Question:
The issue about, why I believe that the King James 1611 is the Word of God has come out again. My position on this issue has been explained several times, but there are people out there that can not, (because the way they were raised), or will not submit to the final authority of the Scriptures, (because they don’t believe that we have the infallible word of God with us today). The Bible says: Psalms 12:6 – The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Psalms 12:7 – Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. In their efforts to discredit the King James 1611, some religious sectors have tried to slander King James 1 of England by saying that he was a homosexual, or that he had other motives for the translation of the King James 1611. Well, this is nothing new under the sun. I mean if you don’t like message just kill the messenger. Some interesting facts about King James are that he was considered a great monarch. However like anyone that stands for the truth, King James had enemies. One of these enemies was a fellow by the name of Anthony Weldon. After he was excluded from the court of England, Weldon swore revenge. It was not until 1650, twenty five years after King James died, that Weldon wrote a paper in which he stated that King James was a homosexual. These maneuvers might work for a while, but the truth is that King James never translated anything, he merely authorized the translation. Is motives were that the common person would have access to the Word of God. Did other religious groups share this burden that the common person have the Word of God? Let’s take a look. From the Catholic Church literature: "The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour tought". (Question Box 1913 Ed, page 67) "There is nowhere in the New Testament a clear, methodical statement of the teaching of Christ". (Question Box 66) "The Bible was not intended to be a textbook of Christian religion". (Catholics Facts, page 50). It is important to note that in 1605, while the King James 1611 was being translated, a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder, which he was to use to kill King James and the Parliament. It is reported that a Jesuit priest by the name of Fr. Garnet was an accomplice to this terrorist attack, however, this was never proven in court. It was proven however that Fr. Garnet had knowledge of the attack and did nothing to prevent it: Fr Garnet declared: "I have always abhorred this wicked attempt." He was accused of misprision (knowing about a crime – the plot – but doing nothing about it). Why are these people so concern about this book? Could it be that light from above was about to be shed on humanity, and the cloak of mystery that surrounds some religious systems was about to be revealed? Could it be that the traditions of men, where about to be broken? The Bible says: 1 Corinthians 14:33 – For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. But regardless any attempts made by any major religious organization, the King James 1611 was completed. One of the comments of those that wants to discredit the book so that their religion can be the final authority is, why in English? What people are trying to say is that since God wants to save everybody then he must make his word accessible in every language. This is not true. God has always given his word to one people in one language. Romans 3:1 – What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Romans 3:2 – Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. A perfect example of this would be the Old Testament. It is facts that with the exeption of some portions of Ezra and Daniel, the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. Did God felt obligated to provide his word in Egyptian, Chaldian, Syrian or any other language used during the Old Testament? No. The English language developed for many centuries until the late sixteen-century. I. God promised to preserve his Word Now days if you go to any bookstore, you will probably find dozens of Bibles on the shelves, (NIV, NASB, NKJ, RV, Mickey Mouse, Alice in Wonderland, and of course the Old Archaic King James 1611). So especially the new Christian must ask himself, which one is the Word of God? Or better yet, do we have the Word of God? I mean, God himself promised to preserve his word: Luke 21:33 – Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. So if all Bibles are not the same, (and they are not), where is the Word of God preserved? Did he preserve his words in the Greek manuscripts? Because if His Words are preserved only in the Greek, then he has restricted their use to a selected group. This was never the way Jesus acted here on earth. He always went past the religious organizations, scholars, and took his word to the common people. If it is not the King James 1611, where is it? Before you answer that question, do you believe that we have the Word of God with us today? Now, you claim to be so smart that you can find mistakes in the King James 1611, why don’t you correct them and give us a perfect Bible. Or maybe the reason is because you don’t believe we have a perfect Bible. Or the real reason is that because if you admit and submit to the Word of God as the final authority, your corrupt, political, power hungry system will collapse. II. Dollars and Cents I would also like to point out that the King James 1611 has no copyrights. The text of the King James can be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding its duplication. This is not true with the modern Bibles. So then, if a Bible has copyrights and the seal of approval of the Roman Church, who gets the money? Could this have to do with dollars and cents? 