’t want to argue.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thanks Marion :)

  • Burning Lamp

    Marion, I have presented information as well – it works both ways.

    There is a difference between a discussion and an argument.

    Grace and Peace.

  • Werner

    If you really want to read and understand the KJV you need a major in English University level. You cannot possibly understand each and every word used in the KJV translation.

    Hence I prefer the NASB, it has proven itself over and over again…, most if not all the words chosen by the translators are better and closer to the original scripts than those used in the KJV.

    Further, do your homework and see who authorized the authorized version; a homosexual.

    Also, the lady who wrote a book a few years ago defending the KJV only mentality, did not hesitate to indicate on the cover that she has a PhD. The reader therefore thinks that she has knowledge in this area, but investigating the issue one finds that her degree is in home economics. (Gail Riplinger )

    She cannot speak nor read Hebrew or Greek, nor has she any formal biblical/theological etc, education – therefore her claims and conclusions are heresy and thumb-sucking.

    Sure there are many bibles like the message which you can throw in the fire, but balance in all things are needed.

    If you really want to argue/debate the KJV issue, you will end up with more questions than answers.

    The only true bible is the written Word of God, i.e. the original manuscripts. Today we have more pieces than 100-200 years ago, the dead sea scrolls where only found recently. So ask yourself, are the KJV closer to the truth than the NASB? From what and from where did the KJV translators get there info? Surely, with all the new findings and advancements today as well as archeological evidence the NASB must be a better translation although not perfect.

    Rather worry about your salvation!

  • Robbie

    Modern bible continue to blaspheme God’s word

    New Bible Versions REMOVE ‘Father’ and ‘Son Of God’ Because It Offends Muslims

    “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.” Revelation 22:19

    A controversy is brewing over three reputable Christian organizations, which are based in North America, whose efforts have ousted the words “Father” and “Son” from new Bibles. Wycliffe Bible Translators, Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) and Frontiers are under fire for “producing Bibles that remove “Father,” “Son” and “Son of God” because these terms are offensive to Muslims.”

    Concerned Christian missionaries, Bible translators, pastors, and national church leaders have come together with a public petition to stop these organizations. They claim a public petition is their last recourse because meetings with these organizations’ leaders, staff resignations over this issue and criticism and appeals from native national Christians concerned about the translations “have failed to persuade these agencies to retain “Father” and “Son” in the text of all their translations.”

    Biblical Missiology, a ministry of Boulder, Colorado-based Horizon International, is sponsoring the petition. The main issues of this controversy surround new Arabic and Turkish translations. Here are three examples native speakers give:

    First, Wycliffe and SIL have produced Stories of the Prophets, an Arabic Bible that uses an Arabic equivalent of “Lord” instead of “Father” and “Messiah” instead of “Son.”

    Second, Frontiers and SIL have produced Meaning of the Gospel of Christ , an Arabic translation which removes “Father” in reference to God and replaces it with “Allah,” and removes or redefines “Son.”

    For example, the verse which Christians use to justify going all over the world to make disciples, thus fulfilling the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) reads, “Cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit” instead of “baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Rev. Bassam Madany, an Arab American who runs Middle East Resources, terms these organization’s efforts as “a western imperialistic attempt that’s inspired by cultural anthropology, and not by biblical theology.”

    RELATED STORY: The 400th Anniversary Of The King James 1611 Bible

    Third, Frontiers and SIL have produced a new Turkish translation of the Gospel of Matthew that uses Turkish equivalents of “guardian” for “Father” and “representative” or “proxy” for “Son.” To Turkish church leader Rev. Fikret Böcek, “This translation is ‘an all-American idea’ with absolutely no respect for the ‘sacredness’ of Scripture, or even of the growing Turkish church.”

    SIL has issued a public response stating “all personnel subscribe to a statement of faith which affirms the Trinity, Christ’s deity, and the inspiration of Scripture.” However, in the same statement, which is similar to Wycliffe’s, it claims “word-for-word translation of these titles would communicate an incorrect meaning (i.e. that God had physical, sexual relationships with Mary) [sic],” thus justifying substituting “Father” and “Son” in new translations. Calls and emails to Wycliffe and SIL to clarify their positions were not returned. Frontiers responded to calls with articles that critics have already dismissed as skirting omissions of “Father” and “Son” in new Bible translations. source – Yahoo News

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thanks Robbie

    Now this is a good article, even the Arabs have their own GOOD translation of the Bible (they no not read the KJV nor do they need to read the KJV) but now even their good translation is under attack.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    If one wants to be a REAL KJV ONLY-ist then I recommend they go back to the KJV 1611 version. The KJV is just not good enough.
    They need to get themselves a copy of the ORIGINAL 1611 and then they can make a idol of that book and pray it transforms them more than an authorized KJV would.

    In the KJV 1611 they make space in the beginning of the bible to venerate Mary and the Saints and they have a section for prayers mapped out like clock work to the rising and setting of the SUN – Mithra worship no less.

    I have a KJV 1611 and it’s so handy, I use it to check up translations from my KJV, NKJV and Amplified. And I use it sometimes because it takes me about an hour to read just one passage lol. But I really do think that these KJV only people need to go back to the 1611 verse if they really want the best of the best.

    But you know who I use all the time, every minute of the day? The Holy Spirit because only HE CAN LEAD YOU INTO ALL TRUTH

    ************************** the KJV is just a book if you don’t have the Holy Spirit **************************

  • Robbie

    “the KJV is just a book if you don’t have the Holy Spirit”
    How can anyone argue that.

    I have a 1611 WITH pictures :-))

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Robbie

    You got pictures? You better be careful, KJV Onlyists are known to kill those who have bibles with pictures – it’s evil.

  • Robbie

    Hold your fire! it is actually photos. (Rosetta stone, sphinxes, modern photos of places in the bible etc.
    I am reading/comparing 20 translations on E-sword!

  • EEZ

    When it all boils down to it though most Bible translations (even the NIV which I utilize) preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. In all the years I’ve owned this Bible I can truly say that I have not yet found these allegedly corrupt sources. All I have gleaned from that Bible is the Knowledge of God, His will for my life and His testimony form Genesis to Revelation.

    Moving back to the KJV ONLY thing though I believe such doctrine is not of God because trust me a lot of people have died and gone to Heaven without reading the King James Version. The translation you have does not matter but how you receive and apply the Scripture in your daily life does. take Luke 6:46-49

    “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built.But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete.”

  • edward

    Odd no one mentioned the fact that someone went to a lot of trouble to create the Strong’s Concordance, PRECISELY to help readers with the archaic words. You can even find websites that will do it for you. ( http://www.apostolic-churches.net/bible/strongs.html ).That objection has been addressed.

    Second, Nice that someone listed all the ‘errors’ in the KJV. Irony being that since we KNOW where they are apparently, we can work around them. Again, that work has been done already. You know where the problems are, just work around it. If not, how is it better to change the whole thing?

    Third, for all the defense of modern versions, it’s interesting the fruit: confusion, arguing, no two Christians holding the same doctrine on many issues, etc etc. I would think the fact it’s created such confusion and disharmony would be the alarm that would go off on that issue, without recycling the same arguments over and over.

    Yes, the Holy Spirit gives understanding, but you gotta give Him something to work with. He gave us His words for that reason. You can;t read a manual for Ford and figure out how to fix a Kia. You need a FORD manual to fix a Ford. Likewise you need pure words for the Spirit to speak. Either His words are pure or they are not, is the question. If they are, then He kept them preserved, cuz He said He would. If they are not, then it don’t matter what version you use, you are getting error. Thus the only way to determine ‘truth’ is by majority opinion. How dat working out here?

    If you can read Shakespeare, you an read the KJV. Same language, and if anything Shakespeare is more difficult. Yet show me a college grad who has not read him. No one complains. But apply to the Bible, and listen to the screaming.

    I’ll just say each man his own conscience. Plenty of info out there to make an informed decision. The main reason people reject it has nothing to do with scholarship, but with OPINION. THEY do not like it for (insert reason here). Every anti-KJV argument comes down to that, no matter how clever the wording. No, you won’t be ‘doomed’ for not reading it. Can’t happen. But you will definitely miss subtle meanings in the words. Some of those Hebrew/Greek words have multiple contexts and layers of meaning. God loves double entendres. I’ve seen it a million times, just using the Strong’s to look up the words. That’s what it’s for. Take a little DIGGING, which is what God wants you to do. He said SEARCH the scriptures, not just read it.

    If all these version worked, we’d not be in an age of deception, would we? Test the fruits. Not saying this would not happen with the KJV, cuz it already was even when it was the only one. But at the least there was consistent standard to expose error. Now error is whatever the reader decides it is. What if the reader is wrong? How can you test it? And here we are, aren’t we?

    PS: Deborah: I like your articles. Not 100 percent agreement, but when I agree it’s 100 percent.

  • edward

    It comes down to what teacher/preacher/pastor you want to follow, if you think about it. Invariably someone mentions a certain personality whose research and ‘scholarship’ they like, on this issue. So now we’re just trading the reader’s opinion for the pastor/author’s. Well, what if HE is wrong? Soon or late it’s just going to land on some man’s name whom someone decided they “liked”. The question is not answered, merely “referred”. The cycle continues.

    If you are truly listening to the Spirit, He will answer this issue for you. Merely comes down to if *you* like the answer. If not, where’s He supposed to go? That’s the answer. He won’t change His mind.

    He’s not gonna glorify these men. He only glorifies Jesus Christ. He’s never gonna say ‘follow this man’. That’s how you know it’s not Him. That’s discernment.

    John 15:26
    But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, **he shall testify of me**:

  • Redeemed

    Edward, did you read Deborah’s comments about the 1611 KJV? Is that the one you use or a later version? Have you ever looked at the NKJV?

  • Carm

    Edward, I agree with you on the KJV. And I agree that lovers of the Word should just do a bit more homework, and dig a bit deeper into the meaning of passages if they don’t understand the words…

    Unfortunately, where the KJV-only camp lost me was in the delivery (of their message): saying 1611 KJV is the only preserved Word of God and those who don’t read it are apostate. I own 4 copies of the KJV (one being a special-edition reprint of the original 1611 edition, yay!), and a Strong’s Concordance… but I also own a NIV and NKJV, and I appreciate having these when I write letters to persecuted christians who are imprisoned in 3rd world countries for their faith. The majority of these prisoners don’t even understand English, the lucky ones will get someone to translate the letter for them – and even then English might be the translator’s second or third language… there is no way that I’m going to quote scripture from the KJV: “walketh”, “runneth”, “unicorn”, etc. To do so would be just plain mean.

    So that left a bad taste in my mouth, because although I will always prefer KJV for personal study I can see certain situations where these other translations do the job… dare I say it… better. If the KJV-only camp was just a bit more gracious, like you have been in your comments, then they would have a much larger audience.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    People just don’t read properly do they.

    There are many many people who have this idea in their noggin that if you are not reading the KJV you missing some important message and will end up not saved and in hell and this is what this article is all about.

    There are people that accuse me of not being saved because they believe I do not read the KJV (and these people’s comments I delete because there are so many of them they are like flies hovering around rotting food).

    Now I read the KJV 1611 and the KJV and NKJV and AMP and NLT (to see what it says sometimes) all side by side. And the funniest thing is I have rarely come across these GROSS errors that are being told about.

    This argument is laughable about one having to read the KJV is sickening because I am sorry it borderlines racisism when it comes to people who can’t speak English (and there are hundreds of millions of people) and have to do with their TRANSLATION that is not KJV – they rely on the Holy Spirit, unlike those who make an idol of their KJV book and think that reading it will get them into heaven.

    By the grace of God go I that I can read English and have a choice of certain bibles if need be, others don’t have that choice.

    Shame on very one who comments on this article and thinks their KJV bible is soooo special.

  • Hanelie

    I recently came across a nice article which compared different Afrikaans (mostly) translations. It lists three “types” of translation

    1. Ideolectic(?) – as true to every as possible, but with the risk of lose some of the rhyme, poetry and idiom in the original (e.e. 1953 translation in Afr)
    2. Dynamically equivalent – this tries to bring across the original idea with the use of compact descriptions; it will also sometimes try to keep rhyme or idiom. This method involves more interpretation though (e.g. 1983 translation in Afr and the ISV)
    3. Paraphrasing (Die Boodskap in Afr) – a loose translation that does not try to bring across every word but rather the essence (as interpreted by the translator); the use of modern day language and idiom could lead to discontinuity in terms of time and place.

    This really helped me. So, finding this really helped me, because I have also bene told only to read teh 1953/33 which can be tough to understand. We bought a Bible with both Afr translations and the NIV side by side and started reading that. One interesting difference I have found so far is how “ekklesia” is translated in 1953/33 and 1983. In 1983 it is translated to “kerk” (church), a word that never appears in 1953, which uses “gemeente” instead.

    We used the 24/7 Bible for a while as well. It as the 1983 translation, but with (in text) blocks/bits about movies and all sorts of things which are meant to make the message more practical (I guess). We threw it away when we found references to Spiderman in it. Thinking about it now – why the need to add to the Bible?

  • Hanelie

    Oh, and I had meant to say: Thank you for this article. Wish I had read it earlier.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Thanks for that comment Hanelie!

  • Hanelie

    I’ve been doing a bit of a study of the use of the word “church” in the Bible, as mentioned above, comparing two Afr translations and the much older KJV (because that one has Strongs numbers). I found it interesting that the word “ekklesia” (the called our assembly, derived from the words “ek” meaning “out” and “kaleo” meaning “to call”, as far as I can gather, but please correct me if this is not so) appears 112 times in the NT. Only three times has it not been translated to “church” – Acts 19:32, 39 and 41.

    I have also, separately been reading a short article about the origin of the word “church” in which the author claims that it is really of pagan origin:

    here were pagans using the word “church” long before Christians ever began using it. The word church goes back to the Greek kuriakê oikia, which means “the house belong to the lord” or “the Lord’s house”. kuriakon (koo-ree-ak-on’) means “belonging to the Lord” and oikos (oy’- kos) meaning “house.” So if the pagans used kuriakê oikia refering to a building belonging to the Lord, what lord were they referring to? The “Lord’s house (kuriakê oikia) was used in the 4th century and clearly was not referring to the Lord Jesus, but rather to the Lord Mithra the “sun-god”; the son god was a famous god among the pagans but with many different names. It was Constantine, who worshipped Mithra as his god and he converted the Mithra god into the Christian house or church. He was the one that transformed the called out assembly into a church recognized by a building and he then set his clergy in charge of the house…as we still see today with our pastors etc.. It all worked out quite nicely for him because he now had both the church and the state under his control.

    He argues that Tyndale in his translation only used “church” twice, both times denoting a pagan building connected to idol-worship, in Acts 14:13 and 19:37

    Clearly Tyndale understood that the word church represented a pagan house of worship and translated it as thus. He lived much closer to the understanding of the word church than we. His translation was not something that the clergy-driven churches wanted to be known to the many ignorant people of that day who didn’t have bibles in English. That excuse of the availability of the scriptures need not go on today; we have bible programs that go directly to the Greek. Biblesoft has an excellent program that we can switch from the English to the Greek, there may be others but I don’t know of them, but my point is made.

    And, then I came across this, not too sure what to make of it, about the KJV, which speaks my my question about the prominence of the word “church” in the KJV (while it is absent from, for example, early Afrikaans translations):

    When the King James Bible was published in 1611, it was flawed before it got started. Archbishop Bancroft, the head of the Anglican Church, set fourteen rules of translation to maintain the doctrine and practices of the Anglican church of England. King James made himself “head” of the Church of England, and he required a translation which would facilitate his control over the church and the people. James understood “no building, no bishop, no king.”

    Arch Bishop Bancroft and Erasmus were the architects of the King James Version translation; they were far from being committed saints. The translators were obligated to fit the translation with the Anglican agenda and beliefs without any conflict between church and state. Their interest was not in the kingdom of God, but an institutional system with its paid clergy.

    Bancroft’s third rule required “the old ecclesiastical words to be kept, such as ‘church’ instead of ‘congregation.’” He also wanted the old offices of bishop, deacon, pastor to relate to their “most commonly used by the most eminent fathers” (rule four). The King James translation maintained the “office of” in their translation, unsupported in scripture in order to support the Church of England, so we find words added into the text like “office of” a bishop or a deacon. They also purposely translated many words differently to agree with the Anglican Church. If you look in your bible, you will find “office of” in italics, in the KJV… italics meaning it is not a part of the original Greek text.

    Sigh. I don’t know how credible this source and information is, but I cannot but agree with the following:

    Truth is mounting each day for those seeking truth. When we realize that the word “church” was Satan’s highest achievement in tearing apart the kingdom of God into thousands of fragments and leaving the body of Christ as a useless lethargic audience exalting its pastors; then we can see how important the word church was to Satan’s harlot. Every time we use the word “church”, we are using something that God hates, something added by Satan into the mix of God’s word. “Church”, if we are willing to be honest is Satan’s word and not God’s word. The church has destroyed body ministry for the sake of the clergy; it has given it a name to mixed in with the name of Jesus, it has built walls, created disputes, competitions and heresies of the highest order. By all definitions the church is the Harlot and one day there will be a mass exit… it is already starting to happen. I have received thousands of emails telling me that when they go to church that something is wrong… well there is, it is all wrong from its very foundation placed in many translations. There are a few translation that don’t use church.

    This author opens the article with

    Language and its use of words is vital, it is the fundamental means in which we use to conveying and pass information from one person to another. The changing of one word can literally change the world. Therefore, translators are given an extreme responsibility in making sure they get it right, especially key words. When Jesus said, “Upon this rock I will build my ekklesia.” (Mat 16:18) The Greek word there is ekklesia and is pronounced ek-klay-see-ah. The translators purposely and knowingly used a word identifying a building to support a clergy rather than a word that would build us together as the body of Christ in unity establishing the kingdom of God in every city. Jesus did not and would not have said, “upon the rock I will build my church.” The word “church” represents the complete opposite of building His kingdom on this earth as it is in heaven. Jesus would rather have said, “Upon this rock I will build my called out assembly”….a people called out of this world by faith in Him, assembling and gathering in one name and for one purpose all being one.

