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  If she had studied this issue closely she would have known that some of the language in the King James was outdated when it was originally printed in 1611.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 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...

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...