Jesus is the Amen: An English Nugget

In Revelation 3:14 the Lord Jesus, speaking to the church of the Laodiceans says: "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness..."  The word Amen means true or faithful.  Jesus IS the Amen because he IS the truth (John 14:6), and he IS the faithful witness (Rev 1:5, 3:14).

Also notice this verse appears as the opening to the Lord's epistle to the church of the Laodiceans.  This is the church that is "lukewarm."  This is the church that takes the Lord Jesus out of his own church: "Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me."

It is no irony that it is in this final church age that we see the bible perversions mounting higher than Mount Everest.  And in a touching note, following the heretics Wescott & Hort, the modern perversions produced in the last days of the church have removed the Amen, the Lord Jesus Christ, from the last verse of the book that prophesies of the times of their operation: 2 Timothy 4:22.


KJV: The Lord Jesus Christ be with thy spirit. Grace be with you. Amen.
NIV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
NIV 2011: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you all.
ASV: The Lord be with thy spirit. Grace be with you.
ESV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
HCSB: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you!
NASV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
RSV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
NRSV: The Lord be with your spirit. Grace be with you.
MSG: God be with you. Grace be with you.

Read more...

Inspiration & God-Breathed: Same Thing?

This is not going to be an in-depth study of the doctrine of inspiration; but just a quick analysis of basic and common sense information about how to use a dictionary.  First of all, let me be transparent: IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, it is my opinion that 'God-breathed' is a much easier term to grasp and understand mentally.  And IF inspiration and God-breathed mean the same thing, and IF 'God-breathed' is easier to understand, why didn't any other pre-modern version translation ever say 'God-breathed'?  Was Tyndale a fool? The answer is no.  Tyndale was not a fool; those who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' are the fools.

Let's be clear: people who say the scripture is 'God-breathed' mean that God breathed out the very words of scripture.  The key phrase here is 'breathed out' just as it says the Re-Revised RSV A.K.A ESV - "All scripture is breathed out by God..."  The problem with this definition and the translation is it is contradictory to what scripture teaches about the production of scripture AND it adds to just one more contradiction between the Authorized Bible and the non-authorized ones.  Keep in mind, you have been taught or heard that inspiration/God-breathed/breathed out by God all mean the same thing.  Here is the definition (as it relates to breathing) of inspiration: the drawing of air into the lungs; inhalation.

Do you know anyone that believes God inhaled the words of scripture?  If all scripture is breathed out by God the AV1611 should say, "All scripture is given by expiration of God..." because expiration is the act of breathing out or exhaling.

What is interesting, is almost every secular dictionary includes the theological definition of words amongst their list of definitions where applicable.  So what do secular dictionaries say inspiration means in a theological context? From dictionary.com: a divine influence directly and immediately exerted upon the mind or soul & the divine quality of the writings or words of a person so influenced.  Notice there is nothing about breathing, breath, wind, or anything relating to the respiratory system.  Are these modern secular dictionaries wrong?  99% of modern Bible 'scholars' can't be wrong, can they?  Yes they can be, and they are.  Compare the dictionary.com theological definition with 2 Peter 1:21 - "...but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Now maybe you're thinking this is just some modern redefining by dictionary.com.  Well here is how Noah Webster defined the word in his 1828 dictionary: the infusion of ideas into the mind by the Holy Spirit; the conveying into the minds of men, ideas, notices or monitions by extraordinary or supernatural influence; or the communication of the divine will to the understanding by suggestions or impressions on the mind, which leave no room to doubt the reality of their supernatural origin. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. 2 Tim.3.


Again, nothing about breathing for breath is present.  But what about earlier translations and how they rendered it?  The old Syriac and Ethiopic scriptures render "given by inspiration of God" as "by the Spirit of God" and "written by the Spirit" respectively.

Now where did dictionary.com and Webster 1828 get this theological definition of inspiration?  Obviously, from the scripture itself; the same place you should get your theological definitions and not from the medical field.