    Our word “Church” is one of those words that has impacted the world and has subverted the whole purpose for which it was intended. Because the translators used the word “church,” meaning a building, instead of a more accurate word reflecting a functioning body, it has affected our whole approach to the meaning of the body of Christ. We have been given a word from the translators that has nothing to do with the original Greek word ekklesia. There is not a single Greek word to back up the word church. So why is it there?

    The early assembly of believers did not have a clergy distinct from the rest of the body. Clergy with titles and authority was foreign to the early disciples. It was the rise of this authoritarian clergy that needed a building to control the people both religiously and politically and to gather the people around the clergy. The Catholic Church and the Church of England both used the word “church” and its meaning as a building to hold the people in subjection to their control. Without a building the clergy would have lost their power over the people. Even today, without a building the clergy system would fall. This system of clergy/laity and the use of a building is what we have come to know as the “institutional” church system. This system was totally foreign to the vocabulary and the life of the disciples of Jesus, who built and depended on the move of the Holy Spirit through all the saints being built together. Therefore the retaining of the word “church” in our translations of the bible became crucial for the survival of the institutional church system even to this day.

    But, it is really this last quote which seem to echo where I am at the moment:

    Putting a name on our buildings, dividing our cities into hundreds and thousands of churches and where we have a pastor doing all the ministering (clergy/laity) eliminating body ministry and fellowship in the gatherings…that of itself has been the greatest insult to the Holy name of Jesus, His commands and the establishment of His kingdom. This system cannot be restored because it never was founded on the words of Jesus. God is not going to restore the harlot. You tell me these are strong words, well; we are dealing with the eternal souls of individuals. Paul and Jesus both used stronger words than I.

  • Martin Horan

    [Edited: Comment moved from here: Louie Giglio – A Baptist with an Emerging Agenda]

    As usual, Deborah, you stick to the point and won’t be sidetracked. Good for you.
    I happen to like the King James Version best. I love the English because I happen to like Jacobean English. However, we should let the Bible teach us and not read into it things that aren’t there.
    Hell, for example, in Jacobean English, merely meant the Grave, and does so in both testaments, except when it is from (in the NT) Gehenna and another time from the Greek Tartaros. Also, “hardened” in Jacobean English–as in the Lord “hardened Pharoah’s heart”–does not quite mean the same as it does in modern English. “Strengthened” is the equivalent in today’s English. So the Lord actually strenthened Pharaoh’s heart–to go the way he actually wanted to go. A bit similar to the great delusion God is going to send to to this earth when people have decided the route they plan to go.
    Let us remember that the first Christians did not have the whole Bible, let alone a KJV, as English did not exist as a language then; it’s origins being High German. Most people who read English today–including us here in Britain–wouldn’t understand a world of Anglo-Saxon (Old English). When the early Christians received the epistles, they would only have had the epistle sent to them and bits of the Gospels they got from their teachers. Jewish Christians, to whom the Book of Hebrews was addressed, would have been among the few who knew the Old Testament. We are answerable to God for what we know, not for things we couldn’t know.
    I think that the KJV may well be the best English translation. But God’s Spirit will lead us with what we have access to.
    It is good to be concerned for sound doctrine as there is so much flaky beliefs floating around in the churches. But if we are truly submitted to the will of God, we don’t have to worry.
    We are told: “Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor the Church of God” [1 Cor 10:32]. It seems to me in things I have read, here and elsewhere, by KJ Only opponents, is that they do not heed that Scripture–even if it is from the KJV.

  • Andy

    Martin, hell is not “the grave”. Examine Psalm 9:17, if the wicked just go to “the grave”, then where do the righteous go? The lake of fire is eternal torment, the Scriptures make that evident. And the KJV is 100% accurate. I wouldn’t say that the KJV is the only version that can lead a person to salvation obviously.

  • Frans

    Burning Lamp “Easter is offensive” EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is the word
    “pascha”. This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered “Passover” in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.
    The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this
    translation of “pascha”.
    Coming to the word “Easter” in God’s Authorized Bible, they seize upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong. Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced “Easter”). This festival has always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original form, a celebration of the earth “regenerating” itself after the winter season.
    The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the same symbol as “Playboy” magazine), and the egg. Both are known for their reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the female deity. She is known in the Bible as the “queen of heaven” (Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). She is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14) who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any association with Jesus Christ.
    Problem: Even though the Jewish passover was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the
    pagan festival Easter was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was
    referring to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring to the
    passover, the translation of “pascha” as “Easter” is incorrect. If he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter,then the King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.To unravel the confusion concerning “Easter” in verse 4, we must consult our FINAL authority THE BIBLE. The key which unlocks the puzzle is found not in verse 4, but in verse 3. (Then were the days of unleavened bread… “) To secure the answer that we seek, we must find the relationship of the passover to the days of unleavened bread. We must keep in mind that Pete was arrested during the “days of unleavened bread” (Acts 12:3).
    Our investigation will need to start at the first Passover. This was the night in which the LORD smote all the firstborn in Egypt. The Israelites were instructed to kill a lamb and strike its blood on the two side posts and the upper door post (Exodus 12:4, 5). Let us now see what the Bibl says concerning the first passover, and the days of unleavened bread.
    Exodus 12:13-18: “And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: an when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you,when I smite the land of Egypt.
    14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
    15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven oof your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day,that soul shall be cut off from Israel.16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. 18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavene bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.”
    Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would
    “pass over” all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
    After the passover (Exodus 12:13, 14), we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
    In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st. This
    religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18:
    “And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
    17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten. 18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein
    In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the “days of unleavened bread.”
    Deuteronomy 16:1-8: “Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the passover unto the
    LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night. 2: Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LD thy God, ORof the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to place his name there 3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou eat unleavened bread
    therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste:that thou mayest remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all the days of thy life.4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the morning.
    5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates, which the LORD thy God
    giveth thee: 6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
    7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy tents.8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the seventh day shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work therein.”
    Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on the first night
    (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the passover was to be celebrated in the evening
    (vs.6) not at sunrise (Ezekiel 8:13-16).
    In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year.
    II Chronicles 8:13: “Even after a certain rate every day, offering according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of
    tabernacles.”
    Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II
    Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were
    allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.
    II Chronicles 30:l5,21: “Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD.”
    Ezra 6:19,22: “And the children of the captivity kept the passover upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of Israel.”
    We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:
    On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th
    is ever referred to as the passover.
    On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the
    feast of unleavened bread.
    It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the
    reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row.
    Now let us look at Acts 12:3, 4:
    “And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
    Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-21). The
    Bible says: “Then were the days of unleavened bread.” The passover (April 14th) had already
    come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his
    statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of
    Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the
    “queen of heaven”. He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some
    might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.
    First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated Judaism. The Jews would
    have no reason to be upset by Herod’s actions.
    Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover
    (Matthew 26:17-19, 47). They were also excited about Herod’s murder of James. Anyone knows that a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious festivities, not after.
    In further considering Herod’s position as a Roman, we must remember that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
    It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of
    unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st
    of April. Shortly after that would come Herod’s celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod’s opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews “have all the fun.” He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
    Thus we see that it was God’s providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate “pascha” as “Easter”. It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to “passover” would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear.

  • Frans

    The NIV and NASB are the same Bibles as the Jehovah Witnesses’ NWT
    Id like to ask all of the readers who use the NIV as their final
    authority if they consider the Rusellites, better known as the Jehovah’s witnesses,
    a cult, or do you call them your brothers? The reason why I’m asking this question
    is because I’d like to show the NIV reader who believes JW’s are deceived just what
    he is up against if he tries to preach to them using the NIV. Id also like to show
    why it is that so many people are calling these deniers of the truth about Jesus
    ‘brothers in Christ.’ I shall be able to show both of these points at the same time,
    for I will prove that there is very little difference between the NIV and the
    Jehovah Witness’ bible. When a JW says ‘the bible’ he means The New World
    Translation. According to the 1984 Edition of the New World Translation, in the
    forward by the New World Bible Translation Committee, June 1, 1984, it describes
    all of the revisions that they’ve made over the years. This committee reveals itself
    to us clearly, when it states, and I quote
    “In 1969 the Committee released ‘The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek
    Scriptures, which presented under the Greek text revised by Westcott And Hort
    (1984 reprint) a literal word for word translation into English”
    Now we have here the open admission that the New World Bible Translation
    Committee used these corrupt texts penned by these two corrupt and unfaithful
    men. Note also that they say ‘a translation of THE Greek Scriptures’ as if there
    were only one set of Greek texts. They certainly wouldn’t mention the Textus
    Receptus to these poor followers of Russell and Rutherford. For if they knew there
    was another word out there that contradicted their own, they would KNOW BELIEVE and UNDERSTAND as it says in Isaiah 43:10 that Jesus most assuredly DID
    say WHO HE WAS. John 8:58 says “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto
    you, Before Abraham was, I am. ”
    The Rusellites have distorted these beautiful and simple words of our Lord into
    “Jesus said to them: Most truly I say to you, before Abraham came into existence, I
    HAVE BEEN.”
    People, I hope you heard that. I HAVE BEEN? My GOD is not a HAVE BEEN! When
    Moses was on the mount before God, and asked Him what to tell the people when
    they asked who God was, Did God say ‘I HAVE BEEN THAT I HAVE BEEN?’ NO!!! Did
    he tell Moses to tell them “I HAVE BEEN HATH SENT THEE’? NO!! The word of God in
    Exodus 3:14 says And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt
    thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. And by the way,
    do you think “before Abraham came into existence” is easier to understand than
    “before Abraham was”?
    Anyway, if the I AM in Hebrews 8;58 is changed, the reference to exodus 3:14 is
    LOST, and anyone reading it that way will not know that Jesus is the I AM in John
    8:58 and the SAME I AM that spoke to Moses from the burning bush.
    People listen carefully and hear what the New World Translation gives to the
    people in their version of exodus 3:14! “At this God said to Moses; “I SHALL PROVE
    TO BE WHAT I SHALL PROVE TO BE”! And he added “this is what you are to say to
    the sons of Israel, ‘I SHALL PROVE TO BE has sent me to you.'”
    Oh my!! Isaiah 8:20 of the King James bible is the first verse that comes to mind,
    for it says “To the Law and to the testimony, if they speak not according to this
    word, it is because there is no light in them.” The lights are out for sure on this
    one, people!
    Another thing about the new world translation I’d like to point out to you is that it
    contradicts itself concerning their Jehovah and their Jesus. In Deuteronomy 32:39
    of the NWT, it says “see that now I – I am he, And there are no gods together with
    me. …” But in John 1:1 of the NWT, it says, “In the beginning the Word was, and
    the Word was with God and the Word was a god.” Hear the contradiction? are there
    no gods together with him, or is there a god with him?
    Now, NIV reader, or NASB reader, or even Catholic New American Bible readers,
    this question is for you…what if you were faced with the situation of having to
    PROVE to any Jehovah’s Witness that Jesus Christ is truly God? Lets find out. If you
    were to quote the following verses to a JW, by the time it was all over you might
    be asking yourself if YOU aren’t a JW and just didn’t know it!
    In the NWT of Luke 2:33 we read this: “And ITS FATHER and mother continued
    wondering at the things being spoken about IT.” In the NIV of Luke 2:33, we read
    the following: “The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about
    him.”
    And finally, let us hear the word of God, Luke 2:33 “And JOSEPH and his mother
    marveled at those things which were spoken of him.” (KJV)
    Wow folks did you hear that? The NIV and the NWT BOTH say ‘father’ instead of
    JOSEPH. Is Joseph Jesus’ father? NO!! If he were, Jesus would not be the only
    BEGOTTEN Son of God. The NWT makes it even worse by calling HIM, Jesus, and
    “IT”. (IT?? Is this for the benefit of those freaks out there who think Jesus is an
    extra-terrestrial?) Speaking of Begotten, lets look at John 1:18 for a moment.
    The NWT of John 1:18 reads: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten
    god which is in the bosom [position] with the father is the one that has explained
    him.”
    Let me point out that the ‘only begotten god’ is with a small ‘g’, which helps out
    the Rusellite position that Jesus is just a ‘little god’.
    Now lets look at the NASB: “No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten
    God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained [Him.]”
    Look at that! The NASB has a begotten God too. Granted, this ‘god’ gets a capital
    ‘G’, but unless I forgot how to count, I see TWO GODS here!!
    The NIV changes this ever so slightly, so as to give the illusion it is not in
    agreement with these. “No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, [5]
    [6] who is at the Father’s side, has made him known.” See? only God the one and
    only has seen God. Looks like two gods in the NIV too.

    Finally people, let us hear the word of God, John 1:18: “No man hath seen God at
    any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath
    declared him.”
    Amen!
    Lets now compare 1Timothy 3:16
    The NWT says “Indeed the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great.
    HE was made manifest in the flesh…” The NIV says “Beyond all question, the
    mystery of godliness is great: HE [6] appeared in a body…”
    HE? HE WHO?? Did you know that in the doctrines of the New Age movement, they
    say that ‘Christ’ really means ‘Christ Consciousness’ and that this is something any
    person can achieve for themselves? They further state that several people
    managed to have the “Christ consciousness’, including Buddha, Confucius, Jesus,
    and Mohammed. So, for the New Ager, the either of the two modern versions
    quoted here would be suitable for them, because neither of them make the
    designation of who HE is…HE could be ANYBODY!! The NIV even further magnifies
    this new age belief by stating that this undesignated “HE” just APPEARED in a Body!
    The JW has no problem denying Jesus is God here because there is no designation
    for HE in the NWT either. Finally, The KJB says “Without Controversy great is the
    mystery of godliness…GOD was manifest in the flesh…”
    Every one of these new versions says “HE” instead of GOD. Is there any doubt about
    WHO was manifest in the flesh, when one is reading the King James Bible? JESUS
    was the flesh of God…GOD was manifest in the flesh, not some unnamable “HE”
    (which the New Agers call the “unknown and unknowable”) and certainly not
    Buddha or Krishna or Confucius like the New Age would have us believe! There are
    hundreds of other verses where ‘Jesus’ or ‘Lord’ or ‘Christ’ or ‘God’ has been replaced
    with ‘HE’, including Acts 4:24, and Mark 13:6. And, people, don’t go looking in the
    new versions for the Godhead, because he’s NOT THERE!!
    There are three references to the word ‘Godhead’ in scripture. Acts 17:29, Col 2:9,
    and Rom.1:20 The NWT and NIV are IDENTICAL in their changing of the word
    Godhead into DIVINE BEING. Let me point out that its no surprise that the
    Rutherford version changes this, as they are deniers of Jesus anyway. But why does
    the NIV read identically? Why? because people they used the SAME CORRUPT
    TEXTS!! The same spirit that questioned and changed God’s word clear back in the
    garden is in these modern versions. The same spirit of antichrist, that denieth the
    Father and the Son, dwells in these perverted “bibles”!!
    Lets move on now to Ephesians 3:9. There is a key piece of information REMOVED
    from this verse in the new versions.
    The NWT of Eph 3:9 reads:” And should make men see how the sacred secret is
    administered which has from the indefinite past been hidden in God who created
    all things.”
    The NIV reads: Ephesians 3:9 “and to make plain to everyone the administration of
    this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.”
    The NASB and the Catholic NAB are also missing the same key piece of
    information. What information is that? Lets see what the word of God tells us:

    The KJB says: Eph 3:9 “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the
    mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, WHO
    CREATED ALL THINGS BY JESUS CHRIST.”
    There it is people. ‘By Jesus Christ’ is the information missing from the new
    versions. We know from the true word of God, that Christ made all things, and
    NOTHING was made without him. (John 1:3, KJB)
    Another place where the new versions agree with each other, including the NWT,
    and disagree with the King James Bible is in Philippians 2:6:
    The NWT says “who, although he was existing in God’s form, he gave no
    consideration with seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.” NIV says “Who
    being in very nature god, did not consider equality with God something to be
    grasped.”
    Now lets look at these two carefully. They appear to be different, but they are
    both making the same statement. The NWT says “gave no consideration…that he
    should be equal to God”…and the NIV says “did not consider equality…something
    to be grasped.” Both of these version say he did NOT consider himself equal with
    GOD or even able to ‘grasp’ or ‘seize’ such a notion. But listen to the Word of God,
    people, for it again leaves no doubt about who Jesus said he was.
    The King James says, Philippians 2:6 “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not
    robbery to be equal with God:”
    Jesus did NOT consider it ROBBERY TO BE EQUAL. Its not that he DID NOT
    CONSIDER being equal with God…but considered it NOT ROBBERY to BE EQUAL
    with God. So it boils down to, to be, or not to be…that IS the question! And the
    King James Bible has THE ANSWER!!
    So the new version reader who believes the Jehovah’s witness is deceived, by now
    must be able to see that these are in agreement with each other. A clever JW, and
    they are clever, could use this agreement between bibles as an opportunity to
    sway someone to Kingdom hall. All he would have to do is say, See? we believe the
    same thing. Our bibles tell us so!
    Finally dear readers, let’s look at one more verse. This verse is from the glorious
    book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ. Hear how the new versions, including the
    NWT butcher this one:
    The NWT says in Revelation 1:11 “saying, What you see write in a scroll and send it
    to the seven congregations…”
    The NIV says “which said, “write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven
    churches.”
    The NASB says “saying, Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven
    churches.”
    But the KJB says ” Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What
    thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches…”
    Now, because the Jehovah’s witnesses openly and publicly deny Jesus Christ is God,
    its not a big mystery why they would wrench ‘Alpha and Omega’ from the scriptures. What about the others? What purpose would they have to hide the fact
    that Jesus Christ is God? Perhaps it was because the men behind the Greek texts
    ALSO publicly denied Jesus Christ is God. The translators of the NIV were
    sodomites, heretics, and obviously staunch ecumenists. This ecumenism has swept
    the world. How? The modern perversions! So, NIV, NASB and other modern version
    readers, the next time a JW comes knocking on your door, will you have any other
    choice but to slam the door in their faces? Did you know that ALL of the verses
    that are completely OMITTED and wiped out from the NWT are ALSO completely
    wiped out from the NIV? Verses like Matt 18:11, Luke 17:36, Romans 16:24, 1John
    5:7, and many many others? You couldn’t preach to them the true doctrines of
    Christ and try to win them to the truth! The bibles you and they use are from the
    SAME Greek texts created by the SAME men who say the SAME things against our
    Lord, our God, Jesus Christ. I sincerely hope you will take up a study between the
    New world translation and the other modern versions. Add it to your list of bibles
    in agreement with you and against the King James Bible. If you say the JW’s are
    deceived, maybe even a cult, you are correct. But you will never be able to prove
    it using the modern bibles.
    many translations are good translations but of a bad text,just as you could make good translation of a playboy it’s a bad text. stay away from Westcott And Hort texts. Many good bible’s in other Languages. So there are King James Readers That have a concern about the new versions. We don’t condemn but lovingly warn.
    God bless you all.

