Archive for the ‘Defence Of the King James Bible’ Category

People say the Bible is “difficult to understand”. Here is an example.

Job 9:25 (KJV) Now my days are swifter than a post: they flee away, they see no good.

In Bible study, two of the rules we used to understand the meaning of a word are:
1. The Bible defines itself. (It has a built-in dictionary.)
2. Context determines meaning.

In the following verses, it is clear what is meant by “post”:
Exodus 12:7 (KJV) “post of the house”
Exodus 21:6 (KJV) “door post”
1 Samuel 1:9 (KJV) “post of the temple”
Ezekiel 40:14 (KJV) “post of the court”
Ezekiel 40:48 (KJV) “post of the porch”
Ezekiel 41:3 (KJV) “post of the door”
Ezekiel 46:2 (KJV) “post of the gate”

QUESTION: How can a “post” be swift?
ANSWER: Who says a “post” always stays and never travels?

The Bible’s Built-in Dictionary:
The Bible definition for “post” in Job 9:25 can be found in Jeremiah.
Jeremiah 51:31 (KJV) One post shall run to meet another, and one messenger to meet another, to shew the king of Babylon that his city is taken at one end,
A “post” is a “messenger” who “runs” (Jer. 51:31). He is a postman who delivers mail.

Google Definition
Using the Google search engine, the search words “post definition” yield the following meanings:
• A long, sturdy piece of timber or metal set upright in the ground and used to support something or as a marker
• An online posting
• British: the official service or system that delivers letters and parcels
• Historical: one of a series of couriers who carried mail on horseback between fixed stages
• Archaic: a person or vehicle that carries mail
• A position of paid employment; a job
• A place where someone is on duty or where a particular activity is carried out
 

A “post” can be something “set upright in the ground”, something “online”, some “service or system”, some “person or vehicle”, some “position” or “job”, or some “place”.

British and American Vocabulary

British American
post mail
postbox mailbox
postcode zip code
postman mailman, mail carrier, letter carrier

CONCLUSION:  By Bible definition, the “post”in Job 9:25 is a “messenger” (Jer. 5:31) or a postman who “runs” to deliver messages or mail.

APPLICATION: “Now my days are swifter than a post.” (Job 9:25) Let us “run” and be “swifter than a post” to deliver the gospel.

 

 

 

1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Romans 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Romans 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of deathnot only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

 

Legalizing Sin and "Criminilizing" Righteousness

Members of a group applying for representation in congress in the Philippines feel proud that theirs is "the only political party" of LGBT people in the world.  In fact the name of their group is a Filipino term for "out of the closet".  They want to change the law or reinterpret the law and enact new laws to make themselves more "gay" (a word which originally simply meant, "happy").  Their number one platform is to pass the anti-discrimination bill to make the so-called "discrimination" against homosexuals (lesbians and gays), bisexuals, and transsexuals "a criminal act.' " In other words, when they sit in congress, it would make all Bible believing preachers "criminals" and all Bible-based materials "illegal", and all who would not accept a gay or lesbian into the pulpit or Christian classroom can be sent to prison.  It is quite interesting to note that people from various sectors who oppose the move are branded as "self-righteous", "prejudiced", "biased", or "legalistic" , and then they proceed to "legalize" their own "biases and prejudices" so they can declare their sins and themselves "righteous".  

 

 

Out of the Closet Into the Church

What's worse is that people in "christian ministry" (including "christian" singers, "christian" artists, "christian" ministers, etc.) are also openly confessing and justifying their sins of adultery, fornication, and homosexuality.  We know that church musicians influence more people than the pastor, the youth pastor more than the senior pastor, the christian celebrity more than the soulwinner, and the "minister" more than the preacher.  In fact, what has been coming "out of the closet" are gay christian school teachers, gay church organizations, gay christian websites, gay christian music, and gay Sunday schools. Have you seen gay PKs ("pastor's kids") and gay soulwinners? Ever heard about a "gay bible" translated by "gay translators" edited by "lesbian stylists"?

