Video Review: "King James Only?...The Final Word" Part 5 Finale

• 21:21 - Now the woman begins a diatribe about what God is and is not interested in; and she concludes that God is not interested in doctrine.  This comment really shows the stupidity of the entire video.  Clearly the woman never read Romans 16:17; how can we mark them and avoid them which cause divisions contrary to doctrine if doctrine doesn't matter?  Why would Paul keep Timothy in Ephesus so he could make sure that they teach no other doctrine (1 Tim 1:3) if doctrine doesn't matter?  Has she not read 2 John 1:9-10?  If doctrine doesn't matter why does the Lord hold it against the church at Pergamos for holding the doctrine of Balaam and the doctrine of the Nicolaitans if doctrine doesn't matter?  But never mind the scriptures, doctrine doesn't matter.
• 21:50 - Here she begins a common but clearly naive and ignorant view that the differences (she admits there are differences, probably without realizing it) between the KJB and the modern versions aren't so great that we can't understand the basics.  One has to be able to see the humanism and apostate scholarship thinking all over that comment: the basics?  What are the basics of Christianity?  Who decides what the basics are?  By saying the basics is she admitting that the non-basics have been removed?
• 25:10 - This is one of the most unbelievable tactics you can pull; because the Mormons use the KJB (I use the word use very loosely) that KJV Onlyists are to be compared to that cult.  Wow. This would be shocking if I hadn't heard this from a Baptist pastor who hinted at this same thing in a blog post.  She goes on to say that some girl she knew that used to be a mormon got saved after she disobeyed rules and read another version bible in Galatians 1:1-9 and converted to "true" Christianity.  Problem: isn't Galatians 1:1-9 in the KJB? Uh...yeah.  So if this girl, if she even exists, had read that passage in the KJB and believed it would not the same result have been possible?
• 30:40 - King James Onlyists are Pharisees.  I'm not even going to touch this one.

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...