1 Corinthians 2:12 – Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. III the Final Product The King James 1611 produces good fruit, (Matthew 7: 17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and the teachings of the KJV to bring souls to Christ. Now lets talk about the fruits of the Roman Church which does not use the King James, and has refer to it as a "bastard translation". Your fruits are a religious system that has imposed their beliefs by the sword, and now in the year 2000 comes out with a meaningless apology. The King James 1611 was translated during the Philadelphia period, (Revelations 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodeicean period gets on their way, (Revelation 3:14-22). What I am saying is that for me there is no power in the modern translations. IV: The Translators: The King James translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add a word because the language differences, they placed that word in Italics. The translators believed that they were handling the Word of God. Just read the dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces of the other Bibles. Lets take a short tour how the KJV was translated: In 1604, King James announced that fifty-four Hebrews and Greek scholars had been appointed to translate a new Bible for English speaking people. The number was reduced to forty-seven by the time the work formally began in 1607. Rather than working together all at one location, these men were divided into six separate groups, which worked at three separate locations. There were two at Westminster, tow at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. Each group was given a selected portion of Scripture to translate, Each member of his group review each scholar made his won translation of a book, and then passed it on to. Then the whole group went over the book together Once a group had completed a book of the Bible, they sent it to be reviewed by the other five groups. All objectionable and questionable translating was marked and noted and then it was returned to the original group for consideration. Selection one leader from each group formed a special committee. This committee worked out all the remaining differences and presented a finished copy for the printers in 1611. Far more evidence supports the King James. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety five percent supports the King James Bible. The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts. Most of them are from Alexandria, Egypt. If we check the family tree of the Bibles we would find out that there is the Devils line and the Lords line. V: The Bloodline Many people are led to believe that these new translations such as the ASV, the NIV, and the NASV are just revisions of the King James 1611. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are not giving you a better translation; they are giving you a different version. All new translations are based on the Westcott and Hort text, which is commonly known as the Greek text. These two English scholar spend the late 1800 communicating with spirit and perverting the Word of God. So there are only two bloodlines, Antioch or Alexandria, Egypt. Lets see what the Bible has to say about these two places: 1. Egypt is mentioned in the Bible for the first time in connection with Abraham not trusting Egyptians around his wife, (Genesis 12:10-13). 2. One of the greatest types of Christ in the Bible was sold into Egypt as a slave, (En 37:36) 3. Joseph did not want his bones to be left in Egypt, (En 50:25) 4. The Kings of Israel were forbidden to get horses from Egypt, (Deu 17:16). Israel, Gods people could not buy a horse from Egypt. How come us Christians, who are suppose to … read more »
Response:
No Tx we reject the man made doctrines created long after Christ began our Church. Why should we believe your book alone fantasy for what Christ himself gave our church? The King James is a poorly translated Bible full of edits to boulster the lies of the reformation, do get a clue. Pax Bad Translations in the King James Version by James Akin Last Updated: September 22, 1996 This page serves as a catalogue of translation problems in the King James Version of the Bible. It will be updated regularly. As I am document more translation problems they will be added here. (I already know of many I haven’t had a chance to type up.) Genesis Exodus Leviticus Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1 Samuel 2 Samuel 1 Kings 2 Kings 1 Chronicles 2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalms Proverbs Ecclesiastes Canticles Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Jonah Micah Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon Hebrews James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1 John 2 John 3 John Jude Revelation Genesis Top Exodus Top Leviticus Top Numbers Top Deuteronomy Top Joshua Top Judges Top Ruth Top 1 Samuel Top 2 Samuel Top 1 Kings Top 2 Kings Top 1 Chronicles Top 2 Chronicles Top Ezra Top Nehemiah Top Esther Top Job Top Psalms Top Proverbs Top Ecclesiastes Top Canticles Top Isaiah Top