 

Changing the "Constitution and By-Laws" of the Universe

Some people are so excited about a Cha-Cha ("Charter Change"; the word in another context refers to a dance). The worst thing is when the "bible" itself changes (or rather, "is changed") to make the disobedient "happy".  Despite the many denials, it is now a known fact that the head of the Old Testament Committee of the New International Version (NIV) is a gay and the literary critic and stylist of the translation is a lesbian.

 

Here is the NIV 2011 rendering of 1 Corinthians 6:9:

"9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a]"

FOOTNOTE:

 

a. The words men who have sex with men translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts.

 

The King James Bible (KJB) condemns, not only the "abusers of themselves with mankind", "men with men working that which is unseemly", and women changing "their natural use into that which is against nature", but also the "effeminate" (dictionary meaning: "a man having unsuitable feminine qualities").  

1) The NIV 2011 did not mention any thing about "effiminacy" in 1 Corinthians 6:9.

2) The NIV 2011 even changed "fornication" into "sexually immoral" which means nothing in this age of "relativism", when "what is right for you may be wrong for me and what is wrong for you may be right for me. Let's just respect one another's 'opinions' ".

3) The NIV 2011 changed the pure wording of the KJB "abusers of themselves with mankind" into a more explicit, non-child friendly rendition, "men who have sex with men"

4) In the footnote to 1 Corinthians 6:9, the NIV 2011 further explained that even "men who have sex with men" only sin when there are "passive and active participants in homosexual acts" (in other words, rape).  What if both are "passive" (effeminate) or both are "active" (same-sex marriage)? The footnote implies that they are not wrong.

 

NOTE: When we compare the two Bibles, the NIV has changed the fourth time in 2011 since 1978, with the other changes made in 1984 and 2005 (TNIV). The KJB, except for spelling, orthography, and very minor printing errors which have all been corrected, has never changed and contains the same words in 2011 since 1611. (See for yourself.)  The Bible though did not begin in 2011. It began with the "inspiration of God" (2 Tim. 3:16) and has been preserved pure from place to place, from language to language, from generation to generation, forever (Psalm 12:6,7Matthew 24:35).

 

The Holy Bible (not "bibles") is the Word of God and is, therefore, the "Constitution and By-laws" of the universe.  No one can dance around it by a Cha-cha.  Everyone must abide by every letter of this Law.  The Lord Jesus Christ is the King of Kings and Lord of lords, and He's not just an "elected president".  He is the Chief Justice and only Him is our Advocate.  The Great White Throne Judgment is the Supreme Court but the Cross of Calvary is the court of appeals. O that all would repent and turn from sin to the Son to be saved from sure doom! 

 

To Change Or Not To Change?

Instead of changing that "Which cannot be changed", we are to change "that which can be changed".  The Word of God cannot be changed. The human heart, if humble and willing, can be changed. If "that which can be changed" refuse to change, that "Which cannot be changed" will still never change; and "that which can be changed" will be forced to change.

 

A change in the law of nature, a change in law of the land, and a change in the law of the Lord surely makes both people and the devil "gay" in earth but doomed for Hell (Rom. 1:18-32Rev. 21:8). 

 

Men of God and the "handmaidens of the Lord" that sow tears on earth will reap joy (Psa. 126:5) in heaven, as they they preach and live soberly, righteously, and Godly in this present evil world (Tit. 2:11-132 Tim. 4:1-8).

 

From the New Testament Baptist Pulpit

WHICH GOD?

By Sammy G. Tabuena (2011)

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

In a video title, “The Unveiling of the Man of Sin” (22nd Annual International Prophecy Conference, www.godsnews.com), Dr. Joe VanKoevering said this:

“Any student of the Hebrew will discover from the original text that the correct translation should actually be: ‘The gods of his fathers” and not ‘The God of his fathers’.”