Remember, 2 Peter 1:20 says: "...no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation."  "God-breathed" is a private interpretation. 

Read more...

Spiritual Discernment & The King James Bible

In this 400th anniversary year of the Authorized Version of 1611, almost everyone (even anti-KJV apostates) is getting a good word in for the Book.  Most of these big publishers such as Thomas Nelson and Zondervan are really doing it to make some extra money, but nevertheless they are still attempting to 'honor' it.  But one has to find it interesting that even some atheists have said some surprisingly nice things about the Holy Bible.  I understand these people don't actually believe that it is the word of God, but just a masterpiece of English literature, it is still interesting.  And none more interesting than a recent article featuring Christopher Hitchens appearing in the The Christian Post.  I hope you will take time to read this article if you have not done so already.

What makes this article so interesting is his comparison between the modern perversions and the AV.  Hitchens had the opportunity to read Philippians 4:8 at his father's funeral.  And when compared to the CEV he said the contemporary version was "pancake-flat" and more suited for "a basement meeting of A.A."  Hitchens also said of the modern perversion, "[T]hese words could not hope to penetrate the torpid, resistant fog in the mind of a 16-year-old boy..."

In terms of updating the Holy Bible to make it more relevant Hitchens weighed in and opined, "To seek restlessly to update it or make it 'relevant' is to miss the point, like yearning for a hip-hop Shakespeare."  Quoting Job 5:7 he also states, "'Man is born unto trouble as the sparks fly upward,' says the Book of Job. Want to try to improve that for Twitter?"

Hitchens also weighs in on the stupidity of gender-neutral language in the TNIV and the re-packaged TNIV, the NIV2011.  But Hitchens' discernment of these things has to make you wonder about so-called Christians that cannot discern these same, seemingly obvious points.  I'm willing to give some grace to Christians that have not studied this issue and ignorantly use a perversion because they are just following what their pastor said or they just took the advice of the bookstore salesman.  But you have to wonder about people that have studied the issue and continually fight God's book for the English speaking world; men like James White, John Ankerberg, the professing Christians on these translation committees.  If Hitchens can discern these truths WITHOUT the Spirit,  why can't saved people that have the Spirit abiding in them?  Is the Spirit of God abiding in them?  Or are they part of a conSPIRacy, led by another spirit; blindly or willingly? (Psalm 2)

Read more...

On Textual Critcs & Criticism...Pastor Knox

This quote about the irony of textual criticism and the Nicolaitans that practice it is from Pastor James Knox.  I think you'll find it funny, ironic, and true.

"How odd that a man and his friends sit upon antique furniture in a study surrounded by a collection of old books, listen to classic music which is hundreds of years out of date, play "the sport of kings" on great-grandfather's chess board and criticize the Holy Bible (AV) because it contains a dozen old words which are no longer in common speech!!"

Read more...

Fundamentalist Vs. Bible Believer (Pastor William Grady)

"At it's inception, Fundamentalism was a conservative ecumenical movement pioneered by baby-sprinkling Protestants who never fulfilled the Great Commission a day in their lives (i.e., "...baptizing them in the name of the Father..."), timed around the arrival of the blasphemous American Standard Version of 1901.  Doesn't Bible-believing Baptist sound a whole lot better?"

Read more...

Pastor William P. Grady on Sermon Content

"There is a marked difference between pastors who were trained by 'TR men' and pastors who were trained by 'KJB men.' The sermon content of the former generally revolves around topical themes, devotional areas, the home, biographical sketches, patriotism, and 'revival,' while the sermon content of the latter encompasses verse-by-verse Bible teaching and preaching (affording both doctrinal and devotional application)..."

Read more...

About That Archaic King James...

