I have been comparing Bible versions and it is amazing how much deception is out there. I can see where the United Church Moderator gets his beliefs from - straight out of the NIV (New International Version) without even twisting the text. The NASV (New American Standard Version) and NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) are just as corrupt. I believed that the NASV was the most accurate version (based on the testimony of some of my church friends), but the Lord opened my eyes in 1997. Some friends challenged me to compare these modern versions verse by verse (and word by word) with the King James Bible. So I did and I was shocked at all the changes and omissions (there are over 64,000 words less in the NIV - that is over 8% less!) [Jerry's Note: One thing I did not know or fully understand for a few years after this point was that ALL the modern versions are based upon some edition of the Critical Text - rather than the preserved Greek Textus Receptus and Hebrew Masoretic Text that underlies the King James Bible and all sound Bible translations into other languages - and that is why they ALL have the same basic doctrinal and content changes (like word and phrase and even whole verse omissions), though the publishers and translators also needed to change 10 percent or more of the basic wording of their Bible version as well by law to be able to copyright it.]
You may think that I am unjust to use that old "error-ridden" translation as my standard, but I will tell you something: I have never found an error in it yet! [Jerry's Note: Even after studying this Bible for 26 years, diligently searching out each so-called "Bible difficulty" I have ever come across, I have vindicated the King James Bible every time - either by reconciling the passages to see there was no actual error when the King James Bible wording is taken literally OR seeing that these errors are in the modern versions (and their underlying texts) alone.] Everyone says it is untrustworthy so therefore we should use these newer versions. Almost every single translation that has come out in the last 120 years has used the Westcott and Hort Greek text (commonly known as the NU Text - the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament and the United Bible Societies Greek text.) (Even the New King James Version does not solely use the traditional texts - see next paragraph - and contains many NU readings in the margins, if not in the main text.) Both Westcott and Hort were heretics who denied many fundamentals of Scripture (and especially about Jesus Christ), they were pro-Catholics (Westcott even renamed his wife Mary in honor of this false church), they were also both involved in the occult, satanic worship, and even believed in contacting the dead - in fact they started several clubs to do this very thing - The Hermes Club and The Ghostly Guild respectively. These two have also chosen several Unitarians for the committee of the English Revised Version of 1881. Westcott believed in Communism, and Hort believed in evolution. They were both friends of Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Helena Blavatsky, the mother of the modern New Age/Satanic movement! (Her doctrines have influenced them in some of their major departures and changes from the Traditional Texts.) If an unsaved man cannot understand the things of God (1 Corinthians 2:14), why do the majority of modern scholars somehow assume that the work of these apostate, unbelieving heretics would be superior to the Authorized King James Bible?
All forty-seven translators of the King James Bible (KJB) were godly, committed Christians, who were Protestants and believed in the inerrancy of Scripture and that God would preserve His Word according to Psalm 12:6-7. The King James Old Testament was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, which history proves as thoroughly reliable and unchanged because the scribes, who believed they were handling the very words of God and took seriously the warnings not to add to or subtract from Scripture, preserved the words exactly as they were written originally. (The Masoretic and priestly scribes also destroyed the worn out copies as they made newer word for word {and jot and tittle} perfect copies. See Matthew 5:18. A jot is the smallest letter and a tittle is the smallest stroke or mark of a letter - like the dot over an "i".) The King James New Testament comes from the Greek Textus Receptus (Received Text). Both of these became the common accepted Bible texts (the traditional texts) for the Old and New Testaments. The King James Bible was based on these, and it thus became known as the Authorized Version (AV) because all of the known world at that time, excepting the Roman Catholic church, accepted it as the Word of God. (Note: the King James Bible was built upon the sevenfold foundation of the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, Great, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles.) King James authorized this translation for public and private use, to replace the various English translations that were currently being used so as to remove confusion and have one universal standard for his realm. Authorize means "To give authority, credit or reputation to" and "To justify; to support as right." According to these definitions, we can see that the common people authorized it as well. It was written at the height of the English language. [Note: While King James authorized a translation for his realm, he was not personally involved in the translation of it in any way, and the final product stands without any interference from him.] The Philadelphian missionary age (and Great Awakening) from 1750-1900 approximately - see Revelation 3:7-13 - solely used the King James Bible.