He also quoted Arnold G. Fruchtenbaum’s The Footsteps of the Messiah:

“The very fact that the plural form of the word ‘God’ is used in a context where the singular is found in the majority of cases makes this a reference to heathen deities and not a reference to the God of Israel…Further evidence that the King James Version is incorrect in its translation here is seen in the fact that almost all other English translations, both from Jewish and non-Jewish sources, have rendered the word for God in the plural.” (p. 140)

Then he mentioned about Dr. John F. Walvoord, in his commentary, Daniel: The Key to Prophetic Revelation, refuting Gaebelein:

“Gaebelein and others upholding this view, however, overlook a most decisive fact that the word for ‘God’ here is Elohim, a name for God in general, applying both to the true God and to false gods.”

“If the expression had been the usual one when referring to the God of Israel, the Jehovah of his father, the identification would be unmistakable. Very frequently in scripture, the God of Israel is described as Jehovah, ‘the Lord God’ of their fathers. Although Daniel uses ‘God (Elohim) of my fathers’ in Daniel 2:23 in view of this common usage elsewhere in Scripture, for Daniel to omit the word Jehovah or Lord, (KJV) in a passage where a specific name for the God of Israel would be necessary, becomes significant.”

“The expression should be rendered ‘the gods of his fathers,’ that is, any god, as most revisions translate it. In keeping with the blasphemous character of this king who magnifies himself above every god, he disregards whatever deities his fathers worshipped. In keeping with the general word for god, Elohim, the expression, ‘the gods of his fathers,’ becomes a general reference to any deities whether pagan or true God.” (p. 273, 274)

Then Dr. VanKoevering concluded that the Man of Sin cannot be a Jew and must be a Gentile, based on the following three arguments (The Footsteps of the Messiah by Fruchtenbaum):

1. Typology: since Antiochus Epiphanes, a type of the Antichrist, was a Gentile, then the Man of Sin must be a Gentile.
2. Imagery: since the Beast arises out of the “sea” (Rev. 13), then the Antichrist must be a Gentile who comes out of Gentile nations.
3. The Nature of the Times of the Gentiles: since the Antichrist is the final ruler of the times of the Gentiles, then he has to be a Gentile.

So where will the Man of Sin originate from? According to Dr. Vankoevering, the Antichrist will come from the Muslim world. He based his answer from the following passages:

1 John 2:18 Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
21 I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth.
22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

Dr. VanKoevering, quoting from his book, The Church Under End Time Attack, concluded that since the antichrist will deny the deity of Jesus, deny that Jesus is the Son of God, and deny the relationship between the Father and the Son, the Antichrist will be a Muslim.

Then he makes a bold statement that the man’s name is: His Royal Highness Crown Prince El Hassan bin Talal. Then he proceeded to explain that this man is a Gentile, but he is welcomed in Jewish synagogues, Catholic cathedrals, and Protestant chapels.

Are Muslims the only ones who deny the deity of Jesus? Are they the only people in the world that deny that Jesus is the Son of God? Don’t the cults and other world religions do the same? Didn’t the Jews themselves reject Christ as the Son of God? Can the antichrist also, therefore, be Jewish, since the Jews denied the deity of Christ?

While we are not dealing with the topic about who the antichrist is, this is one example of:
1. Proving a private interpretation by twisting the text of the Word of God, the King James Bible of 1611;
2. Creating a doctrine out of typology and symbols, rather than basing typological illustrations out of plain doctrine first; and
3. Interpreting Scripture by exegesis and “going to back to the original Hebrew”, rather than by believing the English text and allowing the context to determine the meaning of the words.
It only takes 15 minutes to see whether a preacher is a Bible believer or not, or whether the teaching has a Biblical or corrupt foundation. You don’t have to listen for two to four hours before you can see that the man’s authority for the “revelation” he is teaching is the Word of God or just human wisdom.

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

A key word in “rightly dividing the word of truth” is to ask “which?” When the Bible says, “gospel”, you ask, “which gospel”? Gospel of Grace or Gospel of the Kingdom?
Which “kingdom”? The “kingdom of God” which is not “meat and drink”, or the coming “kingdom of God” where there is “eating and drinking”?
Which “grace”? The “grace” that “hath appeared unto all men”, or the “grace” that is yet “to be revealed” at the last time?
Which “church”? The “church, which was in the wilderness”, or the “church, which is the Body of Christ”?