The nicolaitans that constantly knock the Authorized English Bible all have one thing in common; education.  On the surface, there is nothing wrong with education, but when education gets in the way of learning there is a serious problem; one that has caused serious error in the Body of Christ and overthrown the faith of of some (2 Tim 2:18).  Of course not all educated persons are incapable of learning, but the one's that do are no longer considered reputable.  You see this argument a lot in the evolution v. creation debate: if a scientist believes in creation then he is automatically not a reputable scientist.  So here is an "irreputable" scholar, Dr. Gerardus Bouw PhD, on the archaic English in King James:

"...we see the world's languages becoming less sophisticated in time, not more...  Anyone who would take the trouble to find out just why the Authorized Bible used 'odd' phraseology at times would soon be amazed at how much detail, explicitness, and fine structure the English language has lost in the last 400 years.  There is no language in the world which is naturally or evolutionarily improving...  the sentence structures and parts of speech are fast losing distinctiveness."

Read more...

More Catholic Influence In New Bibles

We recently posted links to videos about the Popish/Jesuit influence in the new Common English Bible, as well as parts 1 and 2 of a video series documenting the corrupt readings in them on our Facebook page; some of which aren't even true translations of either the Receptus or critical texts.  Nevertheless, let us look at another Catholic heresy embedded in the new Common English Bible.

Sainthood

As you well know, the Popish church uses a non-biblical definition of the word saint to define their acclaimed and canonized saints.  These "saints" become venerable (or worshiped as idols), then blessed, then become saints.  Any Christian living in this dispensation knows that there are no people performing miracles and the NT bever speaks of any Christians that live "extraordinary" lives being heralded above others (this is just a preparation for the coming antichrist who will perform signs and wonders).  As the scripture teaches, saints are those born again believers; a teaching the nicolaitan church cannot have.  So how can this teaching be seen in the Common English Bible?  Lets look at a few uses of the word saint(s) in the NT as see how it is used.

Phil. 4:21
KJB - Salute every saint...
CEB - Greet all God's people in Christ Jesus.

Romans 1:7
KJB - ...called to be saints...
CEB - ...called to be God's people.

1 Cor 14:33
KJB - ...as in all the churches of the saints.
CEB - ...churches of God's people.

2 Cor 13:13 (The CEB here as combines v. 12-13 and moved v.14 to v.13)
KJB - All the saints salute you.
CEB - All of God's people say hello to you.

Jude v.14
KJB - with ten thousands of his saints,
CEB - ...comes with his countless holy ones,

We looked at just these 5 as examples, but if you continue to look at all the usages of the word saint in the NT you will find they are gone.  This allows the heretical doctrine of the Catholic institution to endorse some special status of "saints" above the laity and continue with the deeds and doctrines of the nicolaitans while spreading their influence into so-called protestant churches.  See, we told the counter-reformation wasn't over.

Read more...

AV 400th Anniversary Page

Here is another page commemorating the 400th anniversary of the Authorized Version.  It has good info and good links.  I hope you'll take a look when you have time.

AV 400

Read more...

Prophecy or Common Sense?

In 1857 J.C. Philpot said: "To alter the Authorized Version would unsettle the minds of thousands as to which bible was the word of God.  There would be two bibles spread throughout the land and what confusion that would create in almost every place.  If the new translation were once to begin, where would it end?  The Socinians would strike 'God' out of 1 Timothy 3:16 and strike out 1 John 5:7-8 as an interpolation..."

Little did Mr. Philpot know what he said in 1857 would be the truth in 2010.  There really are only two bibles: the Authorized Version and those based upon the corrupt critical text.  Has it caused confusion in the Body of Christ?  Without question.  What about the corrupted reading of 1 Tim 3:16 and the most attacked verse of the New Testament 1 John 5:7-8 in the modern versions?  Let's not even go there...

Read more...

Lies in the Bible

Are there lies in the bible?  Yes: the Bible records lies told by men.  Some of these lies are not only found in the text, but in the preface.  Here is a picture of an RSV that I found in my local public library; pay attention to the first paragraph.  Here are a few questions to think about:

• Who authorized the revision of the ASV?  Better yet, who authorized the ASV itself?  Even better, who authorized the revision of the Authorized Bible?  A king?  The Body of Christ? Or Romans 1:22 scholars?
• Why has the ASV been revised so many times? ASV has been revised by the RSV which was revised by the NRSV (which also comes with a Catholic Edition).  The ASV has also been revised by the NASV.  The ESV is a revision of the RSV which is a revision of the ASV.  Confused?  So am I.