  • John Chingford

    Dear Fran

    I have not had time to read everything you wrote. I stopped when you suggested that there is no difference between the NIV and the NWT. There is ACTUALLY a world of difference between the two!!! Although I do not strongly recommend the NIV as much as I do the KJV, NASB and the NKJV (especially not recent NIV versions since 1984) the NIV is far far superior to the false NWT cult version. As a starter just compare John 1:1. All the main translations say the same thing:

    “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” showing that Jesus IS God. Look at the NWT “and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god” Notice the “a” and the “g” relegating Jesus to a small god and a separate entity from GOD.

    We do not need to go further than that. This is CLEAR BLASPHEMY and adding/taking away from the Word of God.

  • Frans

    @ John Chingford:
    Hi John
    kjv Dan 3:25 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.
    niv Dan 3:25
    He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a
    son of the gods.”
    nasb Dan 3:25 He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the
    fourth is like a son of the gods!”

    Luke 2:33
    KJV: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
    NIV: The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
    NWT: And its father and mother continued wondering at the things being spoken about it.
    NAB: The child’s father and mother were marveling at what was being said about him.

    Luke 4:4
    KJV: And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.
    NIV: Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.'”
    NWT: But Jesus replied to him: “It is written, ‘Man must not live by bread alone.'”
    NAB: Jesus answered him, “Scripture has it, ‘Not on bread alone shall man live.'”

    Matthew 27:35
    KJV: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
    NIV: When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
    NWT: When they had impaled him they distributed his outer garments by casting lots.
    NAB: When they had crucified him, they divided his clothes among them casting lots.
    many many more they all chop and change as it pleases them.
    eg
    Hebrews 11:11

    New International Version 1984 (NIV1984)
    11 By faith Abraham, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to become a father because he[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise.
    Hebrews 11:11 (New International Version)

    New International Version (NIV)
    11 And by faith even Sarah, who was past childbearing age, was enabled to bear children because she[a] considered him faithful who had made the promise.
    The Word of is a sharp two edge sword not a comic book
    Anyway have a blessed New year and may God’s love and grace shine brightly upon you.
    Amen

  • Sharon

    The KJVB is written on a USA 7th grade level. So it is not heavy reading. I find that if you know the Author of a book, it perhaps makes the book one is reading more vivid; so true with the KJVB. Lest one thing I am a KJVB Only believer, I am not. While I use, read, teach and speak using the KJVB, I do own other versions. But the NIV for instance leaves out the Deity of Christ at least 17 times. When looking over other versions I first turn to John 3:16 a beloved verse I learned as a child. The KJVB says “only begotten son, as does the NKJV. Many of the other versions say gave his one and only son. That is false and denies the Deity of Christ. God has many sons and daughters and I am one of His daughters. But Jesus is the only begotten of the Father. I will say that on May 2011 the KJVB was 400 years old. I doubt any of the newer versions will last that long. (JMHO) I suppose the KJVB is the most hated and most loved of the versions. I’m sure satan hates it as does the Roman Whore System. But untold millions have loved it for the light of the truth that it is. Now I agree that you cannot translate the KJV into languages of the majority of the languages of the world. But I personally believe that God moved upon the heart of a King, one King James who commissioned a new version of scripture because he detested the side notes of the Geneva Bible. It is said of King James that he may or may not have been bi-sexual. He was married and had children, but English history bears witness that he had male lovers. But if God could turn the hearts of wicked Kings in the Old Testament, he surely could move upon the heart of King James. God has gotten glory out of far more wicked Kings than James. Perhaps God desired this version of his word for the purpose that a country would be birthed some 165 years later called America that would eventually send out more Missionaries around the world than any other country on earth. How sad that today missionaries are being sent to my country. No, the KJVB is not the only version there is. You will not go to hell for using another version. But we all will be held accountable for how we handled the Word of God and if our Version, if our life, if our witness reflected the Glory of God through the person of his Only Begotten Son and my Savior, Jesus Christ. Peace to you.

  • Sharon

    Here too is a PS moment. The symbol in or on a New King James Bible is an ancient Babylonian/satanic symbol……lets be careful out there when we buy a new Bible.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sharon

    >> The symbol in or on a New King James Bible is an ancient Babylonian/satanic symbol

    That’s interesting, strangely enough I’ve looked at that logo and wondered but my brain never thought any further…

  • Truthful Conversation

    I agree @ Sharon. For quite a few years I have been torn about the different Bible versions. For many years I had a variety of Bibles, including John MacArthur’s study bibles (2 of them), and while I was involved with word of faith, I had Kenneth Copeland’s. I threw all three away some time ago. My other bibles I have lost during my overseas move, so I had to get a new one. I ended up researching bible versions and speaking to a few people with different opinions. In my spirit, I was convinced to keep to the Authorised KJV. I discovered the best one to buy is the PURE CAMBRIDGE version, which I purchased from Trinitarian Bible Society. John Chingford recently did an article on his blog regarding the new bible versions. I believe that none can be trusted except the Authorised KJV, but now you have to make absolutely sure you are not buying one that has been tampered with. Even Cambridge press cannot be trusted as far as I can see, with new versions printed. I agree that salvation is not dependant on which REGULAR bible version someone uses when they are saved. But it is time that Christians realised that satan will do ANYTHING to deceive us, and we need to be on our guard with everything. I know that John regards the 1984 version NIV and previous bibles to be acceptable. All the bookstores have now removed these versions, as well as all others from their shelves. Even looking on ebay and Amazon for an older version bible, can be a challenge. It seems that only new printings will now be sold, and they are all perverted. So I guess, although some think that being KJV only is a dirty word, I am now firmly ensconced in the Authorised KJV Bible camp. I never knew any better in the past, but now that I am clued in, I feel I have no excuse before the Lord to have and read any other version.

  • Redeemed

    Sharon wrote:

    Here too is a PS moment. The symbol in or on a New King James Bible is an ancient Babylonian/satanic symbol……lets be careful out there when we buy a new Bible.

    I have used the NKJV for over 5 years and have examined it closely for any discrepancies and have found none. My NKJV does not have any such symbol on it as you describe.

    Sharon, I appreciated your thoughts about the KJV. Yes, I do agree that God used King James in his position at that time in history to make His Word accessible to the common person.
    But we don’t speak the King’s English and there are archaic terms that need clarification. That is not the fault of the translators, but a simple fact of life.

    If one wants to pick apart the KJV,which I have no desire to do, one will find issues with it. For instance, it does not capitalize the references to Deity and I find that distracting and disturbing. But overall, it is the old standby so to speak. And personally I still retain in my memory the verses I memorized from the King James.

    I refuse to use the NIV and other versions because I consider them corrupt and dynamic equivalancy which is faulty. The NLT is an attempt to “dumb down” God’s Word. The NKJV simply takes out the archaic language. I find it quite suitable for a study Bible.

    But there is one interesting observation that someone has pointed out. When it comes to the basic verses that lead one to salvation, God has miraculously preserved them. The exception is The Message which is occultic and should not even be considered a Bible.

    Some people prefer the KJV because it is public domain while the NKJV and others are copyrighted. Well hellooooooo! One still has to purchase either Bible! A copyright protects from unwarranted changes and is standard procedure in the world of publishing. Duh!!

  • Sharon

    I am reading a wonderful book titled God’s Secretaries, The Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson. I have just started it so haven’t formed an opinion yet. Whether one likes King James the man is not important since he did not write the KJV, he commissioned it. If the KJV was flawed from the moment the translators started it then the Geneva & Bishops Bibles were flawed since they are very close. Some trashed the men because they relied heavily on Tyndall’s New Testament to which can be said…how do you add to almost perfection.

    God’s word says of a king:Pro 21:1 The king’s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.

    Gods Word….read it, learn it, memorize it and love it………I sure do.

  • Sharon

    Use google to look up symbol on New King James Bible

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Sharon

    >> The symbol in or on a New King James Bible is an ancient Babylonian/satanic symbol

    That’s interesting, strangely enough I’ve looked at that logo and wondered but my brain never thought any further…

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Sharon

    I went to check the two NKJV bibles I have, one has the symble on it and the other one does not. It depends on the publisher – not the bible translation.

  • Sharon

    Thanks for your kind comments. I have a NKJV & a few others just so I know what I am talking about should someone ask me about the differences. Here is one difference that was significant for me between the New and the Old King James. In the Old KJV it says in: 1Tim 5:14 I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. But in the New the word guide has been changed to manage. Even the original of the New King James replaced guide with rule. So even the NKJV folks took some grief over the changing from guide to rule. Any way…the “which Bible to use” controversy will continue to rage on. (how sad) For me it will always be the KJV!

    Redeemed wrote:

    Sharon wrote:

    Here too is a PS moment. The symbol in or on a New King James Bible is an ancient Babylonian/satanic symbol……lets be careful out there when we buy a new Bible.

    I have used the NKJV for over 5 years and have examined it closely for any discrepancies and have found none. My NKJV does not have any such symbol on it as you describe.

    Sharon, I appreciated your thoughts about the KJV. Yes, I do agree that God used King James in his position at that time in history to make His Word accessible to the common person.
    But we don’t speak the King’s English and there are archaic terms that need clarification. That is not the fault of the translators, but a simple fact of life.

    If one wants to pick apart the KJV,which I have no desire to do, one will find issues with it. For instance, it does not capitalize the references to Deity and I find that distracting and disturbing. But overall, it is the old standby so to speak. And personally I still retain in my memory the verses I memorized from the King James.

    I refuse to use the NIV and other versions because I consider them corrupt and dynamic equivalancy which is faulty. The NLT is an attempt to “dumb down” God’s Word. The NKJV simply takes out the archaic language. I find it quite suitable for a study Bible.

    But there is one interesting observation that someone has pointed out. When it comes to the basic verses that lead one to salvation, God has miraculously preserved them. The exception is The Message which is occultic and should not even be considered a Bible.

    Some people prefer the KJV because it is public domain while the NKJV and others are copyrighted. Well hellooooooo! One still has to purchase either Bible! A copyright protects from unwarranted changes and is standard procedure in the world of publishing. Duh!!

  • Sharon

    Ruckmanism…..I have not heard that since I live in Pensacola, Fl. USA many, many years ago. Peter Ruckman was once a strong tower for the use of the KJV. But after many years something happened to him and his heart. Perhaps it was that he has 3 living wives. (2 former and 1 presently) Some have said he was a Jesuit plant. I don’t know about that. He was preparing to become a Jesuit priest or so is his testimony. I have never personally met the man, nor do I wish to. He believes that if the original manuscripts could be found and if they differed from the KJV then the manuscripts are wrong! What nonsense! What Blasphemy…..holy men of God wrote those as the Holy Spirit led them. He has in his later years done more harm than good when it comes to the use of the KJV. He is also a rabid racist! There is so much more I know from living in Pensacola, but it is not worth mentioning. Peace to all here.

    Biblebeliever wrote:

    Ruckmanism is a huge error where people believe that the KJV is “new revelation”. I believe KJVONLY is meant to discredit probably the best translated bible in English, and make people go to the other side of things, accepting corrupt Bible versions of the NIV. What is important is what were the Bibles translated from the Textus Receptus or the Vatican corrupted documents such as the Septainguint {know Im misspelling it} and Vaticanus? There are good Bibles in other languages.

  • Sharon

    [edited: commented moved from GOD TV Is Undoubtedly The Fulfillment of Biblical Prophecy]

    The different “versions-perversion” are exactly why I use a King James Bible. On May 6, 2011 the KJV was 400 hundred years old. Satan has attacked the KJV almost since King James VI & I commissioned the work to be done. There are a lot of negative stories about the King himself. Perhaps he was what some say he was, only he and God know the while truth. I do know that King James wanted a Bible that did not have side notes written by John Calvin. He also wanted the “common people” to have a Bible in English. For 400 years the KJV has been truly just that, for the people. There are some where around 250 different versions. The newest ones, say for the last 50 years, are in gross error. The New International version leaves out the Deity of Christ. Lets take for instance, in John 3:14 in the KJV says “only begotten son.” In the NIV it says one and only son. That is a lie. God has many sons (and daughters) The NIV has left out the deity of Jesus in just that verse alone. There are at least verses that are either left totally out, or deny the Deity of Christ. The NIV and others have called Lucifer the Bright and Morning Star…that is Jesus Christ, not Lucifer.
    I own a couple different verse just to compare. One of the men that helped edit the NASB has renounced that version and has said, I am in big trouble with the Lord. Things were left out, things were added to. That can have dire consequences. I am not one that is called KJV only. You can lead someone to the Lord even with some of the other versions. But for me the evidence is overwhelming on the side of the KJV. But each person has the right to read what ever version they choose. That is between each person and the Lord. Peace, His peace to you.

  • Sharon

    I have an article why the word Easter is in the KJV. I will post it at a later time.

    Burning Lamp wrote:

    I used to use the NASV but then discovered the NKJV and find it both readable and reliable. I have nothing against the KJV except I find the archaic language and grammar distracting. Also, the use of the word “Easter” is offensive.

    The name “Easter” is never mentioned in the original Scriptures. However, one English translation of the Bible does use the word. The King James Version chose to translate Acts 12:4 like this:

    “And when he [Herod the King] had apprehended him [Peter], he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”
    The book of Acts was originally written in the Greek language by the Christian Gentile and physician Luke. The Greek word that the King James Version translates as “Easter” is most certainly not the name “Easter,” it is actually the word “Pascha” (Hebrew: Pesach) which means “Passover”—and this is how all accurate translations show it. For example, the New King James Version says,

    “So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.”

    If one wants to nitpick, there are issues with the KJV. One of the things that has always bothered me is that they don’t capitalize pronouns referring to Deity and the NKJV does.I have seen a long list of examples of verses from the KJV that could be more clearly rendered. The translators no doubt did the best they could.

    Often I quote the KJV because it is pubic domain while the others are under copyright. I understand those who object to anyone taking ownership of the Word of God, but in this world there are legalities and procedures that require this.

    The “KJV Only” folks border on making the KJV an idol. And you are right Debs, this legalistic attitude often drives folks away from the KJV to pursue other bibles that may not be good. It is beyond me how pastors have been gone to using trash like The Message and calling it the Word of God.

    Thanks for this article – it is timely and much needed!

  • Paul

    You are not in trouble because you don’t read the KJV, you don’t read the KJV because you are in trouble.

    Satan has attacked the Church and Won, he has attacked God’s Word and he has Won.

    The NIV says that Jesus and Satan are the same person, that alone is enough to dump it the sewer. Apart from that, it has thousands of errors and it is the bible preferred by Homosexuals because it let’s them off

    Who was kicked out of Heaven and who is the Morning star?

    If you compare the KJV and the NIV and you don’t understand it, you are in trouble and you had better get down on your knees before the Almighty. Isaiah 14:12 and Rev 22:16.

    There is only one Bible but there are many bibles.

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Paul

    >> You are not in trouble because you don’t read the KJV, you don’t read the KJV because you are in trouble.

    That’s a ridiculous saying. Calvinists read the KJV and they are in trouble.

  • Sharon

    Mormons use the Book of Mormon and the KJV. They can’t use the KJV very often because it would tear apart their blasphemy.

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Paul

    >> You are not in trouble because you don’t read the KJV, you don’t read the KJV because you are in trouble.

    That’s a ridiculous saying. Calvinists read the KJV and they are in trouble.

  • Sharon

    The NKJV has been updated and they removed the symbol because of what it means. They also updated a few scriptures that were “troubling.” Yes, there are archaic words on the KJV and there are many web site that have KJV Dictionaries. I have mentioned before that it was written on a 7th grade level. We can see here in the USA where the public schools have been “dumbing down” our kids for at least my lifetime. The KJV’s wording to be is majestic, awesome, beautiful. After all it describes our Majestic, Awesome and Beautiful Savior! He is most worthy of the beauty in the Word. I do not believe the KJV is “new Revelation.” Peter Ruckman is a nasty, foul-mouthed lustful, and racist Heretic.( I lived in Pensacola Florida for 25+years. So I know a lot about the man) He believes that IF the originals could be found and if they differed from the KJV then the originals would be wrong. That is Heresy and in my opinion Blasphemy.I realize that the Bible is translated in different languages because we have many languages. If God can preserve His Word in English I am just dumb enough to believe He can preserve His Word in ANY language without resorting the Latinized Versions. Peace, His peace to all here.