When the Bible says “God”, then we are to ask, “which God”? Context determines meaning, and not just the word itself.
Is the King James Bible in error when it says “the God of his fathers”? Or should it be, as in the modern versions, “the gods of his fathers”?

There is no problem about trying to prove something such as the Antichrist had to be a Gentile and not a Jew, provided the text is left to stand as it is. But when a preacher tries to twist the Word of God to fit his doctrine, he lost the final and sole authority for what he teaches.

We do not profess to be scholars, but the student of the Word would be bothered about listening to a doctrine that is supported from a foundation of doubting the very Word that they profess to be teaching.

Two simple rules in Bible study:

1. Believe what you read, rightly divided.
2. The Bible defines itself; context determines meaning.

In other words, the King James Bible is the Word of God. Let us study it by “rightly dividing the word of truth”.

Daniel 11:36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.
37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.
38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

There are 3 different “Gods” in Daniel 11:36-38:

I. “The God of gods”, which, is “the God of his fathers”

II. “Every god”, which is “any god”

III. “The God of forces”, the “god whom his fathers knew not”
“God” vs “gods”

Notice the following contrasting pairs:

1) “every god” vs. “the God of gods” (v.36)
2) “The God of his fathers” vs. “any god” (v.37)

If we follow the modern perversions and the Bible corrupters, the contrast is lost in verse 37:

1) “every god” vs. “the God of gods” (v.36)
2) “the gods of his fathers” vs. “any gods”? (v.37)

“God of gods” vs. “God of forces”

Notice another contrast.

1) “God of gods” vs. “God of forces” (vv.37, 38)
2) “The God of his fathers” vs. “the god whom his fathers knew not” (vv. 37,38)

Be careful not to confuse the “God of gods” (with the capitalized “G”) with the “God of forces” (also with a capital “G”).

The Bible does the defining, the explaining, and the interpreting for you:

1) The “God of gods” is the “God of his fathers”.
2) The “God of forces” is the “god whom his fathers knew not”.

A more detailed study on the Bible usages of the word “God” or “god” is desired in the future but is beyond the purpose of this article. This is written for the purpose of showing how changing a word in the King James text can change a doctrine, and how important it is to learn the principle of considering the context in understanding Scripture.

While the “god of this world” is blinding the hearts of men, our prayer is that the “God of light” will illumine our hearts with the Word of God.

A blessed new year in the 400th year
of the Word of God in English,
the Authorized King James Bible of 1611!

Acts 2:38


Satan's Favorite Bible Verse

 

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2:38)

The above verse of scripture is a favorite among many religious groups. One can hear it several times on Sunday morning radio programs, as well as from the pulpits of numerous groups, and it can be found in much religious literature. The verse is a favorite because, on the surface, it seemingly states that one must be baptized in order to be saved, and without baptism one is not saved. So, those who believe that water baptism is essential for salvation make it a regular habit of using Acts 2:38 as scriptural support.

Read the rest of this entry »

By Moses LemuelRaj

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2Ti 3:16).

"No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2Pe 1:20,21).

These verses above clearly tell us that the Scriptures are God-breathed and are not fables written by men, and we read "it was impossible for God to lie" (Heb 6:18). Therefore there cannot be any errors in the Holy Bible, and it is perfect historically, geographically, scientifically, grammatically and numerically, and "every word of God is pure" (Pr 30:5).