Read more...

Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 4

• 10:55 - Here the woman uses 1 Corinthians 14:6-9 as her text.  This is a key text on the use of tongues.  But once again we see her twisting the scriptures to push her anti-KJV position.  Her point is that speaking in an unknown tongue (or using the KJV) is useless if a person cannot understand it.  Therefore, a person should speak in a known (modern versions) language.  First of all, this pure assumption that a modern Christian cannot understand the KJV.  How does she know that?  Is she trying to limit the Holy Ghost?  We won't even get into the grade-level reading studies here.  Secondly, speaking in an unknown tongue is vastly different that what she is trying to compare here.  The King James Bible is not in a foreign language or tongue, it is in English.  I also notice here she doesn't reference verse 8 in this same passage.  Maybe she overlooked it...on purpose since it nails the bible version issue perfectly.  We all know the versions don't say the same thing.  Therefore, how can Christians be properly prepared for the battle if our trumpet sound is uncertain?  Are we supposed to confess our sin or our faults (James 5:16)?  Is it good for a man not to touch a woman or not to marry (1 Cor 7:1)?  Looks like the NIV is the one speaking another language, the language of the Pope.
• 13:40 - The woman continues to babel (pun) about the KJB being hard to and understand and the archaic words.  If she had studied this issue closely she would have known that some of the language in the King James was outdated when it was originally printed in 1611.  So why wasn't all of England and the English speaking world clamoring for a new version in 1612?  It is also interesting that she specifically used the phrase hard to understand. 2 Peter 3:16, speaking of Paul's epistles, says, "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which some things are hard to be understood..."  According to Peter, there are some things written by Paul that were hard for even him to understand; are we vain enough to think we can just skim the Bible and all these things stick out like a sore thumb?  2 Timothy 2:15 commands us to study (a command erased form this verse in the modern versions).  A quick cross reference of this word with Ecclesiastes 12:12 and we learn that much study is a weariness of the flesh.  Studying the scriptures should be work, not like reading the Wall Street Journal.
• 15:30 - Here begins with a speech on Acts 2 and the Day of Pentecost.  She tries the same trick as she did with Paul's passage from 1 Corinthians about speaking in tongues: people should hear in their own language.  Again, same answer as last time to this stupid argument:  The King James is written in English, the native language of America.  What does she want, a dumbed down bible with street slang?  Why not buy a Webster's 1828 or learn to cross reference the King James?  Is that too much work for lazy laodicean Christians?
• 20:24 - Here the woman begins quoting John 14:21 in a feeble attempt to prove that the only thing that matters is following the commandments of God and as long as we do that nothing else matters so we shouldn't be arguing over bible versions.  But she fails to answer a very important question: where do we find these commandments?  She, again without context, doesn't continue down to v. 23 in this passage where Jesus says, "If a man love me, he will keep my words:"  Therefore if you don't have all of the words, such as the 64,000 missing from her NIV, you cannot keep all of his commandments.
• 21:10 - More irony!  Here she quotes Matthew 11:25 - At that time Jesus answered and said , I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.  Oh what irony.  Who are the wise and the prudent, or at least the ones that claim to be (Romans 1:22)?  The scholars; James White. Metzger, Ankerberg etc.  Us little "uniformed" lay people weren't the ones asking for a new version.  It's only the wise scholars that think they know better than the KJB.  Too funny.

Read more...

Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 3

• 3:00 - At this point Hebrews 4:12 rolls across the screen.  She uses this verse to somehow explain Matthew 25:32-33; the dividing of the sheep and the goats.  She uses this as a picture of Jesus dividing the church between the true followers (sheep) from the backslidden CEO (Christmas, Easter, One other time) Christians or goats.  In other words, Jesus is dividing the bible agnostics (sheep) from the KJV Onlyists (goats).  This is a devilish and subtil (pun intended) attack on bible believers which she fails to provide any proof for and she also twists the scriptures to make her point.  First of all, the sheep and the goats are the saved and the unsaved respectively.  Secondly, the events being spoken of in this passage in Matthew take place at the second coming: the Body of Christ has already been raptured and will return with him at his coming (Song of Sol 6:4,10; Jude 14-15; Rev 19:14).  However, if one want to try to spiritualize the passage, which she obviously does, you still have a problem; verses 41&46 say the goats are cast into hell.  It goes without saying who she is trying to paint as the goats.  So is she saying KJV Onlyists are going to get cast into hell?
• 4:30 - The woman continues to babel (pun intended) about the division in the Body of Christ being created by Satan using the bible version issue, and I agree with her.  But she still doesn't explain how the people using a 400 year old English book are the ones responsible for that division.  It is also interesting that the 2nd half of 1 Tim 6:20 pops up on the screen as a proof of her point (she uses it from the revision of the failed ASV aka NASV, be we will quote it from the AV): "avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:"  Isn't textual criticism a science?  Oh, the irony!
• 6:00 - Here she says we must prove all things by the scriptures.  Sounds good, right?  Especially for us Baptists since we were the original Sola Scriptura-ists.  But...she is really building a straw man.  She is attempting to prove that because the scriptures don't specifically state KJV Only then we don't have to be and shouldn't be KJV Only.  I think she realized the stupidity of this argument because she trys to defend it by saying that God is very specific about other things so if he wanted to be specific about this he would have.  If this wasn't so sad it might actually be funny. I'd love to be with her and see her witness to a Catholic by saying their church is in error because the word "pope" doesn't appear in the bible.  Of course, if the bible did specifically say "King James Only", would she seriously expect to find it in the NIV or NASV she reads from?  Nevertheless we should ask her a question: can she shows us where the bible says the NIV is a good translation; or the NASV, or the ESV, or any other version?
• 7:58 - 2 Tim 2:14 is used here as a reference and a proof that we should not argue about words.  This is yet another private interpretation and twisting of scripture.  This passage is dealing with heresy in the church.  In v. 15 Paul instructs Timothy to study (a command missing in almost all the modern versions) and rightly divide the word of truth.  If this woman is saying the "words" of v.14 is the word of God, then why would Timothy need to study and rightly divide if we aren't to argue over words?  Clearly Paul is telling Timothy to study and rightly divide so that he will not produce heretical words, false interpretations from twisting the scriptures as do the words of Hymenaeus and Philetus who's words eat as a canker and have overthrown the faith of some (have any bible believers had their faith in the Bible by "scholars" and false teachers teaching their is no perfect scriptures?).  This passage is paralleled in Titus 3:9-11.  Again, more wresting with the scriptures and private interpretations.

Read more...

Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 2

• 1:05 - We should mention here the use of the term "King James Version."  While it is common today for us to use the term, from our research, we find that this term was not widely used until the modern versions came upon the scene.  We have looked at books by old-time preachers and scholars including Billy Sunday, Dean Burgeon, etc. and it seems the King James is mostly referred to simply as the Bible or the Authorised Version.  Only on occasion have we found the term "King James" used.  While we have no problem with the use of the title today, it is important to understand why this may have popped up into the mainstream.  In Acts 11:26 we are first called Christians.  This term was labeled to these believers as a negative, because they were following some man named Christ.  One of the most common things of liberals in a debate they are losing is create a man for your position to follow.  By painting this as the King James Onlyism, that allows them to attack King James' Version because it is merely a man-made version.  As we also know these modern versions have big marketing budgets behind them from major publishers.  But think about it for a second; how hard would it be to sell your "bible" in the marketplace against something called the Authorized Version?  Immediately calling it the King James Version lowers its level down to the others and makes unsuspecting believers gullible to the lies.  This gives rise to more old recirculated lies about King James being a sodomite, an Anglican or a Freemason.  Anyway, just recognize the marketing and liberal bait-and-switch tactics.
• 1:47 - Here the woman gives the assertion of that Bible believers believes the King James is the ONLY holy word of God.  She does not explain herself as to whether she means the only English Bible or the only Bible in the whole world.  Personally, I don't know any Bible believer that believes a French speaking person or Spanish speaking person should not have a Bible in their own language.  In fact, they had Bible's from the pure text before the King James.  She also fails to give any proof of her assertion which is common for most of her arguments in this video.
• 2:08 - Here she says that people that subscribe to the KJV Only position generally condemn anybody that uses any other translation.  I assume she means English translations.  She also does not really define what she means by condemn: does she mean simply disagree and rebuke their use of modern perversions, or does she mean announce a popish-style anathema?  She goes on to say that pastors and teachers that instruct their people to be KJV Only are wrong because it causes division in the Body of Christ.  Another common argument and common debate tactic.  But their are two problems with this thinking: 1)The AV was around before the modern versions so if anyone caused a division who was it? 2)Given the responsibility of a bishop or pastor, if he believes that the AV is the best translation, for whatever reason, why would he tell his congregation to use something when the best can be had?  But that's what this video is for; to straighten out your pastor and usurp authority over the man (1 Tim 2:12).

Read more...

Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 1

• This video gets off on the wrong foot with some very ungodly music, although if you ask her, it is "Christian."  It's sad to hear Christians act like this music is in anyway godly or pleasing to the Lord.  Rosie O'Donnell even said that "Christian rock" was an oxymoron; if she knows that, shouldn't a person that claims to be saved?
• 0:24 - The woman opens up by quoting 1 Cor. 13:1 from the Vatican approved, Non-Inspired Version.  This is interesting because this chapter, on occasion has been known as the love chapter.  Most modern versions change the word "charity" in this verse and throughout to "love."  This is not the most accurate word.  Charity is love in action; charity is giving freely not expecting anything in return; charity is giving freely to someone that CANNOT do anything for you in return.  Love is merely an attribute or affection.  An affection with no action is useless.  Need an example of love but not charity?  Read James 2:15-16.  Need an example of charity?  Read John 3:16.  What is also ironic of the woman, but seemingly typical since she says it in other videos, is that she claims that if you argue with her YOU are being a divisive Christian (we'll deal more with this in-depth later).  Yet, is this not what she is doing the entire video?  What she doesn't seem to understand are the contrasts necessary in true love: true love obligates you to hate certain things.  If you understand the importance of the word of God, if you believe every word of God is pure (Prov 30:5), if you believe you are supposed to live by every word of God (Deut 8:3), if you love the law of the lord (Psalm 119), then you are obligated to hate the corruption of the word of God (2 Cor 2:17) and you are obligated to hate the SIN of those men and women that have perverted the words of God (Jer 23:36).  This hatred should force us all to speak the truth in love and educate believers about the truth of the bible version issue.

Read more...

A Few Verses for the Wise

During this Sunday morning's sermon at the church I belong to, the assistant pastor preached and used the following text as part of his message.  But while he was preaching and came to this text I started thinking about the bible version issue.  Who was it that pawned these modern versions onto the Body of Christ causing much confusion (1 Cor 14:33)?  Was it the body itself clamoring for an easier to understand bible?  Was it the pastors and teachers suggesting an updated Av without those pesky thees and thous?  Or was it the farmer teaching his children to read by the old corn stove?  The answer is none of the above.  The answer is some "we know better than you" scholars; the answer; as James White likes to put it, the informed "Christians" wanted to help us "uninformed" bible believers.  Nevertheless, these verses hit their sin on the head:

1 Corinthians 3:18-20
18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. 19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written , He taketh the wise in their own craftiness. 20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

Read more...