    Redeemed wrote:

    Sharon wrote:

    Here too is a PS moment. The symbol in or on a New King James Bible is an ancient Babylonian/satanic symbol……lets be careful out there when we buy a new Bible.

    I have used the NKJV for over 5 years and have examined it closely for any discrepancies and have found none. My NKJV does not have any such symbol on it as you describe.

    Sharon, I appreciated your thoughts about the KJV. Yes, I do agree that God used King James in his position at that time in history to make His Word accessible to the common person.
    But we don’t speak the King’s English and there are archaic terms that need clarification. That is not the fault of the translators, but a simple fact of life.

    If one wants to pick apart the KJV,which I have no desire to do, one will find issues with it. For instance, it does not capitalize the references to Deity and I find that distracting and disturbing. But overall, it is the old standby so to speak. And personally I still retain in my memory the verses I memorized from the King James.

    I refuse to use the NIV and other versions because I consider them corrupt and dynamic equivalancy which is faulty. The NLT is an attempt to “dumb down” God’s Word. The NKJV simply takes out the archaic language. I find it quite suitable for a study Bible.

    But there is one interesting observation that someone has pointed out. When it comes to the basic verses that lead one to salvation, God has miraculously preserved them. The exception is The Message which is occultic and should not even be considered a Bible.

    Some people prefer the KJV because it is public domain while the NKJV and others are copyrighted. Well hellooooooo! One still has to purchase either Bible! A copyright protects from unwarranted changes and is standard procedure in the world of publishing. Duh!!

  • Sharon

    We must all stand before the Judgment Seat of Christ, not to determine our eternal destiny, but to give an account of things we have or have not done. I believe that God did preserve His Word just as He Promised He would. It is between me and the Lord and you and the Lord, and all of us here to settle the “version issue.” May we all be careful how we handle the Word of God so when we give an account of what we did, He will find us faithful! God is so very good…………All of the time! Hallelujah!

  • Sharon

    Paul, I use the KJV but when people make all inclusive statements like you made then you make those of us who love the KJV look ignorant. Do you know the meaning of ignorant? It means dumb on purpose and your remarks tell on you. There is only one person here that looks to be not in trouble, but troubled. If you think Deborah is in trouble then don’t come back to HER site.

    Paul wrote:

    You are not in trouble because you don’t read the KJV, you don’t read the KJV because you are in trouble.

    Satan has attacked the Church and Won, he has attacked God’s Word and he has Won.

    The NIV says that Jesus and Satan are the same person, that alone is enough to dump it the sewer. Apart from that, it has thousands of errors and it is the bible preferred by Homosexuals because it let’s them off

    Who was kicked out of Heaven and who is the Morning star?

    If you compare the KJV and the NIV and you don’t understand it, you are in trouble and you had better get down on your knees before the Almighty. Isaiah 14:12 and Rev 22:16.

    There is only one Bible but there are many bibles.

  • Sharon

    I was not sure where to post the following stuff about the KJV. So I figured this would be as good as any place. It’s a long article, but well worth the read.

    Which Bible version should we use? Do we have a TRUE translation of the Word of God? We know that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33). So why do we have so many different translations of God’s Holy Word? To which has caused MUCH confusion. That is not the work of the Holy Spirit. This study is to find out if we do have ONE TRUE Bible translation, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Which Bible Version Should we Use?
    Is there a true translation of God’s holy Word? There are so many Bible versions out there now, that it is difficult to know which one to use. Although I don’t believe the King James Version to be perfect, I believe it to be one of the VERY few versions we can trust. Many of the new versions like ‘The Message’ are full of new age phrases and have changed the beautiful Words of the LORD into new age nonsense. Below is a study of why I believe we should use the King James Version for study.

    Psalms 12:6-7 …’The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver is 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 Original Scriptures:

    The Bible is often referred to as ‘the Holy Scriptures.’ It is made up of the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament is a collection of 39 books which were originally penned mostly in the Hebrew language. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, written originally in Greek; though some portions were probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, a north Semitic language. The original autographs (masters) were hand-written scrolls penned by the inspired prophets and apostles. They were written on vellum (the skins of clean animals, such as calf, goat or antelope) or papyrus. Vellum is more durable and costly than papyrus; Because of this fact the vast majority of manuscripts were written on papyrus. Papyrus is a reed-like water plant, from which a kind of paper was made in ancient times. After years of constant use, being rolled and unrolled, the original autographs (master scrolls) especially those of papyrus, became worn and began to fall apart.

    Before the original autographs (masters) completely disintegrated, they were carefully copied. The Almighty, who had initially inspired their production, then moved His faithful followers, first the Aaronic Priests and later the Masorites, to make copies of the originals. Thus began the work of providential preservation. After all, what would be the point of God to inspire the original Scriptures, only to have them destroyed after a few decades? Jehovah, as promised, preserved His Word in accurate copies (manuscripts).

    The Old Testament Manuscripts:

    The Masorites were Jewish scholars who, like their B.C. predecessors the Aaronic Priests, had the task of copying the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. Scripture says…. Romans 3:1-2, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much in every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”

    W. Scott, in his book ‘Story of our English Bible’ wrote…… “They never allowed themselves to correct their manuscript; and if any mistake escaped them, they rejected the papyrus or the skin which they had blemished, and recommenced upon a fresh one; for they were equally interdicted from even correcting one of their own errors, and from retaining for their sacred volume a single parchment or skin in which an error had been made.

    These facts, we repeat it, together with the astonishing preservation of the Hebrew text (1200 years more ancient than that of the Septuagint), plainly tell us how the intervention of the mighty hand of God was needed in the destinies of the sacred book.”

    In his book ‘God Wrote Only One Bible’, Jasper James Ray confirms……” if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a ‘clean’ animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the written word to be written from memory.”

    No word or letter could be written from memory; the scribe had to have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it. He had to reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for “God” (Elohim), and had to wash his whole body before writing the name “Jehovah” (LORD, in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.

    H. S. Miller, writing in his book “General Biblical Introduction”, says: “Some of these rules may appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old Testament was to its custodians, the Jews, and they give us strong encouragement to believe that we have the real Old Testament, the same one that our Lord had and which was given by inspiration of God.”

    Note: There are currently no original autographs or master scriptures in existence. They have all long since been replaced by copies. Currently there are between 5250 and 5309 existing manuscripts (copies) of the Scriptures or parts of it.

    Early Bible Versions:

    The Peshitta version (AD150): This was the first Syrian translation from the original languages.

    The Old Latin Vulgate (AD157): It was used by early believers in Europe when Latin was in popular use. It was sometimes referred to as the Itala version. The name vulgate can be translated as ‘common’ (The Old Latin Vulgate must not be confused with Jerome’s Vulgate, which was produced over 220 years later in AD 380. Jerome’s Vulgate (also written in Latin for the Roman Church) was rejected by the early Christians for almost a millennium. The Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other groups throughout Europe used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected Jerome’s Vulgate).

    The Waldensian (AD120 onwards): quote…” The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed a Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the Bible truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution.

    (My comments: The Waldensian believers pre-dated Augustine & Calvin. These ancient believers had the pure, untainted, Word of God in their own language. They didn’t need “doctrines of man.” They did not teach anything close to the Heresy that would come into being later in the writings of Augustine and John Calvin. They had truth and were in no need of reformation. Truth is like Grace & Mercy, it is amazing.)

    Here for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith. In a most wonderful manner it (the Word of Truth) was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness.”

    English Bibles:

    John Wycliffe’s Translation, (1380-82) This was the first manuscript (hand-written) Bible in the English language. Strictly speaking, it was not a version, but a translation into English from the Old Latin Vulgate.

    William Tyndale’s New Testament (1526) was the first printed Testament in the English language. Unlike Wycliffe’s translation, Tyndale’s New Testament was translated directly from the Greek Majority Text, from which came the Received Text – Textus Receptus. More about this Text later. Tyndale’s work, in other words, was a ‘version.’ The first printings of Tyndale’s version were burned at St Paul’s Cross (London). At that time it was a grievous offence, punishable by fine, imprisonment or death to even possess a copy of Tyndale’s New Testament. It was said of William Tyndale that he was: “A man so skilled in the seven languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and French, that which ever he spake, you would suppose it his native tongue.” But Tyndale’s work opposed the powers in Rome, and was strangled and burned at the stake. His “great offence” was that he had translated the scriptures into English and was making copies available against the wishes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. His dying prayer was… ‘Lord, open the King of England’s eyes’. His prayer would be answered with King James the VI & I.

    The Geneva Version: (1560) During the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary many Protestant believers from Britain fled to the Continent. The Scot John Knox was one. The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout. Quote…. “A number of these intellectual pilgrims rendezvoused in Geneva (known as the Holy City of the Alps) to form the first committee to attempt a translation of the Bible. Such men as Theodore Beza, John Knox, William Whittingham and Miles Coverdale laboured six years to produce the celebrated Geneva Bible in 1560. Although this Bible was the first to feature numbered verses and italics, its main achievement was the Hebrew to English rendering of Ezra through Malachi, thus representing the first English Bible translated entirely out of the original languages.”

    The King James Version: (1611) The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which the KJV is based is the authentic Hebrew Masoretic text. It is called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). This is the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text represented by the vast majority of existing Old Testament manuscripts. The Ben Chayyim Masoretic text was the uncontested text of the Old Testament for over four hundred years. Modern Bibles often refer to the “Septuagint” or “LXX”, in their footnotes for corrections, but the Septuagint is nothing more than the Hebrew Scriptures translated into the Greek language. Quote: …’The “Septuagint” is a poor translation at best of the Hebrew due mainly to the fact that it does not follow the verbal and formal rules of translation, but is largely a paraphrase, changing the wording wherever the translators desired, seeking to “clarify” the meaning of the original.

    It is said of the Septuagint, that 72 Jewish scholars translated the scriptures into this text (Septuagint), and that the 72 were comprised of 6 Jews from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. But the Jews were so heavily scattered and intermarried with other nations, that no man could know what tribe they were from.

    We have a lot more information about the New Testament, and most of the manuscripts in existence are of the New Testament. When the early Protestant Reformers of Europe (German, Dutch, French and English etc.) began to translate the Old and New Testaments into their native languages, they first had to decide which Hebrew and Greek Text they were going to use.

    Hebrew: For the Old Testament, the King James translators used the traditional Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This text was produced under the strict Masoretic rules mentioned earlier. Besides it was – and still is – the only trustworthy Hebrew Text available.

    Greek: For the New Testament, the Protestant translators of the King James Bible had a choice between two vastly different Greek texts: The Received (Majority) Text favored by the early churches of Christendom, (The Greek, Waldensian, Albegensian, Gauls and Celtic churches). Or the Minority Text favored by the Roman Catholic Church. Wisely they settled for the Majority Text, from which came the Received text – Textus Receptus. In making their translations they set aside the Minority Text and chose to produce versions of the Bible which were all based on the Received Text, Textus Receptus; the text used by the early Christian Church.

    Quote: …”Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -German, French, and English – were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles.”

    The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible.

    Over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text..…’Textus Receptus’

    Received text (Textus Receptus) came from ‘Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers ………..,Erasmus had only a few greek manuscripts, but he also examined a large number of other manuscripts, in both latin and greek, and these manuscripts and other ancient translations he examined agreed with the few he had, and therefore was a good witness of the vast number of other manuscripts, known as the majority text, and which is why the received text is also known as the majority text, because it is a faithful witness to the majority. The received text is the text used in the reformation Bibles. From Erasmus, came the first printed Greek New Testament.

    *The Waldensian church was based upon the Received text, which opposed the Church of Rome, who used the the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible

    Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

    Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church.

    **Remember this vital point:

    Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
    Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
    Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour’s miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
    Textus Receptus was – and still is – the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
    Textus Receptus which triggered the Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture. (My Comment: Yes, during the Reformation true believers were murdered by England, Geneva, France, Germany & Rome)

    Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Minority text)…. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph ) and Codex Vaticanus (B)…(codex means ‘book form’)

    Sinaiticus (A) This codex was produced in the 4th century. The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the ‘Shepherd of Hermes’ and the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ to the New Testament. What prompted the deeply religious monks of St Catherine’s Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket?

    Vaticanus(B) The second major manuscript of the Minority Text is known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as ‘B’. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held.

    (My Comments: it kind of makes you wonder what else is held in the Vatican. Rome’s answer to anything that tore apart their false belief system was to burn, rape, and murder whatever and who ever they thought were The Heretics.)

    It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments….. This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine.

    Vaticanus omits: Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14. It seems suspicious indeed that a manuscript possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the ‘mass’ as totally useless. It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.

    John Burgon writes…. ‘The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact…In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…

    About John Burgon…..’In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine’s Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went…Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture…….. Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai…… Thus the fact that B and Aleph are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour. It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.

    Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers.”

    Burgon writes of Sinaiticus……’ ‘On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament……. On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.

    Rev.Gipp says…. “So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book.

    This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians.”

    The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it was unreliable.

    A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200
    years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible.

    I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the ‘oldest is best’ argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.

    Those based on the Majority Text. (Textus Receptus) ie.. King James Bible
    Those based on the Minority Text. (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus etc.) ie..Most modern Bibles.

    The early Christian fathers and the reformers rejected this minority text.

    The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD! The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures. The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact! The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
    The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect. Yet, startling as it may sound, virtually every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus!

    The Minority text is favored by the Catholic Church

    Most, if not all, modern translations are based on the Revised Version (1881-5) which was influenced throughout by the Alexandrian manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. So In effect, there really are only Two English language Bibles to choose from:

    The King James Version: which is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Majority Greek Text. The Revised Version: which is based on the Minority Text. One of the revised version’s most prominent committee members, Brooke Foss Westcott, openly admitted his lack of faith in God, his skepticism of the Miracles that Jesus performed and his inability to accept the infallibility of God’s Word.

    The other prominent member of this committee, Fenton John Anthony Hort, believed in the theory of evolution. In his own words: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.”

    Both Westcott and Hort were admirers of the Church of Rome and it’s power. Quote: “The Westcott and Hort Text(which the Revised Version was based on) changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places”

    Quote: “The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F.Westcott and F.J.A.Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort
    denied Biblical inerrance and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological sceptics.”

    Other members of the Revised Version committee denied the deity of Christ Jesus, and thought that the Old Testament was more legend than fact!

    Westcott and Hort were the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His word? Would he not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?

    Thee’s and Thou’s

    The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not the type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of the their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W A Irwin (1952) are to the same support.

    The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th century English – which was very different – but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation.

    The King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique. That is, they translated each Hebrew and Greek word as closely as possible into its English equivalent. Whereas the modern translators, translate the Word of God into THEIR OWN interpretation.

    Matthew 4:4 …’ But he (Jesus) answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’

    Matthew 5:18 …’ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’

    Multiplied millions of true believers in ages past have died for the Word of God. Publishing the Bible was a major crime. To possess a Bible, or even portions of one, placed a Christian in a very dangerous position. During the dark ages the situation was immeasurably worse. One has only to study the history of the Waldensian Church to see how dangerous it was for true believers to possess the Scriptures. Multitudes perished by sword, famine, beatings, burning, hangings and torture. Many were slain with Bibles tied around their necks.

    We can see that this prophecy was revealed in God’s Word: Revelation 6: 9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain FOR THE WORD OF GOD, and for the testimony which they held:

    Because of its purity, the Majority Text was used by all the 15th, 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers of Europe to make their translations. Their choice of the Majority Text
    attracted the wrath of the Roman Church and tens of thousands of true believers who studied and published the real Bible were martyred as a result. They were martyred for the TRUE WORD OF GOD. The Papacy wanted to have the authority on what the masses read, so therefore tried to extinguish the true Word of God. But, when you fight against YAHWEH Himself…..You lose!!!!

    Verses that the NIV have left out:

    (These are WHOLE sentences that are left out, there are MANY, MANY other single words that the NIV have left out, which I’ve not listed).

    Matthew 12:47 — removed in the footnotes

    Matthew 17:21 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?

    “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”

    Matthew 18:11 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”

    Matthew 21:44 — removed in the footnotes

    Matthew 23:14 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”

    Mark 7:16 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”

    Mark 9:44 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

    Mark 9:46 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

    Mark 11:26 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

    Mark 15:28 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”

    Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) — There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah’s Witness “Bible” also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

    Luke 17:36 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

    Luke 22:44 — removed in the footnotes

    Luke 22:43 — removed in the footnotes

    Luke 23:17 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)”

    John 5:4 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

    John 7:53-8:11 — removed in the footnotes

    Acts 8:37 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. It’s deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “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.”

    Acts 15:34 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”

    Acts 24:7 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,”

    Acts 28:29 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”

    Romans 16:24 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

    I John 5:7 — Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. In the NIV it says,

    “For there are three that testify:”

    Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah’s Witness reading–

    “For there are three witness bearers,”

    What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?

    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

    Note: The NIV publishing rights are owned by a company called Zondervan. Zondervan are owned by publishers Harper Collins, who by the way publish ‘The Satanic Bible’ by Anton Lavey. And who owns these companies? Rupert Murdoch!

    Copyright: There is only one ‘common’ Bible that does not have a copyright on the words, and that is the Authorized King James Version. All other versions AFTER the KJV have copyrights put on them. If it is the true Word of God, then you CANNOT copyright it, because you are NOT the owner of it, God is. So, the only way the publishers can copyright all these ‘other’ versions is to make them their own words. Who does man think he is, to put his own authority on the Word of God??

    Dr Frank Logsdon

    Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

    Although the most popular translation at the present time is the New International Version, both of these modern Bibles are based upon the same Catholic text, and Logsdon’s concerns apply to both.