This is acknowledged by almost all genuine believers of the Word of God. But some of them say that only the "original autographs" are inspired and the copies of the Scripture got corrupted in the course of time due to accumulation of copyists' errors, and therefore the Scriptures we have today, whether in original tongues or translations, are not completely error free (Please see the notes for Jer 52:12,22,25,31 in the NIV Study Bible). Neither do they agree the fact that, a faithful translation of Scriptures by able and godly men from an error free copy of scriptures in the original tongue, preserved divinely, is equally inspired Word. But still they talk about the "general accuracy" of the Scriptures, of course with its copyists' errors included which, they say, do not matter much, and must be ignored. But that would essentially mean that the Word which says "every word of God is pure" is irrelevant today. Would not God who gave His holy Word preserve it from corruption?

Read the rest of this entry »

By Jack Moorman

One hundred years ago John Burgon wrote:

"If you and I believe that the original writings of the Scriptures were verbally inspired by God, then of necessity they must have been providentially preserved through the ages."

This is the crux of the matter; does God preserve that Word which He originally inspired? And if so, to what extent? Is it merely the concepts and basic message that is kept intact; or does preservation, as inspiration, extend to the words themselves?

That the Bible declares both the fact and extent of its preservation is made abundantly clear in the following:

"Know now that there shall fall unto the earth nothing of the word of the LORD" (2 Kings 10:10).

"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" (Psa. 12:6,7).

Read the rest of this entry »

A Critique of James R. White's book

By Dr. Thomas D. Holland, Th. D. (Email: Logos1611@aol.com)


Justification by faith was the birth cry of the Protestant Reformation. The essential word for men like Luther was faith, which has its roots and life in the living word of God (Rom. 10:17). Today, however, the essential word seems to be justification. Men seek to justify their actions and systems of belief, often at the cost of truth and consistency.

Those who believe the King James Bible to be the preserved word of God for the English speaking people will find no friend in the writings of James R. White and his recent book, "The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?" (Bethany House Publishers 1995). White seeks to justify the use of modern versions such as the NIV and NASV while attacking those who hold to the Authorized Version as the word of God.

It would take a volume to answer all White's objections to the King James Bible and those who believe it. Those criticisms have all been addressed in the writings of those White opposes. However, some points of justification require further examination. The number of contradictions, straw man arguments, and false information is astounding. So are the number of endorsements his book has received by those who view it as "scholarly and accurate," as quoted by Dr. Bruce Metzger, editor of the United Bible Society's Greek text (the basic text for the NIV and TEV). Such endorsements are understandable considering supporters are themselves translators and editors of modern Greek texts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Double Jeopardy:The New American Standard Bible Update


Excerpt from Double Jeopardy: The NASB Update


Chapter 1

The History of the NASB

There are several significant dates in the history of the NASB. In 1960 the NASB first appeared as just the Gospel of John. This was followed in 1962 with the translation of the Four Gospels. The completed New Testament was issued in 1963, the Psalms in 1968, and the entire Bible was published in 1971. But the history of the NASB does not begin with any of these dates.

Read the rest of this entry »

The NIV has a very weak rendering as they use dynamic equivalency of thought (man's opinion of the meaning) rather than take the precise approach of translating from the original language to the new language of English using literal precision accuracy as did the AV translators. The AV renders the Greek text word for word (Textus Receptus) even retaining the right word order to communicate and preserve faithfully God's full-intended meaning.

 

NIV
Brothers, If someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. Galatians 6:1

AV
Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted. Galatians 6:1

The problems are subtle but serious…

1) "is caught in a sin" is not equivalent to "be overtaken in a fault"

The NIV's "thought" implies we can get away with sin or get "caught"…The phrase "overtaken in a fault" turns our attention not to a specific act or thought but a weakness and pattern of sin that might be besetting us. If we lose the term "fault", we lose the important link to a key companion verse:

 

James 5:16 Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Truth about the Agape-Phileo Myth


by Dr. Herb Evans

Bible believers are constantly bombarded by Greek experts, who claim to have special insight to the hidden nuggets of the Greek N.T., which cannot be found in the plain, ordinary English of the King James Bible. Most believers, not proficient in the Greek, may lack a refuting authority for such claims. Fortunately, most Bible believers are wisely either skeptical or suspicious regarding that which they cannot read, trusting only in that which they can read, thus escaping the pitfalls of blindly following after the claims of the new age Rosicrucians. Just as the King James Bible is rich in synonyms (purposely according to its translators), the Greek N.T. is also rich in synonyms. Both Greek and English synonyms fit into different contexts or blend into the rhythm of the text more suitably than others. Sometimes, one Greek word is translated by more than one English synonym; at other times, Read the rest of this entry »