Jeremiah Top Lamentations Top Ezekiel Top Daniel 8:14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed. "Days" here is inaccurate. The Hebrew here uses the words ereb (evening) and boqer (morning). The RSV renders this better: "And he said to him, ‘For two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.’" "Evening and morning" is a Hebew idiom for a day, but it is not a literal translation to collapse these, and it has unfortunate con sequences, as some have built elaborate eschatological theories (such as William Miller and Ellen G. White, the founding prophetess of Seventh-Day Adventism) on the existence of the word "day" here. They have supposed that they can make each day here correspond to a year and thus they infer a period of 2300 years here. In reality, the word "day" is not in the text, and unlike the word for day (yom, which can denote longer periods of time just as "day" can in English, e.g., "In my day…"), the expression "evening and morning" is much more concrete and less able to be read as a year. Top Hosea Top Joel Top Amos Top Obadiah Top Jonah Top Micah Top Nahum Top Habakkuk Top Zephaniah Top Haggai Top Zechariah Top Malachi Top Matthew Top Mark 6:20 For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly. The word here rendered "observed" is suntereo and it means "to protect"–something the KJV translators elsewhere acknowledge as the other three times it appears in the New Testament they render it "protect" (twice) or "keep" (once). 9:18 And wheresoever he [the demon] taketh him [my boy], he teareth him: and he foameth, and gnasheth with his teeth, and pineth away: and I spake to thy disciples that they should cast him out; and they could not. The word here translated "pineth away" is xeraino and it means "to become dry" or "to wither" (as with a withered, stiff body part). The RSV has it much better: "and wherever it seizes him, it dashes him down; and he foams and grinds his teeth and becomes rigid; and I asked your disciples to cast it out, and they were not able." Pining away is something completely different (the boy did not forlornly long whenever the demon seized him). Top Luke Top John Top Acts 12:4 And when he [Herod] 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. This verse discusses a time right after Herod had arrested and execute the Apostle James. This pleased the Jews, and so he decided to do it to another apostle–Peter. Jewish sensibilities, however, did not favor the execution of people during holy days, and so Herod planned to execute Peter after Passover. The word in the Greek text is pascha, and it an Aramaic loan-word for the Jewish holiday of Passover. Easter was not a distinct holiday at the time, much less did it have a distinct name (pascha simply meant "Passover"), much less would it have been a holiday the non-Christian Jews cared about. For some strange reason the KJV translators chose to render it "Easter" here, even though every other time the word pascha appears in the New Testament, they translated it "Passover." 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. This verse contains two mistranslations: First, "Mars’ hill" should be translated "the Aeropagus." This was a discussion forum that was named after Mars Hill, where it originally met. In Paul’s day, however, it met elsewhere. The KJV wrongly implies that it was meeting at its original location. Second, the word here translated "too superstitious" is deisidaimonesteros. It can mean superstitious, but it also just means religious, pious, and reverent. These are clearly the case here, as Paul is beginning his speech to the Greeks (as was the custom of the time) by saying something nice about the audience to win a favorable hearing. He thus acknowledges their religious nature and then goes on to build a case for Christianity. The KJV translators, however, could not conceive of Paul doing anything but criticizing the idolatrous Greeks, and this determined their rendering of the verse. In reality, he was being polite in order to get them to give him a hearing (read the rest of the speech; he even quotes their own poets–equivalent to the Hebrew prophets–positively when they say something good). Top Romans 15:16 That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The Greek word here rendered "ministering" is hierourgeo and it means "to work as a priest." The KJV translators, however, have suppressed this in order to avoid giving creedence to the idea that ministers of Jesus Christ have any priestly duties (something that would undermine the Protestant idea of eliminating the middle, ministerial priesthood in the Christian age). The RSV renders the verse much better: "to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit." Top 1 Corinthians Top 2 Corinthians Top Galatians Top Ephesians Top Philippians Top Colossians Top 1 Thessalonians Top 2 Thessalonians Top 1 Timothy Top 2 Timothy Top Titus Top Philemon Top Hebrews Top James Top 1 Peter Top 2 Peter Top 1 John Top 2 John Top 3 John Top Jude Top
Response:
The issue about, why I believe that the King James 1611 is the Word of God has come out again. My position on this issue has been explained several times, but there are people out there that can not, (because the way they were raised), or will not submit to the final authority of the Scriptures, (because they don’t believe that we have the infallible word of God with us today).