    Being involved with the project from the very beginning, Logsdon helped publisher F. Dewey Lockman with the feasibility study that led to the translation. He interviewed some of the translators, sat with them, and even wrote the preface. But soon the questions began coming in.

    His old friend, Dr. David Otis Fuller, began to put his finger on the many shortcomings of the Catholic text used in all modern Bibles, which include the NASB and today’s NIV.

    Logsdon finally said, “I’m in trouble with the Lord; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?”

    Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, “I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.”

    Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.

    Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.

    The “experts” claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!

    In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, “When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.’ But they don’t tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

    Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.’ What are the best manuscripts? They don’t tell you. You see how subtle that is?

    The average man sees a little note in the margin which says ‘not in the better manuscripts’ and he takes for granted they are scholars and they must know, and then he goes on. That’s how easily one can be deceived.”

    It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan’s hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, “The deletions are absolutely frightening.”

    The huge number of English Bible translations currently available has produced untold millions of dollars in sales, but does anyone believe that they have produced a modern Church which is more knowledgeable about their Bible? No, it has produced the Siamese twins of confusion and falling away from truth.

    All modern Bible translators today use, without question, the New Testament text produced by the famous scholars Hort and Westcott.

    But in her book, New Age Bible Versions, author Gail Riplinger exposes the background and corrupt theology of these giants. Many readers are surprised at the beliefs of these men, documented by their own writings.

    Yet modern scholars accept their work without question, just as many university professors today blindly accept evolutionary teaching, safely going along with the crowd to protect their reputations. If you hold in your hand the Authorized Version, you have God’s Truth.

    History supports it, the Holy Spirit has confirmed it, God’s Church has prospered by it. You will find it is hated by all those who seek to make an elastic Bible that is all things to all people… which then becomes nothing to anyone.

    Logsdon’s advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, “You don’t need to defend it; you don’t need to apologize for it.

    “Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'”

    Logsdon also stated that the revision committee for the ‘Revised Version’ …….KNEW that there wasn’t enough in the Authorized Version to revise, to make a new version. He said that this was an UNREFUTABLE FACT!

    Guy Fawkes: We know the famous story of Guy Fawkes, who apparently was a Roman Catholic, of how he tried to blow up parliament, killing King James (The King who brought us the KJV Bible), and his government. This plot came about AFTER King James ordered the making of the KJV Bible. Was Guy Fawkes backed by the Vatican, in order to stop the KJV Bible being written? If so, then they were fighting against YAHWEH Himself, and the plot would have been doomed from the very beginning!

    The translators of the ‘new versions’ will tell you that translating the Word of God is an ongoing never ending job, and that we will never have the ‘perfect’ translation, therefore enabling them to make more money out of new versions.

    Many of the ‘other’ Bible versions have, over the years fallen by the wayside, because of their poor translation, but there is one version which has stood strong through the ages, and even still stands strong today…. The Authorized King James Version.

    God warns us in Revelation what will happen if we add anything to His Word, or take away anything from His Word…

    ‘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.’

    God obviously knew that people would change His Word….Read Jeremiah 23:36

    ‘for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.’

    We cannot say that times are changing and we need new versions to keep with the times….. Read Malachi 3:6… ‘For I am the LORD, I change not.’
    We know that satan is the Prince of this world, and he is trying his best to confuse us, and cause us to be tossed around by every wind that blows. He wants to keep us away from the True Word of God.

    You only need look at the recent versions like the ‘Amplified Bible’ and ‘The Message’ to see how much God’s Word has been changed….all for the sake of…’making the Bible relevant for people of today’. I believe this is NOT of God, because He tells us that He NEVER CHANGES!!! His True Word in the King James Bible is as relevant today as it has ever been. We accept these other ‘versions’ because the fear of God is not in us……AND IT
    NEEDS TO BE!

    Isaiah 8:13 ….’ Sanctify the LORD of hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.’

    It’s time to fear our Creator, stop studying these ‘other’ bibles and get back to the True Word of God. I believe that to be the Authorized King James Version.

    The ONLY one without a copyright! John 8:32 …’ And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’

    Copied with permission of: Geoffrey Grider
    Editor-in-Chief of http://www.nowtheendbegins.com

  • Sharon

    Paul…satan has attacked and will continue to attack the church; but in no way has he won. He also will continue to attack the Word of God, but he will not win. You have little faith in our most Powerful God. Do you honestly believe what you said about satan winning? If you really believe that then you should search deep in your soul. Jesus said in Matthew16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock(himself) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Concerning the Word 1st Peter 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you. If my faith were so small that I believed satan wins, I’d just quit believing and live how ever I chose. No Paul, satan has not and will not win. He will not win against the True Church of Jesus Christ. He will not win against the perfect, the powerful Word of God. satan wins a skirmish here and there. But the war is not over! One day,not today though, Jesus will destroy satan by the Word of HIS mouth. Our King will win the battle for us. Until that day, we press on. We read, we study, we pray and we witness. Then soon we will go home! Hallelujah to the Lamb!

    Paul wrote:

    You are not in trouble because you don’t read the KJV, you don’t read the KJV because you are in trouble.

    Satan has attacked the Church and Won, he has attacked God’s Word and he has Won.

    The NIV says that Jesus and Satan are the same person, that alone is enough to dump it the sewer. Apart from that, it has thousands of errors and it is the bible preferred by Homosexuals because it let’s them off

    Who was kicked out of Heaven and who is the Morning star?

    If you compare the KJV and the NIV and you don’t understand it, you are in trouble and you had better get down on your knees before the Almighty. Isaiah 14:12 and Rev 22:16.

    There is only one Bible but there are many bibles.

  • Sharon

    [Edited: Comment moved from Angus Buchan – A ‘False Bible’ in 366 Days for Men]

    I am going to post an article concerning the KJV and other versions-perversions. Some folks say that King James named the KJV after himself, others say that the translators named it in honor of the King. The truth of that is some where back in time. Then there is the issue of King James maybe being a homosexual. There is documentation out there that says he definitely was not a homosexual and there is documentation out there that says he was. He was married and fathered I believe nine children. Whether he was a homosexual or not really doesn’t matter. God can move upon the heart of any King to do His will. We can debate the sexual issues at another time.

    King James did not write the KJV, he commissioned the work to be done by over 50 translators…the highly educated men of that time. All of them were fluent in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic and Latin…as was the king.

    The church I went to as a little girl and then a teenager used the King James. It never really occurred to me that there were other versions out there. It wasn’t until I married and started a home of my own I began to hear about the different versions. I have heard messages from different preachers/teachers concerning other versions and they made a few valid points. I know of one Kook Preacher in Pensacola, Florida that says if the original manuscripts could be found and if they differed from the KJV then the manuscripts would be WRONG….he is just an idiot.

    So here we go, this a some more reasons why I prefer the KJV. There will be two articles and I will divide them by a line through this post.

    Which Bible?

    Which Bible version should we use? Do we have a TRUE translation of the Word of God? We know that God is not the author of confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33). So why do we have so many different translations of God’s Holy Word? To which has caused MUCH confusion. That is not the work of the Holy Spirit. This study is to find out if we do have ONE TRUE Bible translation, inspired by the Holy Spirit.

    Which Bible Version Should we Use?
    Is there a true translation of God’s holy Word? There are so many Bible versions out there now, that it is difficult to know which one to use. Although I don’t believe the King James Version to be perfect, I believe it to be one of the VERY few versions we can trust. Many of the new versions like ‘The Message’ are full of new age phrases and have changed the beautiful Words of the LORD into new age nonsense. Below is a study of why I believe we should use the King James Version for study.

    Psalms 12:6-7 …’The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver is 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 Original Scriptures:
    The Bible is often referred to as ‘the Holy Scriptures.’ It is made up of the Old and the New Testaments. The Old Testament is a collection of 39 books which were originally penned mostly in the Hebrew language. The New Testament is a collection of 27 books, written originally in Greek; though some portions were probably written in Hebrew or Aramaic, a north Semitic language. The original autographs (masters) were hand-written scrolls penned by the inspired prophets and apostles. They were written on vellum (the skins of clean animals, such as calf, goat or antelope) or papyrus. Vellum is more durable and costly than papyrus; Because of this fact the vast majority of manuscripts were written on papyrus. Papyrus is a reed-like water plant, from which a kind of paper was made in ancient times. After years of constant use, being rolled and unrolled, the original autographs (master scrolls) especially those of papyrus, became worn and began to fall apart.

    Before the original autographs (masters) completely disintegrated, they were carefully copied. The Almighty, who had initially inspired their production, then moved His faithful followers, first the Aaronic Priests and later the Masorites, to make copies of the originals. Thus began the work of providential preservation. After all, what would be the point of God to inspire the original Scriptures, only to have them destroyed after a few decades? Jehovah, as promised, preserved His Word in accurate copies (manuscripts).

    The Old Testament Manuscripts:
    The Masorites were Jewish scholars who, like their B.C. predecessors the Aaronic Priests, had the task of copying the Old Testament Hebrew Scriptures. Scripture says…. Romans 3:1-2, “What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in circumcision? Much in every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.”

    W. Scott, in his book ‘Story of our English Bible’ wrote…… “They never allowed themselves to correct their manuscript; and if any mistake escaped them, they rejected the papyrus or the skin which they had blemished, and recommenced upon a fresh one; for they were equally
    interdicted from even correcting one of their own errors, and from retaining for their

    sacred volume a single parchment or skin in which an error had been made.

    These facts, we repeat it, together with the astonishing preservation of the Hebrew text (1200 years more ancient than that of the Septuagint), plainly tell us how the intervention of the mighty hand of God was needed in the destinies of the sacred book.”

    In his book ‘God Wrote Only One Bible’, Jasper James Ray confirms……” if only one incorrect letter was discovered the whole copy was rejected. Each new copy had to be made from an approved manuscript, written with a special kind of ink, upon skins made from a ‘clean’ animal. The writer had to pronounce aloud each word before writing it. In no case was the written word to be written from memory.”

    No word or letter could be written from memory; the scribe had to have an authentic copy before him, and he must read and pronounce aloud each word before writing it. He had to reverently wipe his pen each time before writing the word for “God” (Elohim), and had to wash his whole body before writing the name “Jehovah” (LORD, in our King James Bibles), lest the Holy Name be contaminated.

    H. S. Miller, writing in his book “General Biblical Introduction”, says: “Some of these rules may appear extreme and absurd, yet they show how sacred the Holy Word of the Old Testament was to its custodians, the Jews, and they give us strong encouragement to believe that we have the real Old Testament, the same one that our Lord had and which was given by inspiration of God.”

    Note: There are currently no original autographs or master scriptures in existence. They have all long since been replaced by copies. Currently there are between 5250 and 5309 existing manuscripts (copies) of the Scriptures or parts of it.

    Early Bible Versions:

    The Peshitta version (AD150): This was the first Syrian translation from the original languages.

    The Old Latin Vulgate (AD157): It was used by early believers in Europe when Latin was in popular use. It was sometimes referred to as the Itala version. The name vulgate can be translated as ‘common’ (The Old Latin Vulgate must not be confused with Jerome’s Vulgate, which was produced over 220 years later in AD 380. Jerome’s Vulgate (also written in Latin for the Roman Church) was rejected by the early Christians for almost a millennium. The Waldenses, Gauls, Celts, Albegenses and other groups throughout Europe used the Old Latin Vulgate and rejected Jerome’s Vulgate).

    The Waldensian (AD120 onwards): quote…” The Waldenses were among the first of the peoples of Europe to obtain a translation of the Holy Scriptures. Hundreds of years before the Reformation, they possessed a Bible in manuscript in their native tongue. They had the Bible truth unadulterated, and this rendered them the special objects of hatred and persecution.

    (My comments: The Waldensian believers pre-dated Augustine & Calvin. These ancient believers had the pure, untainted, Word of God in their own language. They didn’t need “doctrines of man.” They did not teach anything close to the Heresy that would come into being later in the writings of Augustine and John Calvin. They had truth and were in no need of reformation. Truth is like Grace & Mercy, it is amazing.)

    Here for a thousand years, witnesses for the truth maintained the ancient faith. In a most wonderful manner it (the Word of Truth) was preserved uncorrupted through all the ages of darkness.”

    English Bibles:
    John Wycliffe’s Translation, (1380-82) This was the first manuscript (hand-written) Bible in the English language. Strictly speaking, it was not a version, but a translation into English from the Old Latin Vulgate.

    William Tyndale’s New Testament (1526) was the first printed Testament in the English language. Unlike Wycliffe’s translation, Tyndale’s New Testament was translated directly from the Greek Majority Text, from which came the Received Text – Textus Receptus. More about this Text later. Tyndale’s work, in other words, was a ‘version.’ The first printings of Tyndale’s version were burned at St Paul’s Cross (London). At that time it was a grievous offence, punishable by fine, imprisonment or death to even possess a copy of Tyndale’s New Testament. It was said of William Tyndale that he was: “A man so skilled in the seven languages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and French, that which ever he spake, you would suppose it his native tongue.” But Tyndale’s work opposed the powers in Rome, and was strangled and burned at the stake. His “great offence” was that he had translated the scriptures into English and was making copies available against the wishes of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. His dying prayer was… ‘Lord, open the King of England’s eyes’. His prayer would be answered with King James the VI & I.

    The Geneva Version: (1560) During the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary many Protestant believers from Britain fled to the Continent. The Scot John Knox was one. The Geneva Bible is a true ‘version’ having been translated from the original Hebrew and Greek throughout. Quote…. “A number of these intellectual pilgrims rendezvoused in Geneva (known as the Holy City of the Alps) to form the first committee to attempt a translation of the Bible. Such men as Theodore Beza, John Knox, William Whittingham and Miles Coverdale laboured six years to produce the celebrated Geneva Bible in 1560. Although this Bible was the first to feature numbered verses and italics, its main achievement was the Hebrew to English rendering of Ezra through Malachi, thus representing the first English Bible translated entirely out of the original languages.”

    The King James Version: (1611) The King James Bible Old Testament was translated from the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text; named after Jacob ben Chayyim. The true text of Ben Chayyim on which the KJV is based is the authentic Hebrew Masoretic text. It is called the Daniel Bomberg edition or the Second Great Rabbinic Bible (1524-25). This is the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text represented by the vast majority of existing Old Testament manuscripts. The Ben Chayyim Masoretic text was the uncontested text of the Old Testament for over four hundred years. Modern Bibles often refer to the “Septuagint” or “LXX”, in their footnotes for corrections, but the Septuagint is nothing more than the Hebrew Scriptures translated into the Greek language. Quote: …’The “Septuagint” is a poor translation at best of the Hebrew due mainly to the fact that it does not follow the verbal and formal rules of translation, but is largely a paraphrase, changing the wording wherever the translators desired, seeking to “clarify” the meaning of the original.’

    It is said of the Septuagint, that 72 Jewish scholars translated the scriptures into this text (Septuagint), and that the 72 were comprised of 6 Jews from each of the 12 tribes of Israel.
    But the Jews were so heavily scattered and intermarried with other nations, that no man could know what tribe they were from.

    We have a lot more information about the New Testament, and most of the manuscripts in existence are of the New Testament. When the early Protestant Reformers of Europe (German, Dutch, French and English etc.) began to translate the Old and New Testaments into their native languages, they first had to decide which Hebrew and Greek Text they were going to use.

    Hebrew: For the Old Testament, the King James translators used the traditional Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. This text was produced under the strict Masoretic rules mentioned earlier. Besides it was – and still is – the only trustworthy Hebrew Text available.

    Greek: For the New Testament, the Protestant translators of the King James Bible had a choice between two vastly different Greek texts: The Received (Majority) Text favored by the early churches of Christendom, (The Greek, Waldensian, Albegensian, Gauls and Celtic churches). Or the Minority Text favored by the Roman Catholic Church. Wisely they settled for the Majority Text, from which came the Received text – Textus Receptus. In making their translations they set aside the Minority Text and chose to produce versions of the Bible which were all based on the Received Text, Textus Receptus; the text used by the early Christian Church.

    Quote: …”Unquestionably, the leaders of the Reformation -German, French, and English – were convinced that the Received Text was the genuine New Testament, not only by its own irresistible history and internal evidence, but also because it matched with the Received Text which in Waldensian form came down from the days of the apostles.”

    The Majority Text has been known throughout history by several names. It has been known as the Byzantine text, the Imperial Text, the Traditional Text and the Reformation Text as well as the Majority Text. This text culminates in the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or Received Text which is the basis for the King James Bible.

    Over 5,000 Greek manuscripts of the New Testament exist today ranging from small fragments containing two or three verses to nearly entire Bibles. 90 percent of all existing manuscripts agree with one another so miraculously that they are able to form their own unique text..…’Textus Receptus’

    Received text (Textus Receptus) came from ‘Lucian (AD 250-312), Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza and the Elzevir brothers ………..,Erasmus had only a few greek manuscripts, but he also examined a large number of other manuscripts, in both latin and greek, and these manuscripts and other ancient translations he examined agreed with the few he had, and therefore was a good witness of the vast number of other manuscripts, known as the majority text, and which is why the received text is also known as the majority text, because it is a faithful witness to the majority. The received text is the text used in the reformation Bibles. From Erasmus, came the first printed Greek New Testament.

    *The Waldensian church was based upon the Received text, which opposed the Church of Rome, who used the the Eusebio-Origen type of Bible

    Textus Receptus is based on the vast majority (90%) of the 5000+ Greek manuscripts in existence. That is why it is also called the Majority Text. Textus Receptus is not mutilated with deletions, additions and amendments, as is the Minority Text.

    Textus Receptus agrees with the earliest versions of the Bible: Peshitta (AD150) Old Latin Vulgate (AD157), the Italic Bible (AD157) etc. These Bibles were produced some 200 years before the minority Egyptian codices favoured by the Roman Church.