Read the rest of this entry »

 
A VERY BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE
{From the Beginning of the Reformation up to 1611 A.D.}
 

Between 1525-1611 A.D. six Major English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, The Great, Geneva, and The Bishops) were produced – all of which were based on the Greek Text known as the Byzantine Text (now known as the Received Text or Textus Receptus) in the New Testament, and the Hebrew Text (known as the Massoretic Text) in the Old Testament.  

William Tyndale completed translating the New Testament and most of the Old Testament before he was murdered by the government (strangled to death and then burned). The Coverdale Bible was the first complete Bible in English based on a ‘Greek Text’ in the New Testament, and a Hebrew Text in the Old Testament. John Wycliffe’s earlier English Translation (1382 A.D.) was based on some of the Old Latin manuscripts and the Latin Vulgate, and was ‘revised’ by John Purvey to bring it more in line with Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. Matthew’s Bible was a combination of the best from Tyndale and Coverdale. The Great Bible was a Revision of Matthew’s. The Geneva Bible was the Bible of the Puritan’s (and was the most popular Bible with the common people until the AV1611 – KJB). The Bishop’s Bible was an “Official” Bible put out by the Church of England in an attempt to replace the popular Geneva (which it never did).

Six English Bibles produced in approximately 85 years, and then the crowning achievement: The AUTHORIZED VERSION (1611 A.D.), The Seventh! What did God say in Psalms 12:6-7?  

Psalms 12:6 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.

Read the rest of this entry »

The “Greek Game”
“A Little Learning Is A Dangerous Thing”

Timothy S. Morton


Any believer who reads much modern “Christian literature” (commentaries, expository works, study guides, or even devotionals), will invariably be confronted with references to “the original Greek.” Even in their messages many preachers often feel compelled to “educate”  their hearers with references to the “original Greek,” “enlightening” them with their “superior grasp of the original languages.” These men (and women) with their books and messages, by referring to “the Greek” as the ultimate biblical authority, are by implication stating the English Bible (KJB) is not wholly sufficient for the pursuit of the full meaning of God’s word. To “really understand what God has to say,” they insist, “one must study or at least consult the original Greek.” Your author has heard preachers from the pulpit insist, “The English language cannot convey the full meaning of the original so one must consult the wonderful and precise Greek text to fully grasp what God has said.” Translation: “If you don’t know Greek, it is impossible for you to really know the Bible.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Answering the “Unanswerable”
Answers to “Unanswerable Questions”
Posed by King James Bible Critic, Gary Hudson

By
Timothy S. Morton


The Nature of The Questions

Sooner or later any person who is interested in “Bible issues” or the “KJV debate” will be confronted with so-called “probing questions” questioning the purity of the word of God as found in the KJB. These questions [now usually found on the Internet] are often presented in a pompous, arrogant manner typical of the “Autograph Only/KJB critic” crowd. Since these characters live in a cold, sterile, “logical” world void of even the possibility of a pure Bible, they pose these “intelligent and revealing” questions to “unlearned and ignorant” Bible believers in an attempt to humiliate us into subjection. Here is an example of their smug, condescending rhetoric by Gary Hudson after he came up with a list of 40 “unanswerable” questions,

While I could go on with many more questions regarding the growing facets of “KJV-Onlyism, I have limited them to these 40. I am sure that Unlearned Men like… Peter Ruckman, Samuel Gipp, Jack Hyles, Don Edwards, Herb Evans, Joe Chambers, David Cloud, D. A. Waite, Walter Beebe, Jack Chick, Texe Marrs, E. L. Bynum, William Grady, Floyd Jones, Dallas Bunch, Brad Weniger, Herbert Noe, Larry Vance, Ken Johnson, Robert Diehl, (+ women like Gail Riplinger) and others_____ (“Birds of a feather flock together…”) of their persuasion, would like to have the answers to these questions!