King James User or King James Believer?

Some time ago we posed a question about whether people are King James Bible users or King James Bible believers.  What's the difference?  Read the following excerpts from statements of faith on the scriptures.  The first is from Mission Peak Baptist Church where the pastor prefers the King James and the latter from HAC Alumni.

"We believe in the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and that they compose the entire Word of God. The Scriptures are inerrant, infallible, and God-breathed; and therefore, are the final authority for faith and life. The sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments are the complete and divine revelation of God to man. The Scriptures shall be interpreted according to their normal grammatical-historical meaning. (II Timothy 3:16-17; II Peter 1:20-21)"

"We believe that, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16) and that "every word of God is pure" (Prov. 30:5). We believe that the 66 books (Old Testament and New Testament) of our English scriptures, which is the King James Bible (1611), were given under the direct supervision and supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit and therefore constitute the perfect, preserved and inspired words of God without any admixture of error (Ps. 12:6,7; Ps. 19:7). We do not subscribe to the heresy that only the "original manuscripts" are inspired and preserved. This Holy Bible is our sole authority for truth for all Christian belief and practice." 

Read more...

Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Introduction

I recently viewed a video made Tic Toc Ministries concerning King James Onlyism titled "King James Only ... The Final Word"; what an ironic title as this video is anything but the last word.  This video was really no different than your run-of-the-mill anti-KJV rant.  This video was about 30 minutes long so we didn't trry to tackle every single lie, distortion, misrepresentation, or deceit but we certainly commented on what we felt were some of, what we felt, the more glaring perversions from the woman teaching in this video.

What I noticed in this video, in general, is she never addresses what the video description, that is: Is the King James the only accurate translation of the Bible?  She never goes into a discussion of verses/passages that are accurate or inaccurate, there are no verse comparisons, and there is no evidence given for her assertions.  She also is very skilled at applying scripture out of context and telling you that if you argue with her about this issue YOU are being divisive.  I also wanted to get a good view of her style/tactics so I watched another video she did on Calvinism and she used the same tactics. By the way, I am not a Calvinist, but if you want a good laugh watch her video on Calvinism; she clearly has no idea what she is talking about.

Nevertheless, we will dive deep into the video beginning soon.  It is rather lengthly so we will do it in multiple parts.  We hope you will stay tuned.

Read more...

Are You Smarter Than a 5th Grader?

One of the biggest excuses that is common within Christian circles today for use of the modern versions over the Authorized Bible is that they are easier to read and understand.  But what people fail to remember is that the KJB was used as the main textbook for Reading and English for years in this country.  In fact, in 1782 Congress passed a resolution endorsing and recommending the use of the Bible in all schools!  Which begs the question: were the old farmers of yesteryear smarter than seminary educated Christian’s today?  In addition to this common sense argument, there are the results of the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator which place the KJB at a 5.8 grade reading level, lowest of all versions.  What about the popular NIV? 8.4.  In addition, the Flesch-Kincaid scale scored 94% of the books in the KJB at a 7^th grade level or below and the Flesch Reading Ease scale rated 97% of the KJB books Easy or Fairly Easy!  So next time someone asks you why you read that old King James, you can simply reply, “Because I’m smarter than a fifth-grader.”

Read more...

2 Cor 2:11 - Lest Satan should get an advantage of us: for we are not ignorant of his devices

Come all you good people

Please listen to me

They have a new Bible

It’s call the NIV (or insert NASV, ESV, New KJV)

They call it a Bible,

I call it a book

Of evil, misleading

To all those who look

On its pages

So craftily twisted about

That all those who read it

Had better watch out

For some words are changed

And verses are missing

It seems I can hear

That Old Serpent hissing

Tis his work I know

For he long has been trying

To cause men to doubt

By simply denying

That God wrote the Bible

His message of love

That tells how to gain

A home up above

He could not destroy it

By staying outside,

So he cunningly entered,

And changed the inside.

Read more...