    **Remember this vital point:

    Textus Receptus agrees with the vast majority of the 86,000+ citations from scripture by the early church fathers.
    Textus Receptus is untainted with Egyptian philosophy and unbelief.
    Textus Receptus strongly upholds the fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith: the creation account in Genesis, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the virgin birth, the Saviour’s miracles, his bodily resurrection, his literal return and the cleansing power of his blood!
    Textus Receptus was – and still is – the enemy of the Roman Church. This is an important fact to bear in mind.
    Textus Receptus which triggered the Protestant Reformation during which tens of thousands of true believers perished by flame, famine and torture. (My Comment: Yes, during the Reformation true believers were murdered by England, Geneva, France, Germany & Rome)

    Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (Minority text)…. Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph ) and Codex Vaticanus (B)…(codex means ‘book form’)

    Sinaiticus (A) This codex was produced in the 4th century. The Sinaiticus is a manuscript that was found in 1844 in a trash pile in St.Catherine’s Monastery near Mt. Sinai, by a man named Mr Tischendorf. It contains nearly all of the New Testament plus it adds the ‘Shepherd of Hermes’ and the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’ to the New Testament. What prompted the deeply religious monks of St Catherine’s Monastery to dump Sinaiticus into a waste basket?

    Vaticanus(B) The second major manuscript of the Minority Text is known as Codex Vaticanus, often referred to as ‘B’. This codex was also produced in the 4th century. It was found over a thousand years later in 1481 in the Vatican library in Rome, where it is currently held.

    (My Comments: it kind of makes you wonder what else is held in the Vatican. Rome’s answer to anything that tore apart their false belief system was to burn, rape, and murder whatever and who ever they thought were The Heretics.)

    It is written on expensive vellum, a fine parchment originally from the skin of calf or antelope. Some authorities claim that it was one of a batch of 50 Bibles ordered from Egypt by the Roman Emperor Constantine; hence its beautiful appearance and the expensive skins which were used for its pages. But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments….. This codex omits many portions of Scripture vital to Christian doctrine.

    Vaticanus omits: Genesis 1.1 through Genesis 46:28; Psalms 106 through 138; Matthew 16:2,3; Romans 16:24; the Pauline Pastoral Epistles; Revelation; and everything in Hebrews after 9:14. It seems suspicious indeed that a manuscript possessed by the Roman Catholic church omits the portion of the book of Hebrews which exposes the ‘mass’ as totally useless. It also omits portions of the Scripture telling of the creation (Genesis), the prophetic details of the crucifixion (Psalm 22), and, of course, the portion which prophesies of the destruction of Babylon (Rome), the great whore of Revelation chapter 17.

    John Burgon writes…. ‘The impurity of the text exhibited by these codices is not a question of opinion but fact…In the Gospels alone, Codex B(Vatican) leaves out words or whole clauses no less than 1,491 times. It bears traces of careless transcriptions on every page…

    About John Burgon…..’In 1860, while temporary chaplain of the English congregation at Rome, he made a personal examination of Codex B (Vaticanus), and in 1862 he inspected the treasures of St. Catherine’s Convent on Mt. Sinai. Later he made several tours of European libraries, examining and collating New Testament manuscripts wherever he went…Of all the critics of the nineteenth century Burgon alone was consistently Christian in his vindication of the Divine inspiration and providential preservation of the text of Holy Scripture…….. Burgon regarded the good state of preservation of B (Codex Vaticanus) and Aleph (Codex Sinaiticus) in spite of their exceptional age as proof not of their goodness but of their badness. If they had been good manuscripts, they would have been read to pieces long ago. We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, solely to their ascertained evil character; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library; while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually (viz. in A.D.1844) got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai…… Thus the fact that B and Aleph are so old is a point against them, not something in their favour. It shows that the Church rejected them and did not read them. Otherwise they would have worn out and disappeared through much reading.

    Who but those with Roman Catholic sympathies could ever be pleased with the notion that God preserved the true New Testament text in secret for almost one thousand years and then finally handed it over to the Roman pontiff for safekeeping? Surely every orthodox Protestant will prefer to think with Burgon that God preserved the true text of the Greek New Testament in the usage of the Greek-speaking Church down through the centuries and then delivered it up intact to the Protestant reformers.”

    Burgon writes of Sinaiticus……’ ‘On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters, words or even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament……. On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.

    Rev.Gipp says…. “So we see that once a pure copy of the Universal Text (Textus Receptus) had been carried down into Egypt, it was recopied. During the process of this recopying, it was revised by men who did not revere it as truly the Word of God. This text was examined by the critical eye of Greek philosophy and Egyptian morals. These men saw nothing wrong with putting the Book in subjection to their opinion instead of their opinion being in subjection to the book.

    This process produced a text which was local to the educational centre of Alexandria, Egypt. This text went no further than southern Italy where the Roman Catholic Church found its unstable character perfect for overthrowing the true Word of God which was being used universally by the true Christians.”

    The Vaticanus was available to the translators of the King James Bible, but they did not use it because they knew it was unreliable.

    A vital fact to remember is that though codices Aleph and B (produced in the 4th century) are older than other Greek manuscript copies of the Scriptures, they are not older than the Peshitta, Italic, the Old Latin Vulgate and the Waldensian versions which were produced 200
    years earlier in the 2nd century. All these versions, copies of which are still in existence, agree with Textus Receptus, the underlying text of the King James Bible.

    I repeat: these ancient versions are some 200 years older than Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: so the ‘oldest is best’ argument should not be used. All Bibles fall, basically, into one of two categories.

    Those based on the Majority Text. (Textus Receptus) ie.. King James Bible
    Those based on the Minority Text. (Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus etc.) ie..Most modern Bibles.

    The early Christian fathers and the reformers rejected this minority text.

    The Minority Texts were the work of unbelieving Egyptian scribes who did not accept the Bible as the Word of God or JESUS as the SON of GOD! The Minority Texts abound with alterations, often a single manuscript being amended by several different scribes over a period of many years; something the Aaronic priests and Masorites would never have tolerated when making copies of the Scriptures. The Minority Texts omit approximately 200 verses from the Scriptures. This is equivalent to 1st and 2nd Peter. Pause and consider that stunning fact! The Minority Texts contradict themselves in hundreds of places.
    The Minority Texts are doctrinally weak and often dangerously incorrect. Yet, startling as it may sound, virtually every modern English Bible relies on the Minority Text as its underlying New Testament text in preference to Textus Receptus!

    The Minority text is favored by the Catholic Church

    Most, if not all, modern translations are based on the Revised Version (1881-5) which was influenced throughout by the Alexandrian manuscripts Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. So In effect, there really are only Two English language Bibles to choose from:

    The King James Version: which is based on the Masoretic Hebrew Text and the Majority Greek Text. The Revised Version: which is based on the Minority Text. One of the revised version’s most prominent committee members, Brooke Foss Westcott, openly admitted his lack of faith in God, his skepticism of the Miracles that Jesus performed and his inability to accept the infallibility of God’s Word.

    The other prominent member of this committee, Fenton John Anthony Hort, believed in the theory of evolution. In his own words: “But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with. I must work out and examine the argument more in detail, but at present my feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable.”

    Both Westcott and Hort were admirers of the Church of Rome and it’s power. Quote: “The Westcott and Hort Text(which the Revised Version was based on) changes the Textus Receptus in over 5,600 places”

    Quote: “The men most responsible for alterations in the New Testament text were B.F.Westcott and F.J.A.Hort, whose Greek New Testament was largely updated by Eberhard Nestle and Kurt Aland. All these men were evolutionists. Furthermore, Westcott and Hort
    denied Biblical inerrance and promoted spiritism and racism. Nestle and Aland, like Kittel, were German theological sceptics.”

    Other members of the Revised Version committee denied the deity of Christ Jesus, and thought that the Old Testament was more legend than fact!

    Westcott and Hort were the most influential members of the English revision committee which produced the English Revised Version of the Bible. So one of the serious problems with most modern English translations is that they rely heavily on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts of the Bible developed by liberals, rationalists and evolutionists, none of whom believed in the verbal inspiration of the Bible. Is this how God would preserve His word? Would he not more likely have used devout scholars who believed in the absolute inerrancy and authority of the Bible?

    Thee’s and Thou’s

    The English of the King James Version is not the English of the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not the type of English that was ever spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written by the translators with the text of the their translation to feel the difference in style. And the observations of W A Irwin (1952) are to the same support.

    The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th century English – which was very different – but to its faithful translation of the original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following 17th century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the plural you in polite conversation.

    The King James Version translators employed a ‘word for word’ translation technique. That is, they translated each Hebrew and Greek word as closely as possible into its English equivalent. Whereas the modern translators, translate the Word of God into THEIR OWN interpretation.

    Matthew 4:4 …’ But he (Jesus) answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.’

    Matthew 5:18 …’ For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.’

    Multiplied millions of true believers in ages past have died for the Word of God. Publishing the Bible was a major crime. To possess a Bible, or even portions of one, placed a Christian in a very dangerous position. During the dark ages the situation was immeasurably worse. One has only to study the history of the Waldensian Church to see how dangerous it was for true believers to possess the Scriptures. Multitudes perished by sword, famine, beatings, burning, hangings and torture. Many were slain with Bibles tied around their necks.

    We can see that this prophecy was revealed in God’s Word: Revelation 6: 9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain FOR THE WORD OF GOD, and for the testimony which they held:

    Because of its purity, the Majority Text was used by all the 15th, 16th and 17th century Protestant Reformers of Europe to make their translations. Their choice of the Majority Text
    attracted the wrath of the Roman Church and tens of thousands of true believers who studied and published the real Bible were martyred as a result. They were martyred for the TRUE WORD OF GOD. The Papacy wanted to have the authority on what the masses read, so therefore tried to extinguish the true Word of God. But, when you fight against YAHWEH Himself…..You lose!!!!

    Verses that the NIV have left out:

    (These are WHOLE sentences that are left out, there are MANY, MANY other single words that the NIV have left out, which I’ve not listed).

    Matthew 12:47 — removed in the footnotes

    Matthew 17:21 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?

    “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”

    Matthew 18:11 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.”

    Matthew 21:44 — removed in the footnotes

    Matthew 23:14 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows’ houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.”

    Mark 7:16 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.”

    Mark 9:44 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

    Mark 9:46 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

    Mark 11:26 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father which is in heaven forgive your trespasses.”

    Mark 15:28 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”

    Mark 16:9-20 (all 12 verses) — There is a line separating the last 12 verses of Mark from the main text. Right under the line it says: [The two most reliable early manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20] (NIV, 1978 ed.) The Jehovah’s Witness “Bible” also places the last 12 verses of Mark as an appendix of sorts.

    Luke 17:36 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.”

    Luke 22:44 — removed in the footnotes

    Luke 22:43 — removed in the footnotes

    Luke 23:17 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “(For of necessity he must release one unto them at the feast.)”

    John 5:4 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.”

    John 7:53-8:11 — removed in the footnotes

    Acts 8:37 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. It’s deletion makes one think that people can be baptized and saved without believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. Sounds Catholic. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “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.”

    Acts 15:34 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still.”

    Acts 24:7 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “But the chief captain Lysias came upon us, and with great violence took him away out of our hands,”

    Acts 28:29 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “And when he had said these words, the Jews departed, and had great reasoning among themselves.”

    Romans 16:24 — COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. What are you NIV readers missing?
    “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.”

    I John 5:7 — Vitally important phrase COMPLETELY removed [also deleted from the Jehovah’s Witness “Bible”]. In the NIV it says,

    “For there are three that testify:”

    Compare the NIV reading with the following Jehovah’s Witness reading–

    “For there are three witness bearers,”

    What are you NIV readers missing? What does the real Bible say?

    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

    Note: The NIV publishing rights are owned by a company called Zondervan. Zondervan are owned by publishers Harper Collins, who by the way publish ‘The Satanic Bible’ by Anton Lavey. And who owns these companies? Rupert Murdoch!

    Copyright: There is only one ‘common’ Bible that does not have a copyright on the words, and that is the Authorized King James Version. All other versions AFTER the KJV have copyrights put on them. If it is the true Word of God, then you CANNOT copyright it, because you are NOT the owner of it, God is. So, the only way the publishers can copyright all these ‘other’ versions is to make them their own words. Who does man think he is, to put his own authority on the Word of God??

    Dr Frank Logsdon

    Dr. Frank Logsdon, member of the translation committee for the New American Standard Version (NASB), has denounced his work on that Bible and urged all Christians to return to the Authorized Version, commonly known as the King James Bible.

    Although the most popular translation at the present time is the New International Version, both of these modern Bibles are based upon the same Catholic text, and Logsdon’s concerns apply to both.

    Being involved with the project from the very beginning, Logsdon helped publisher F. Dewey Lockman with the feasibility study that led to the translation. He interviewed some of the translators, sat with them, and even wrote the preface. But soon the questions began coming in.

    His old friend, Dr. David Otis Fuller, began to put his finger on the many shortcomings of the Catholic text used in all modern Bibles, which include the NASB and today’s NIV.

    Logsdon finally said, “I’m in trouble with the Lord; I can’t refute these arguments; it’s wrong; it’s terribly wrong; it’s frightfully wrong; and what am I going to do about it?”

    Logsdon shocked publisher Dewey Lockman by writing, “I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard.”

    Logsdon then began to travel extensively, trying to make up for his error by explaining to people the very simple reasons why the Authorized Version is the one Bible which is absolutely 100% correct.

    Along with many other scholars, Logsdon had blindly accepted the basic argument used today to support the use of the two Catholic manuscripts, the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus, in all modern Bibles.

    The “experts” claim that these are the oldest manuscripts in existence, so they must be the best!

    In one of his many public speeches, Logsdon explained, “When there is an omission that might be observed, they put in the margin, ‘Not in the oldest manuscripts.’ But they don’t tell you what those oldest manuscripts are. What oldest manuscripts?

    Or they say, ‘Not in the best manuscripts.’ What are the best manuscripts? They don’t tell you. You see how subtle that is?

    The average man sees a little note in the margin which says ‘not in the better manuscripts’ and he takes for granted they are scholars and they must know, and then he goes on. That’s how easily one can be deceived.”

    It was only after Logsdon took the time to really look into this issue that he was horrified to see that he had played right into Satan’s hands, and helped to take many verses out of the Scriptures. Logsdon admitted, “The deletions are absolutely frightening.”

    The huge number of English Bible translations currently available has produced untold millions of dollars in sales, but does anyone believe that they have produced a modern Church which is more knowledgeable about their Bible? No, it has produced the Siamese twins of confusion and falling away from truth.

    All modern Bible translators today use, without question, the New Testament text produced by the famous scholars Hort and Westcott.

    But in her book, New Age Bible Versions, author Gail Riplinger exposes the background and corrupt theology of these giants. Many readers are surprised at the beliefs of these men, documented by their own writings.

    Yet modern scholars accept their work without question, just as many university professors today blindly accept evolutionary teaching, safely going along with the crowd to protect their reputations. If you hold in your hand the Authorized Version, you have God’s Truth.

    History supports it, the Holy Spirit has confirmed it, God’s Church has prospered by it. You will find it is hated by all those who seek to make an elastic Bible that is all things to all people… which then becomes nothing to anyone.

    Logsdon’s advice? If you hold the Authorized Version, and someone tries to prod you to accept another, “You don’t need to defend it; you don’t need to apologize for it.

    “Just say, ‘Well, did this new version or this translation come down through the Roman Catholic stream? If so, count me out.'”

    Logsdon also stated that the revision committee for the ‘Revised Version’ …….KNEW that there wasn’t enough in the Authorized Version to revise, to make a new version. He said that this was an UNREFUTABLE FACT!

    Guy Fawkes: We know the famous story of Guy Fawkes, who apparently was a Roman Catholic, of how he tried to blow up parliament, killing King James (The King who brought us the KJV Bible), and his government. This plot came about AFTER King James ordered the making of the KJV Bible. Was Guy Fawkes backed by the Vatican, in order to stop the KJV Bible being written? If so, then they were fighting against YAHWEH Himself, and the plot would have been doomed from the very beginning!

    The translators of the ‘new versions’ will tell you that translating the Word of God is an ongoing never ending job, and that we will never have the ‘perfect’ translation, therefore enabling them to make more money out of new versions.

    Many of the ‘other’ Bible versions have, over the years fallen by the wayside, because of their poor translation, but there is one version which has stood strong through the ages, and even still stands strong today…. The Authorized King James Version.

    God warns us in Revelation what will happen if we add anything to His Word, or take away anything from His Word…

    ‘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.’

    God obviously knew that people would change His Word….Read Jeremiah 23:36

    ‘for ye have perverted the words of the living God, of the LORD of hosts our God.’

    We cannot say that times are changing and we need new versions to keep with the times….. Read Malachi 3:6… ‘For I am the LORD, I change not.’
    We know that satan is the Prince of this world, and he is trying his best to confuse us, and cause us to be tossed around by every wind that blows. He wants to keep us away from the True Word of God.

    You only need look at the recent versions like the ‘Amplified Bible’ and ‘The Message’ to see how much God’s Word has been changed….all for the sake of…’making the Bible relevant for people of today’. I believe this is NOT of God, because He tells us that He NEVER CHANGES!!! His True Word in the King James Bible is as relevant today as it has ever been. We accept these other ‘versions’ because the fear of God is not in us……AND IT
    NEEDS TO BE!

    Isaiah 8:13 ….’ Sanctify the LORD of hosts Himself; and let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread.’

    It’s time to fear our Creator, stop studying these ‘other’ bibles and get back to the True Word of God. I believe that to be the Authorized King James Version.

    The ONLY one without a copyright! John 8:32 …’ And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.’