Read the rest of this entry »


The Arrogant Assumptions Of The “Autograph Only”

How To Reason Yourself Into Unbelief”

By
Timothy S. Morton


“Autograph Only”?

Those who follow what we call the “Autograph Only” position concerning the inspiration, preservation, and purity of the Scriptures (those who believe  ONLY the “original autographs of the Bible are inerrant, infallible, and “inspired”) would have all Christians believe their “logical conclusions” on the matter are the only conclusions possible. Many of them promote their position in such a “matter of fact” manner and with such a superior attitude that it leaves those who differ with them feeling as if they are thought of as ignorant, “unthinking” or just plain stupid. They often use phrases as, “It is logically and scriptually impossible…,” “It is only logical to believe…,” “The logical and historical position is…,” etc., etc., apparently trying to “brow-beat” the “less knowledgeable” or “less educated” into submission. They claim to know the truth but by their own admission they don’t HAVE the truth. In this Taboo Topic we will address the three major assumptions this crowd tries to pass as FACT. Read the rest of this entry »

Archaic Words in the NIV

Archaic Words and the Authorized Version
By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

As suitable for reading as it is valuable for reference this book provides an explicit and comprehensive examination of every word in the Authorized Version of the Bible that has been deemed archaic, obsolete, antiquated, or otherwise outmoded. The result is both a fascinating and encyclopedic study of words -their meaning, derivation, usage, and significance. The thesis of this seminal work is that the Authorized Version is no more archaic than daily newspapers, current magazines, and modern Bible versions. This book is unique in that it seeks neither to criticize nor to correct the text of the Authorized Version. Extensively documented with over 5,000 footnotes, the book contains twenty-four Read the rest of this entry »


Isn’t “Easter” in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation?
By Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, Th.D.


This is a section from the excellent book “The Answer Book: A Handbook for Christians” by Dr. Sam Gipp. Dr. Gipp is the author of several books. Dr. Gipp is a popular Evangelist, teacher, author and Bible Conference speaker. He has the unique ability to digest large amounts of information and present it in an analytical, understandable, format. His humorous and informative preaching style makes him popular with all ages and keeps him in demand as a Revivalist and Bible Conference speaker. Dr. Gipp appeared as a defender of the King James Bible on the “John Ankerberg Show.” Dr. Gipp’s life story was featured on the national radio program, “Unshackled.” Brother Gipp’s Web site is A Friend to Churches Ministries. The complete Answer Book is available for on-line viewing and can also be ordered on-line.


Read the rest of this entry »

BIBLE VERSES REMOVED
by Terry Watkins

“. . .man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY WORD of God.” Luke 4:4

Most people believe the new versions are just “harmless” updating of words and made easier to understand.
Nothing could be further from the Truth!
Jesus Christ, in Luke 8:11-12, tells the parable of the sower and the seed:

“Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. . . then cometh the devil, and TAKETH AWAY the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved.”. Luke 8:11-12

The new versions “take away” complete verses from the words of God. And as with Eve (see Genesis 3:1), it s all done very subtle.

Read the rest of this entry »

300 CHANGES IN THE NIV AND OTHER MODERN VERSIONS

The following table lists 300 verses that have been changed in the seven most popular versions.

THE SEVEN MOST POPULAR VERSIONS
NI New International Version NAS New American Standard Version
NKJ New King James Version RS Revised Standard Version
NRS New Revised Standard Version LB The Living Bible
NC New Century Version


Read the rest of this entry »

TABLES OF COMPARISON OF SELECTED SCRIPTURES

AFFECTING FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH

KING JAMES BIBLE, ENGLISH REVISED VERSION, NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION, NEW KING JAMES VERSION

The categories of tables were selected to represent the most significant areas of change in modern translations which affect fundamental Christian doctrine. This listing is only a portion of the overwhelming number of alterations to essential doctrines.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Importance of Thee and Thou


The Following excellent article was written by
Pastor E. L. Bynum | August 1995

A New Bible With No `Thou Shalt Nots’

The following story was taken from the pages of a newspaper. We quote it word for word, so our readers can see this shameful story.