Sure we do. It’s found in the latest edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament. You can pick one up for a few bucks at any good used bookstore. Of course, you’d also have to learn Greek in order to read it–but then if it’s good enough for St. Paul, it ought to be good enough for you. After all, it’s your eternal soul that’s at stake here; isn’t it worth a few years of your life to learn the language that the Holy Spirit spoke to the Apostles? These maneuvers might work for a while, but the truth is that King James never translated anything, he merely authorized the translation. Is motives were that the common person would have access to the Word of God. Did other religious groups share this burden that the common person have the Word of God?
Sure. The Douay-Rheims translation was completed in 1609, two years before the KJV. But regardless any attempts made by any major religious organization, the King James 1611 was completed. One of the comments of those that wants to discredit the book so that their religion can be the final authority is, why in English?
Yes, that is indeed the question. Why would God ignore almost the entire human race in order to put such special care into a translation that could only be read by a handful of people tucked away in England and America? If He was going to pick one special language to entrust His revelation to, He ought to have picked a tongue that the majority of the world’s literate population could read. Latin, for example. Say, come to think of it … What people are trying to say is that since God wants to save everybody then he must make his word accessible in every language. This is not true. God has always given his word to one people in one language.
Yes. He gave the Old Testament to the Jews in Hebrew, and the New Testament to the Church in Greek. So why haven’t you learned Hebrew and Greek? A perfect example of this would be the Old Testament. It is facts that with the exeption of some portions of Ezra and Daniel, the Old Testament were written in Hebrew. Did God felt obligated to provide his word in Egyptian, Chaldian, Syrian or any other language used during the Old Testament? No.
I see. So the English-speaking peoples in the 17th century were in the same position that the Jews occupied in Old Testament times: a tiny portion of the human race, but nevertheless the Chosen People whom God had particularly picked to be his own special possession. Somehow I suspect the rest of the human race will find your views less than compelling. So if all Bibles are not the same, (and they are not), where is the Word of God preserved? Did he preserve his words in the Greek manuscripts? Because if His Words are preserved only in the Greek, then he has restricted their use to a selected group. This was never the way Jesus acted here on earth.
Now wait a minute. I thought you just told us that this *is* the way God operates. No need to bother with Egyptians and Chaldeans and Syrians in Old Testament times, nor with Frenchmen or Russians or Chinese in the modern world. Hebrew for the Chosen People of the Old Testament, and English for the Chosen People of the modern world, and to hell with everyone else. Isn’t that the way it works? Except God didn’t reveal the Scriptures in Hebrew and English, but in Hebrew and Greek. If you’re willing to make the rest of the world learn English before they can have reliable access to the word of God, I don’t see why God can’t expect the English-speaking world to learn Greek. He always went past the religious organizations, scholars, and took his word to the common people.
Yep. Jesus spoke Hebrew and Greek and Aramaic, the languages of the common people of the eastern Empire. Then the Catholic Church gave the Scriptures to the common people of the western Empire in their native language, which was Latin. By your logic of "one people in one language", God must have given his word to the world in LATIN when the Romans ruled the world and Latin was the universal tongue. That means the Vulgate must have been directly inspired and protected by God. Works for me. If it is not the King James 1611, where is it? Before you answer that question, do you believe that we have the Word of God with us today?
Yes. We hear it proclaimed in every Mass. Now, you claim to be so smart that you can find mistakes in the King James 1611, why don’t you correct them and give us a perfect Bible. Or maybe the reason is because you don’t believe we have a perfect Bible.
If you really think your KJV is perfect, take a look at Hebrews 1:5-13. This is a list of Old Testament quotations which the inspired author of Hebrews cites in support of his argument. In the midst of these he writes: And again, when he bringeth in the first-begotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. (1:6) Like everything else in this passage, the sentence "And let all the angels of God worship him" is a quotation from the Old Testament. The question is: where? (Hint #1: It’s from Deuteronomy 32:43, as a glance at the NIV quickly shows.) (Hint #2: You won’t find it in your KJV, because it’s not there.)
If you like this post and would like to receive updates from this blog, please subscribe our feed.