    Where the Word of a King is, There is Power. Psalms 12:6-7
    ****************************************************************************************

    KING JAMES’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS
    “The king‘s heart is in the hand of the LORD, as the rivers of water: he turneth it whithersoever he will.” (Proverbs 21:1)
    Richard Bancroft prepared the following Instructions to the Translators for King James:
    For the better ordering of the proceedings of the translators, his Majesty recommended the following rules to them, to be very carefully observed:-
    1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
    2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.
    3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.
    4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.
    5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.
    6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
    7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another.
    8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter of chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, to confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.
    9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously: for his Majesty is very careful in this point.
    10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.
    11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place.
    12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop.
    13. The directors in each company to be deans of Westminster and Chester, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.
    14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.”
    15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

    NOTES BY INSTRUCTION NUMBERS:
    8. There were 47 highly qualified translators who worked on the KJV translation. They were divided into six companies with two companies at Westminster, two companies at Cambridge, and two companies at Oxford. Each company was given a portion of the Bible to translate. There were evidently at least seven members in each company, so each passage would be translated a minimum of seven times during the first stage. Then each company would go over the work together and and agree upon a joint translation. So when the initial company got through each word had been translated eight times.
    9. Once the a company finished their translation, it was passed along to the five other companies for their review and correction. When the other five companies finished their reviews the entire Bible would have been translated thirteen times. And there would be a final review making fourteen translations of each chapter of the Bible.
    12. Other scholars not on the formal committees were also encouraged to make suggestions throughout the translation process.
    14. “Whitchurch” here refers to the Great Bible. Edwarde Whitchurch was King Henry VIII’s printer, who printed the Great Bible. With the six English translations of the Bible consulted (Tyndale’s Bible [1526], Coverdale’s Bible [1535], Matthew’s Bible [1537], Great Bible [1539], Geneva Bible [1560], Bishop’s Bible [1568]), the King James Bible became the seventh and final purification of the English Bible. “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.” (Psalm 12:6-7) The KJV has been bless, used and produced more fruit than any other translation in any language in history.

    REFERENCES: 1. McClintock & Strong’s Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature, Edited by John McClintock & James Strong, 1895 2. Translators of the King James Bible 3. Brief History of the King James Bible
    ****************************************************************************************

    Perhaps one more.

    The Deity of Christ
    and Modern Versions
    by Martin A. Shue
    Which Version
    The Deity of Jesus Christ has always been a strong belief of true Christianity. Likewise, those “churches”, groups, or organizations who do not recognize the Deity of Jesus Christ are easily seen to not be true Christians but rather false religions. The contention regarding the Deity of Christ is certainly nothing new. Ever since the days of Jesus there has been a great dispute as to whether He was God or not. As you know many times the Pharisees took up stones to stone Him because He made the claim that He was God (John 10: 24-33). The Pharisees of His day rejected His claim, so too have many throughout history even up to our present day. Gnosticism, a pre-Christian pagan religion, is one such group that denies the Deity of Jesus. After the death of Christ, however, Gnosticism began to infiltrate the church (around 85 to 90 AD). Dr. Thomas Holland writing in his Introduction to the Epistle of 1st John makes the following comments, “Gnostics believed in the dual nature of all things. (this is where “Calvinism” came from) They claimed that whatever is spiritual is good, and what is physical is evil. Since God is a Spirit, He is good and could not have created the physical universe, which they considered evil. They also believed God created other gods (called “aeons”) who created the physical universe.
    One such Gnostic, Cerinthus, took the teachings of pagan Gnosticism and mixed them with Christianity. He taught that Jesus was born of Joseph and Mary and became the “Christ” thirty years later at the time of his baptism. Therefore, according to this form of Gnosticism, Jesus Christ had a dual nature. He was both Jesus (physical) and the “Christ” (spiritual). At the crucifixion, so taught Cerinthus, the “Christ” departed leaving only the human Jesus to die. He claimed there was no resurrection of the physical body of Jesus. Cerinthus also proclaimed that “Christ” was the aeon (a lesser god) who made the earth…. Much of Cerinthus’ false doctrine can still be seen in the modern teachings of the Jehovah’s Witnesses.”
    Most, if not all, Christians recognize the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a false religion. They also acknowledge that the New World Translation, the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Bible, is a corrupt work. What they don’t know is that the modern translation they are using is a close parallel to the New World Translation (NWT). Since we know that the Jehovah’s Witnesses deny the Deity of Christ and have altered their Bible to correspond with their belief. I thought it necessary to take a look at some of the most important scriptures dealing with the Deity of Christ to see just how the modern translations compare with the NWT and with the King James Version (KJV). Obviously, we won’t be able to cover every verse due to time and space but we will cover as many as possible. Due to the amount of verses we will be looking at I will attempt to keep my comments to as little as possible.

    We will begin examining the belief that Joseph and Mary was His father and mother. Luke 2:33 reads as follows:
    New International Version (NIV)- The child’s father and mother marveled at what was said about him.
    New American Standard Version (NASV)- And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him;
    New World Translation (NWT)- And its father and mother continued wondering at the things being spoken about it.
    King James Version (KJV)- And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
    Notice how the NIV, NASV, and NWT all agree in calling Joseph Jesus’ “father”. The KJV rightly states “Joseph” instead of “father” knowing that Joseph was not Jesus’ Father. Let’s look at one more example: Luke 2:43
    NIV- After the Feast was over, while his parents were returning home, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but they were unaware of it.
    NASV- and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not;
    NWT- and completed the days. But when they were returning, the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem, and his parents did not notice it.
    KJV- And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
    Again, we see that the NIV and NASV agree with the NWT. And again the KJV is careful to call him “Joseph”. Think this is insignificant? Remember the beliefs of the Gnostics and the Jehovah’s Witnesses (JW’s). Any small change is important when it fosters heresy. But believe me it only gets worse from here.
    Remember the Gnostic/JW’s belief that the “Christ” did not die on the cross? They believe that the “Christ” (the spiritual) left, leaving only “Jesus” (the physical) to die on the cross. Let’s take a look at a verse that pertains to this exact issue. Luke 23:42
    NIV- Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”
    NASV- And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.
    NWT- And he went on to say: “Jesus, remember me when you get into your kingdom.”
    KJV- And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

    Again, notice the NIV, NASV, and NWT are all in agreement in having the malefactor call Him “Jesus” (the physical) , his earthly name. This adds to the belief that the “Christ” (the spiritual) had left. However, the KJV rightly records the malefactor as saying “Lord” (the spiritual) thus refuting the belief that “Christ” had left before the crucifixion. Again, this may seem like a small thing to you but it carries alot of weight doctrinally.
    All are familiar with the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. Let’s take a quick look at how our Bibles translate Daniel 3:25
    NIV- He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
    NASV-He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
    NWT- He was answering and saying: “Look! I am beholding four able-bodied men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt to them, and the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.”
    KJV- 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.
    I don’t think this one needs a whole lot of commentary. I believe you can see the absurdity of the NIV, NASV, and NWT translation of “a son of the gods”. Again, the KJV upholds the integrity of “the Son of God”.
    Another attack on the Sonship of Jesus can be found in Acts 3:13, 4:27, and 4:30. For the article we will only look at Acts 3:13
    NIV- The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus.
    NASV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus;
    NWT- The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our forefathers, has glorified his Servant, Jesus,
    KJV- The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;
    Again, the NIV and the NASV stand shoulder to shoulder with the NWT. Now Jesus is no longer a “Son” but rather a “servant”.
    For our next example we want to look at Romans 14:10b &12. Remember we are talking about how the modern versions take away from the Deity of Christ as found in scripture. Romans 14:10b &12 reads as follows:
    NIV- “…For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat. 12 So then, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”
    NASV- …For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God. 12 So then each one of us shall give account of himself to God.
    NWT- …For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God; 12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.
    KJV- …for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.12 So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.
    Here the change is very subtle but has great implications. As you see in the NIV, NASV, and NWT they each say we will stand before “God’s judgment seat” and then we will give an account to “God”. However, the KJV renders it quite different. The KJV says we will stand before the “judgment seat of Christ” and then we will give an account to “God”. Here is a very clear statement by the KJV that Christ is indeed God. Again the NIV and the NASV agree with the NWT in making the change from “Christ” to “God” in Romans 14:10 thus in these verses they deny the Deity of Christ.
    Now we want to look at Philippians 2:6. This is a very familiar verse that should be well-known to most. Pay special attention to the wording of each Bible. (emphasis mine)
    NIV- Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
    NASV- who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped,
    NWT- who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God.
    KJV- Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
    Did Jesus consider Himself equal with God or not? Both cannot be correct! Here the NIV, NASV, and NWT all agree, however, they are in direct opposition to what the KJV says. The NIV, NASV, and NWT clearly contradict the teaching of the Trinity and negates much of the teaching of past church history. It is easy to see how and why the NWT does so but what about the NIV and NASV? Again we see that the NIV and the NASV side with the Jehovah’s Witnesses Bible in detracting from the Deity of Christ.
    Next we want to look at what perhaps is the greatest statement in scripture declaring that Jesus was “God”. Nothing could be more clearer about the Deity of Christ than
    1st Timothy 3:16. Let’s see how the various translations handle this verse.
    NIV- Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body,…
    NASV- And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
    NWT- Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: ‘He was made manifest in flesh,…’
    KJV- And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
    Here it is easy to see why the Jehovah’s Witnesses translated this verse as they did since they completely reject that Jesus was “God manifest in the flesh”. It is quite shameful that the NIV and the NASV have followed along with this corrupt work in changing “God” to “He”. Of course “He” appeared in a body, Paul appeared in a body, you appeared in a body, and I appeared in a body. The NIV and the NASV have completely changed the essence of this verse by translating it as “He”. Despite the overwhelming manuscript evidence the NIV and the NASV alter their text to read “He”. Dean Burgon, perhaps the greatest scholar ever, had this to say, “The reading adopted by the revisors, is not found in more than two copies, is not supported by a single version, and is not clearly advocated by a single Father.” I am not going to cover all the evidence for the reading “God”, as found in the KJV, in this essay. I will, however, devote another whole essay to I Tim. 3:16. In it we can look at the reading “God” in much greater detail.
    Perhaps one of the most favorite verses of the modern version propionate is 1st John 5:7. 1st John 5:7 is one of the clearest verses on the Trinity in the entire Bible. Here we see clearly that Jesus and God are one. 1st John 5:7 reads as follows:
    NIV- For there are three that testify:
    NASV- And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
    NWT- For there are three witness bearers,
    KJV- For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (emphasis mine)
    Here you can see that the NIV and the NASV are again in agreement with the NWT. They each omit the wonderful phrase “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” which plainly speaks of Jesus’ Deity. Again we can see that the NIV and NASV have sided with the NWT in denying the Deity of Christ. Since there is so much controversy regarding 1st John 5:7 I will discuss this verse in greater detail in another essay.
    The last two verses we want to look at are Revelation 1:8 &11. What I want you to notice is in verse 8 God, the Almighty, is speaking then in verse 11 Jesus is speaking. The verses read as follows:
    NIV- 8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.” 11 which said: “Write on a scroll what you see and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia and Laodicea.”
    NASV- “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is and who was and who is to come, the Almighty.” 11 saying, “Write in a book what you see, and send it to the seven churches: to Ephesus and to Smyrna and to Pergamum and to Thyatira and to Sardis and to Philadelphia and to Laodicea.”
    NWT- 8 “I am the Al’pha and the Omega,” says Jehovah God, “the One who is and who was and who is coming, the Almighty.” 11 saying: “What you see write in a scroll and send it to the seven congregations, in Ephesus and in Smyrna and in Pergamum and in Thyatira and in Sardis and in Philadelphia and in Laodicea.”
    KJV- 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. 11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea. (emphasis mine)
    Now if you look carefully you see that in each version God refers to Himself in verse 8 by saying, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending”. But what you don’t see in the NIV, NASV, and NWT is that Jesus says the same thing about Himself in verse 11 making Him equal with God. They (NIV, NASV, NWT) have omitted the phrase “I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last:” from verse 11. Here again they deny Jesus the opportunity to show that He is in fact God. I find it very alarming that the NIV and NASV again go along with the NWT in their translation.
    I know this was a rather lengthy essay but I felt it was necessary considering the subject we were dealing with. The Deity of Christ is of vital importance to the Christian and we must be sure that the Bible we are using upholds the Deity of Christ in every point. As I said at the beginning this is by no means all the verses where the modern versions take away from the Deity of Christ. I could have easily listed many more but I believe the ones listed at least make you aware of the problem in modern versions. The argument is often made that the modern versions don’t completely deny the Deity of Christ. To this I will agree. There are still some verses in the modern versions that attest to the Deity of Christ. However, as you have seen, it is a whole lot harder to prove the Deity of Christ in the modern versions than it is in the KJV. The question must also be asked, “what will they alter in the versions that are yet to be translated?” If they have went this far out of the way to water down the Deity of Christ one would have to wonder when they will eventually do away with any reference to the Deity of Christ. As I have shown you the KJV is far superior in presenting and preserving the Deity of Christ. As Christians we must reject any translation that deals treacherously with the Deity of Christ. It is our job to “earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” If we will do this honestly we will cling to the Bible that without question bolsters the Deity of Christ. And that Bible is the King James Version.

    All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 2nd Timothy 3:16

    So there you have it, why I use the KJV. I have a large quantity of articles concerning the KJV. If someone is interested in knowing more I can post them. Other wise it is between you and our Lord God which version you use. It is my prayer that all of us are rightly dividing the Word of Truth.

  • Redeemed

    Sharon, I use the NKJV and find it reliable and easier to understand than the King’s English and some of the archaic terms.

    I don’t quibble with people who prefer the KJV because that is perfectly fine with me. My concern comes with those who try to villify the NKJV. I have done my homework on the issue and quite frankly I find the KJV-only crowd to be off center. Not you, but others who are adamant and dogmatic on the issue and consider it a reason for division.

    When it comes to corrupted versions such as the NIV, The Message, ESV and others, I don’t “go there” except to expose The Message which is a mess and not even a Bible. There is enough truth in those other than the Message to save someone. You are right – God does preserve His Word more than we realize.

  • Sharon

    LOL your comment of it’s so handy! I have seen pages from a 1611. I did manage to understand thee and thou! You know that I love the KJV, but I will never tell someone which version to use. To me it is a personal thing between me and the Lord. If God could (and did) created this whole universe, I think He can reveal to His kids which translation He wishes for them to use. It’s so handy……LOL

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    If one wants to be a REAL KJV ONLY-ist then I recommend they go back to the KJV 1611 version. The KJV is just not good enough.
    They need to get themselves a copy of the ORIGINAL 1611 and then they can make a idol of that book and pray it transforms them more than an authorized KJV would.

    In the KJV 1611 they make space in the beginning of the bible to venerate Mary and the Saints and they have a section for prayers mapped out like clock work to the rising and setting of the SUN – Mithra worship no less.

    I have a KJV 1611 and it’s so handy, I use it to check up translations from my KJV, NKJV and Amplified. And I use it sometimes because it takes me about an hour to read just one passage lol. But I really do think that these KJV only people need to go back to the 1611 verse if they really want the best of the best.

    But you know who I use all the time, every minute of the day? The Holy Spirit because only HE CAN LEAD YOU INTO ALL TRUTH

    ************************** the KJV is just a book if you don’t have the Holy Spirit **************************

  • Deborah (Discerning the World)

    Love you Sharon! :)

    I have now progressed to a KJV 1611 on my pc and that is ever handier :) LOL

  • Sharon

    Oh girl….you make me laugh. People sometimes don’t realize that the type of English in the 1611 is not how people talked back then. Part of the reason was the type setting where v meant U and S’s looked like F’s; and the other was because the Translators didn’t want “street language” used for the very Word of God. If you don’t mind I am going to post some KJV stuff and will post it in the KJV only part of the blog. (see I’m learning :o)

    Now…get to that computer and start catching up with us 1611 KJV gals! :o)

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Love you Sharon! :)

    I have now progressed to a KJV 1611 on my pc and that is ever handier :) LOL

  • Sharon

    I hear you Redeemed. The KJV for me is that it is what is in my heart and in my mind (what I have left of it!) I’m going to post some stuff under the thread of KJV-Only. People that use the more modern NIV, The Message…etc consistently don’t realize what is missing from their “Bible”. The evil one (no not the Calvinists) from the Garden of Eden attacked and continues to attack the Word of God. If satan can get the bible watered down then the trap has been firmly set. Peace to you Redeemed, His peace.

    Redeemed wrote:

    Sharon, I use the NKJV and find it reliable and easier to understand than the King’s English and some of the archaic terms.

    I don’t quibble with people who prefer the KJV because that is perfectly fine with me. My concern comes with those who try to villify the NKJV. I have done my homework on the issue and quite frankly I find the KJV-only crowd to be off center. Not you, but others who are adamant and dogmatic on the issue and consider it a reason for division.

    When it comes to corrupted versions such as the NIV, The Message, ESV and others, I don’t “go there” except to expose The Message which is a mess and not even a Bible. There is enough truth in those other than the Message to save someone. You are right – God does preserve His Word more than we realize.

  • Sharon

    God’s Amazing Love Letter – The Bible
    The Bible is the most incredible, miraculous, wonderful book ever written. It is actually a whole library of 66 books. It’s God’s love letter to us!
    It was:
    1.)Written over a period of nearly 1500 years.
    2.)Written on three different continents.
    3.)Written by many different authors – including fishermen, a cup bearer to the king, shepherds, farmers, rabbis, a tax collector, a doctor, poets, kings, preachers and prisoners under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
    4.)Written in three different languages: Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
    It contains stories about: War and peace, romance, suspense, family struggles, mystery, murder, kings, princes, prophets, births, deaths, money, poverty, spies, traitors, bullies, friends, enemies, heroes, adultery, forgiveness, faith, hope, love, hate, sinners and a savior.
    It contains: Poetry, prose, prophecy, history, sermons, love stories, laws, personal and public letters. It contains every element of the human condition. But yet, it is also a single story rather about Paradise – lost in Genesis, then regained in Revelation. There is a message of hope throughout every book: the blood sacrifice and redemption of Jesus, who made us friends again with the Father by paying the price for our sins – something we could not do ourselves.
    It is the number one selling and read book of all times. It is full of thousands of controversial issues and all the authors agree upon them. – a miracle in itself. More manuscripts have been found proving its authenticity than any other book from antiquity. The Bible – you can read it, believe it, live your life by it & stake your eternity on it.