Thou shall not find any `thou shall nots’ in new Bible translation

The Contemporary English Version of the Bible-arriving in bookstores next month propelled by an $8 million advertising blitz-may be the most easy-to-read translation of the perennial bestseller ever published.

Other recent translations have already dumped the troublesome thees, thous and whithersoevers of the 17th century’s King James Version. But millions of Americans still weren’t sure just what such things as an ark and a manger were, American Bible Society translators found.

Read the rest of this entry »

New Bible Versions Tested

by Dr. S. Frank Logsdon

THE “NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE” Find out why the man who wrote the Preface for the NASB ended up repudiating it.

(EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. S. Frank Logsdon has pastored a number of churches, including the MOODY MEMORIAL CHURCH in Chicago, Illinois. He was deeply involved in the publication of the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE. AS a matter of fact he wrote the PREFACE for the NASV. He was a close personal friend of Mr. Dewey Lockman, a business man who proposed its publication. Lockman had the money to get it done, and Dr. Logsdon encouraged him to do it, and helped in every way possible to get it done. The article before you explains in Logsdon’s own words, how he came to the conviction that he should repudiate the NASV. He also deals with the errors of a number of other versions. This message needs to be circulated. E. L. Bynum)

Read the rest of this entry »

Is The King James Version Nearest To

The Original Autographs?

by David Otis Fuller, D.D. (1903 to 1988)
Grand Rapids, Michigan



[This pamphlet is a resume of the book "Which Bible?" now it its fifth edition and again enlarged to 350 pages.]

Of The Multiplying Versions of God’s Holy Word, is the King James Version Nearest to the Original Autographs?

By Dr. David Otis Fuller

From 1611 A.D. to 1978 A.D. is a long time in any man’s language. Three centuries plus sixty seven years. That is how long the King James Version of God’s Holy word has lasted. How come? It is still going strong despite the attempts of the Liberals and alas! the Conservatives to downgrade this version using the worn cliché of the critics, “Older and more accurate manuscripts have been discovered to change the meaning of many passages.” Such a statement is not true and we have abundant evidence for it.

Read the rest of this entry »

Inspiration of Scriptures
By Moses LemuelRaj
Secunderabad, India

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (2Timothy 3:16).

“Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” (2Peter 1:20-21).

“The Spirit of the LORD spake by me, and his word was in my tongue.” (2Samuel 23:2).

Many people have many “theories” of inspiration of the Scriptures, but let me make this clear to the readers that MY understanding of the subject is gathered from the AV text, and believing that the AV text constitutes Holy Scriptures in the English language, and is MY final authority of appeal in this matter.

Read the rest of this entry »

The following essay is the reason why I believe that the King James Bible is God’s Holy Word:Preserved by God – Perfect, Holy, Infallible, Inspired and Without Error. I do not hold this belief because some man or men"convinced" me. I hold this conviction because of What God demonstrated to me from “the scripture of truth” in regards to His Attitude towards His words.

   The danger in embracing this “belief” or holding this “conviction” based only on the testimony and/or persuasive arguments of men is that – other men may come along who are more articulate, and more persuasive and more convincing than those men that convinced you, and talk you out of your “belief” or “conviction”. (In the last 40 years, I’ve seen it happen – more than once!)

Read the rest of this entry »

This depository is for authors who defend and uphold the Lord Jesus Christ and his holy written word, as found in the King James Bible.

We encourage those who qualify for the above to contact us regarding submissions to this site and login criteria to  deposit articles and studies. Feel free to contact us via the contact link above or the form on the Symposium section of our site.

Log In

Tags
Font Controller

+(reset)-

+(reset)-