  • Sharon

    LOL, LOL, LOL, I had to laugh at that one. Being that I have been Independent Baptist and Southern Baptist at different times in my life….I found this way too funny.

    Deborah (Discerning the World) wrote:

    Funny joke I received in the email. Thanks Donna, boy did I only laugh.

    I was walking across a bridge recently. I spied this fellow who looked like he was ready to jump off. So, I thought I’d try to stall him until the authorities showed up. “Don’t jump!” I said. “Why not?” he said. “Nobody loves me.”
    “God loves you,” I said. “You believe in God, don’t you?”
    “Yes, I believe in God,” he said.
    “Good,” I said. “Are you Christian or Jewish?”
    “Christian,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Protestant or Catholic?”
    “Neither,” he said.
    “What then?” I said.
    “Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Independent Baptist or Southern Baptist?”
    “Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “New Evangelical/Moderate Independent Baptist or Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Lose-Your-Salvation Armenian Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Historical Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or For Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Strict Separation of Church and State Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Anti-Disney Boycott Pro-Choice Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist,” he said.
    “Me, too!” I said. “KJV Only Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Modern Versions Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?”
    “MODERN VERSIONS Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist” he said.
    “Auugghh!!! You heretic!” I said. And I pushed him over.

  • sharon

    My King:

    The Bible says my King is a seven-way king
    He’s the King of the Jews; that’s a racial king
    He’s the King of Israel; that’s a national King
    He’s the King of Righteousness
    He’s the King of the Ages
    He’s the King of Heaven
    He’s the King of Glory
    He’s the King of kings, and He’s the Lord of lords. That’s my King. Do you know Him?

    David said, “The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament showeth His handiwork.”
    My King is a sovereign King.
    No means of measure can define His limitless love.
    No far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shoreless supply.
    No barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings.
    He’s enduringly strong.
    He’s entirely sincere.
    He’s eternally steadfast.
    He’s immortally graceful.
    He’s imperially powerful.
    He’s impartially merciful.
    Do you know Him?

    He’s the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizon of this world.
    He’s God’s Son.
    He’s the sinner’s Savior.
    He’s the centerpiece of civilization.
    He stands in the solitude of Himself.
    He’s august and He’s unique.
    He’s unparalleled.
    He’s unprecedented.
    He is the loftiest idea in literature.
    He’s the highest personality in philosophy.
    He is the supreme problem in higher criticism.
    He’s the fundamental doctrine of true theology.
    He is the cardinal necessity for spiritual religion.
    He’s the miracle of the age.
    He’s — yes He is — He is the superlative of everything good that you choose to call Him.

    He’s the only one qualified to be an all sufficient Savior.
    I wonder if you know Him today?
    He supplies strength for the weak.
    He’s available for the tempted and the tried.
    He sympathizes and He saves.
    He strengthens and sustains.
    He guards and He guides.
    He heals the sick.
    He cleansed the lepers.
    He forgives sinners.
    He discharges debtors.
    He delivers the captives.
    He defends the feeble.
    He blesses the young.
    He serves the unfortunate.
    He regards the aged.
    He rewards the diligent….and He beautifies the meek.
    Do you know Him?

    Well, my King….He is the King!
    He’s the key to knowledge.
    He’s the wellspring of wisdom.
    He’s the doorway of deliverance.
    He’s the pathway of peace.
    He’s the roadway of righteousness.
    He’s the highway of holiness.
    He’s the gateway of glory.
    Do you know Him?

    His office is manifold.
    His promise is sure….and His light is matchless.
    His goodness is limitless.
    His mercy is everlasting.
    His love never changes.
    His word is enough.
    His grace is sufficient.
    His reign is righteous.
    And His yoke is easy, and his burden is light.
    I wish I could describe Him to you, but He’s indescribable — Yes He is!? He is God!
    He’s incomprehensible.
    He’s invincible.
    He’s irresistible.
    You can’t get Him out of your mind.
    You can’t get Him off of your hand.
    You can’t out live Him, and you can’t live without Him.

    The Pharisees couldn’t stand Him, but they found out they couldn’t stop Him.
    Pilate couldn’t find any fault in Him.
    The witnesses couldn’t get their testimonies to agree.
    Herod couldn’t kill Him.
    Death couldn’t handle Him, and the grave couldn’t hold Him.
    Yes! That’s my King, that’s my King.

    Yes, and Thine is the Kingdom….and the Power….and the Glory….Forever….and ever, and ever, and ever — How long is that? Forever, And ever, and ever.

    And when you get through with all of the forevers then, AMEN!
    Praise God Almighty! AMEN! AMEN!

    (By S.M.Lockridge)

  • Sorry, Debs, I haven’t been on this part of DTW for a while so I haven’t replied to Andy’s reply (1st December 2012) on Hell as meaning the grave.
    Well, Andy, I did read Psalm 9:17 and I checked that the Hebrew word for hell was Sheol as it is everywhere else in the Old Testament. It means either the grave or the pit. I am not arguing here whether that is always literal or always figurative or if it is occasionally one and occasionally ther other. I am merely saying that’s what it means from what I’ve read and checked.
    Orthodox Jews do not believe that the spirit goes straight to “hell,” in your sense of the word, or to heaven.
    Psalm 16:10 shows that the psalmist held that Jewish view for when he would go to hell: It would not be forever. He reckoned he’d go there and would come out of it. Solomon held the same Jewish view of death [Ecc 3:19-21; 9:4-5]. It seems to me that Martha did too [John 11:24]. And Jesus did not correct her for having that view.
    Judaism has several branches so Jews probably have different views nowadays on heaven and hell, many of which came into churchianity via Catholicism where the Bible was not taken into account as having full authority.
    Another reason Jews did not have that view of hell–other than that they read it in Hebrew to mean the grave–was because the “soul” to them (always Nephesh in biblical Hebrew) was any living creature, human or animal. Nephesh is the only word used for soul throughout the Old Testament. I suggest you check it with Strong’s Concordance, rather than just take my word for it. For “spirit” the OT has two words Owb–meaning a familiar spirit–and Ruwach which is the spirit within us humans.
    In Ecc 12:7 we are told that the spirit has a different destiny from the soul. That is more clearly seen in the Hebrew but is easy to notice in the Old Testament if we bear these things in mind when we read “soul” and “spirit” in English.
    I would not be dogmatic on this but it appears that the Jews believed the spirit was not conscious till the Resurrection, as Martha’s reply would seem to say to Jews who do hold that belief. I have read arguments where that was the general belief too of the early Christians. But if that is so, then what of the Transfiguration?
    Moses asked God to blot him out of of His book if He would not forgive Israel’s sins. Surely Moses was not intending that he be sent to the lake of fire!
    Actually, hell in the New Testament is used in three ways in Greek–viz., 1. Hades (place of departed souls or the grave; 2. Gehenna, a place in the Hinnon valley know for its heat due to it having been a place of potter’s ovens, prior to it becoming a place were the bodies of dead criminals were buried and used figuratively (according to Strong); and 3. Tartaros, a bottomless pit.
    Oddly enough, when the King James Version of the Bible was written, hell, in English meant either a hole in the ground or the grave. This is why Shakespeare wrote in a sonnet, “For I have sworn thee fair and thought thee bright/Who art as dark as hell, as black as night.”
    I would appreciate it if you could point out any discrepancies in anything I have written or overlooked here. As far as I can see I have kept to the point. But, like everyone else, I am fallible. Needless to say, some things I am not sure of. But I am sure that hell (sheol) means the grave.

  • Chaplain Bob Walker

    [deleted]

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments

What is KJV Only?

Terms and Conditions:terms and conditions

Because this world is becoming more evil by the minute and Discerning the World is coming under attack more often from people with some very nasty dispositions, we now have ‘Terms and Conditions for Submission of Comments‘ which you need to agree too before you can comment – this is to protect us and you when you comment on this website.  If you are not here to harm Discerning the World and it’s authors, please by all means comment, however if you are here to cause harm in any way, please don’t comment.

The following conditions does not mean that the authors of Discerning The World permit only opinions that are in agreement with us. This also does not mean that we fear dissenting opinions or ideas that are contrary to the beliefs that we hold (and/or that of the revealed Scriptures of the Holy Bible).

The following describes the Terms and Conditions applicable to your use of the “Comments” submission service at the Discerning the World website.

BY CLICKING THE “POST COMMENT” BUTTON FOR YOUR COMMENT, YOU AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AND ABIDE BY ALL OF THE RULES AND POLICIES SET FORTH HEREIN. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, DO NOT SUBMIT YOUR COMMENT TO DISCERNING THE WORLD WEB SITE.

  1. Discerning the World owns and operates the DiscerningtheWorld.com site (the “Site”). Your use of the features on the Site allowing for submission of a “Comment” is subject to the following terms and conditions (the “Terms”). Discerning the World may modify these Terms at any time without notice to you by posting revised Terms on the Site. Your submission of a “Comment” to the Site following the modification of these Terms shall constitute your binding acceptance of and agreement to be bound by those modified Terms.
  2. By submitting a “Comment” you are accepting these Terms through your clicking of the “POST COMMENT” button.
  3. Discerning the World has the right, but not the obligation, to take any of the following actions, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, at any time, and for any reason or no reason, without providing any prior notice:
    1. Restrict, suspend or terminate your ability to submit “Comments,” to the Site;
    2. Change, suspend or modify all or any part of the Site or the features thereof;
    3. Refuse or remove any material posted on, submitted to or communicated through the Site by you;
    4. Deactivate or delete any screen names, profiles or other information associated with you; or
    5. Alter, modify, discontinue or remove any comment off the Site.
  4. You agree that, when using or accessing the Site or any of the features thereof, you will not:
    1. Violate any applicable law or regulation;
    2. Interfere with or damage the Site, through hacking or any other means;
    3. Transmit or introduce to the Site or to other users thereof any viruses, cancel bots, Trojan horses, flood pings, denial of service attacks, or any other harmful code or processes;
    4. Transmit or submit harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, deceptive, fraudulent, obscene, indecent, vulgar, lewd, violent, hateful or otherwise objectionable content or material;
    5. Transmit or submit any unsolicited advertising, promotional materials, or spam;
    6. Stalk or harass any user or visitor to the Site; or
    7. Use the content or information available on the Site for any improper purpose.
  5. You retain the Copyright of any “Comment” you submit to Discerning the World. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to grant Discerning the World a irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, perpetual license to use the material or commentary that you have submitted, in any medium and in any manner that Discerning the World may, in its sole unfettered discretion, choose.
  6. By submitting a “Comment” to Discerning the World, you agree to comply with the following rules concerning such submissions:
    1.  You agree not to include in your “Comment”:
      1. Any false, defamatory, libelous, abusive, threatening, racially offensive, sexually explicit, obscene, harmful, vulgar, hateful, illegal, or otherwise objectionable content;
      2. Any content that may be seen as stalking or harassing of any other Site contributors;
      3. Any content that personally attacks an individual. (An example of a personal attack is posting negative comments about an individual in a way meant to demean that person. Note that posting your opinion about someone’s ideas, doctrine or actions is not a personal attack);
      4. Any content that discloses private details concerning any person, for eg., phone numbers that have not been made public, photos that are not in the public domain, residential address that is not public, ID numbers, Social Security numbers, email addresses that are not in the public domain, etc.;
      5. Any content that you know to be false, misleading, or fraudulent;
      6. Any use of profanity;
      7. Any content including advertisements or otherwise focused on the promotion of commercial events or businesses, or any request for or solicitation of money, goods, or services for private gain;
      8. Any content that contains software viruses or any other computer code, files or programs designed to interrupt, destroy or limit the functionality of any computer software or hardware or telecommunications equipment; or
      9. Any content directly or indirectly soliciting responses from minors (defined as anyone under 18 years of age).
  7. FAIR USE NOTICE:
    1. If any part of the “Comment” is not your original work, it is your responsibility to add the name of the third party, name the book with page number or a link (url) to the website where you obtained the information.
    2. Your “Comment” may contain Copyrighted material, the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. You are however allowed to make such material available in your “Comment” in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this Site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
    3. If you wish to use copyrighted material from a website or any other medium for purposes to add to your “Comment” that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. (Fair Use means you may quote from copyrighted sources, but you may not publish the whole article, book, etc., in your “Comment”.)
  8. You are solely responsible for the “Comment” you upload, post, transmit or otherwise make available to others using this Web Site. Under no circumstances will Discerning the World be liable in any way for any “Comment” posted on or made available through this Site by you or any third party.
  9. You understand that all “Comments” on this Site are pre-screened or moderated. That means that every “Comment” needs to be approved by Discerning the World before it appears in the “Comments” section.  This is not an automatic process.  Discerning the World does this for SPAM reasons.
  10. Discerning the World has the right (but not the obligation) in their sole unfettered discretion to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or available through the Site. Without limiting the foregoing, Discerning the World has the right to remove any “Comment” that violates these Terms or is otherwise deemed objectionable by Discerning the World in its sole discretion.
  11. You understand that Discerning the World in their sole unfettered discretion is not obligated and can not be forced in any manner, be it legal or otherwise to remove any “Comment” that is posted on or made available through the Site by you.
  12. When submitting a “Comment,” you will be asked to provide your name and your email address. While Discerning the World does not object to your use of a pseudonym instead of your actual name, Discerning the World reserves the right, but not the obligation, to reject, change, disallow, or discontinue at any time any submission name that, in Discerning the World’s sole unfettered discretion, is objectionable or inappropriate for any reason. Discerning the World requires the submission of your email address, but Discerning the World warrants that it will not publish your email address to an outside third party without your consent.
  13. Discerning the World does not sell or rent your personal information to third parties for their marketing purposes. From time to time, Discerning the World may contact you personally via email. Notwithstanding the foregoing, you acknowledge and understand that the “Comments” feature of the Site is designed to permit users to post information and commentary for public review and comment and thus you hereby waive any expectation of privacy you may have concerning any likeness or information provided to the Site by you.
  14. You are solely responsible for your interactions with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    1. Discerning the World shall have the right, but not the obligation, to monitor interactions utilizing the “Comments” facility of the Site, between you and other users of or visitors to the Site. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World, or any third party shall not be, and you shall not seek to hold them, responsible for any harm or damage whatsoever arising in connection with your interaction with other users of or visitors to the Site.
    2. Discerning the World does not verify any information posted to or communicated via the “Comments” sections of the Site by users and does not guarantee the proper use of such information by any party who may have access to the information. You acknowledge and agree that Discerning the World does not assume, and shall not have, any responsibility for the content of messages or other communications sent or received by users of the Site.
  15. The Site contains content created by or on behalf of Discerning the World as well as content provided by third parties.
    1. Discerning the World does not control, and makes no representations or warranties about, any third party content, including such content that may be accessible directly on the Site or through links from the Site to third party sites.
    2. You acknowledge that, by viewing the Site or communications transmitted through the Site, you may be exposed to third party content that is false, offensive or otherwise objectionable to you or others, and you agree that under no circumstances shall Discerning the World be liable in any way, under any theory, for any third party content.
    3. You acknowledge and agree that the Site, and the contents thereof, is proprietary to Discerning the World and is protected by copyright. You agree that you will not access or use the Site or any of the content thereof for any reason or purpose other than your personal, non-commercial use.
    4. You agree that you will not systematically retrieve data or other content from the Site by any means, and you will not compile a database or directory of information extracted from the Site.
    5. You agree that you will not reproduce, distribute or make derivative works of the Site or any of the contents thereof without the express consent of Discerning the World.
    6. You hereby agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless Discerning the World, its affiliates and licensees, and all of their officers, directors, employees, agents and representatives from and against any and all liabilities, losses, claims, damages, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees) in connection with any claim arising out of your use of the Site or violation of any of these Terms.

DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY/LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

  • YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT USE OF THE SITE IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. NEITHER DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES, NOR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, OR LICENSORS WARRANT THAT THE SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED, TIMELY, SECURE OR ERROR FREE.
  • THE SITE IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS IS” BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF TITLE OR IMLPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
  • THIS DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY APPLIES TO ANY DAMAGES OR INJURY CAUSED BY ANY FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE, ERROR, OMISSION, INTERRUPTION, DELETION, DEFECT, DELAY, COMMUNICATION LINE FAILURE, THEFT OR DESTRUCTION OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO, ALTERATION OF OR USE, WHETHER FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORTIOUS BEHAVIOR, NEGLIGENCE OR UNDER ANY OTHER CAUSE OF ACTION. YOU SPECIFICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DISCERNING THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR THE DEFAMATORY, OFFENSIVE OR ILLEGAL CONDUCT OF USERS OF THE SITE OR THIRD PARTIES, AND THAT THE RISK OF INJURY FROM THE FOREGOING RESTS ENTIRELY WITH THE YOU THE COMMENTER.
  • IN NO EVENT WILL DISCERNING THE WORLD, ITS AFFILIATES OR ANY OF THEIR RESPECTIVE EMPLOYEES, AGENTS OR LICENSORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, EVEN IF THEY HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SITE OR ANY OTHER MATTER ARISING FROM, RELATING TO OR CONNECTED WITH THE SITE OR THESE TERMS.

16. These Terms constitute the entire agreement between Discerning the World and you with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersede any previous oral or written agreement between us with respect to such subject matter.

Thank you!