One of the myths the New King James Version's publisher and owner (Thomas Nelson) is striving to promote is that they are continuing in the tradition of the King James Bible, and are in fact the fifth major revision of it, implying that our present-day King James Bible has gone through four "revisions." This is a blatant lie that careful research will bear out. The first two "revisions" (actually editions) were done in 1629 and 1638, within twenty-seven years of the original printings, and were in fact mere corrections of printing press errors. These omissions and errors were also corrected by two of the original translators, by the way. The last two "revisions" were performed in 1762 and 1769, and were merely standardizing of the spelling. When the King James Bible was translated, it was at the height of the English language, though many words and names were spelled several different ways. (How many different ways have you seen William Tyndale or Wycliffe spelled?) The majority of the word changes were along the lines of changing sonne to son, borne to borne, blinde to blind, sinne to sin, etc. As you can see, these types of changes don't warrant the term "revision." According to D.A. Waite, there are only 421 changes, between the 1611 and the 1769 editions, that can be heard by the ear. These would include changing burnt to burned, towards to toward, amongst to among, lift to lifted, you to ye, etc. (He listened to the 1769 King James being read while he compared it visually with a 1611 edition.) "There were only 136 substantial changes that were different words. The others were 285 minor changes of form only... Now you're talking about only 136 real changes out of 791,328 words." That certainly doesn't sound like thousands of changes at all. Puts their claims in a little different perspective, doesn't it?
Now in an apostate generation we are supposed to believe that we have accurate, more reliable manuscripts; that our newer "Bibles" are easier to understand (for who, the unbeliever?). What about the Holy Spirit helping us to understand? What about God's promise found in Proverbs 8:8-9, All the words of my mouth are in righteousness; there is nothing froward or perverse in them. They are all plain to him that understandeth, and right to them that find knowledge. What about studying "to shew [present] thyself approved unto God, rightly dividing the Word of Truth?" (2 Timothy 2:15) What about continuing in the Word of God and being a disciple? Jesus promises if we do that, we would know the truth. (John 8:31-32) If we have better, easier to read Bibles (like the NIV), how come North America is walking away from God at a rapid pace? How come so many "Christians" with these "perfected Bibles" are just going through the motions? I thought God's Word was "quick and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit... and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart"! (See Hebrews 4:12-13) Instead of a sharp, twoedged sword, most of modern Christendom prefers a dull, gilt-edged butterknife!!
This is Laodicea; this is the age when we have a form of godliness, but deny its power. According to Matthew 22:29, the Scriptures are the power of God! (See also 1 Corinthians 1:18 and Romans 1:16) What about all those who "will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution"? (See 2 Timothy 3:12) Who in North America is being persecuted? (Except for the lone Christian or church that goes against the flow.)
And if the NASV (or the NIV, the NRSV, or the others) is the "right" translation, how come they keep coming out with more? Like the Message, God's Word, The King and The Beast, The New International Reader's Version, etc. Whether you agree or disagree with using the King James Bible as a standard, I challenge you to check out the differences. Whether you believe that the King James Bible is accurate or not, look at what they are deleting and changing, and tell me honestly that you can't see Satan in the works. I think that you will find that the differences between the King James Bible and all the others is Catholic doctrine or New Age teachings. The King James Bible is what many of the Reformers stood on - now we've got everyone rushing back to Rome! What changed? Our Bibles?! When you've got the whole "Christian" world at any given time running after something, you've got to take a step back and carefully examine what they're caught up in, like these new Bibles, especially the NIV. (See Matthew 7:13-14 and 24:28) And when you've got the majority of this same lukewarm bunch knocking a Bible that has been the standard for almost 400 years, you've also got to take a look at that as well.
There are many liberals and compromising "Christians" translating these newer versions. In the preface to the New Revised Standard Version, it says that the translating committee was comprised of liberals, evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish scholars, and that they worked together to make a translation that they all could agree with. Okay, so who compromised? Catholics and Protestants have disagreed strongly over the Gospel for 500 years. (Do the words "Protestant Reformation" ring a bell?) Jews do not believe in Jesus as the Messiah (unless they are Messianic Jews); maybe this is why many of the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament pointing clearly to Jesus, are quite vague (if not altogether gone) in the NRSV.
The editor of the NIV, R. Laird Harris, does not believe in Hell, which is probably why this version doesn't have too much to say about it. Virginia Mollenkott, the assistant editor, is an avowed lesbian who believes that God is female, that there is scientific evidence that Jesus also was female, and that God is the One (which is a pagan name for a false god. She also believes that homosexuality is not wrong, and that the main sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was not homosexuality but lack of compassion on their neighbours - that where they did wrong was in wanting to rape the men (angels) that came to take out Lot from that wicked city. She is also a member of a church that has 500 homosexual couples. The chairman of the NIV's Old Testament translation committee, Dr. Marten H. Woudstra, was a homosexual. Maybe their stance in this area is the reason for the NIV's complete removal of the words "homosexual" and "sodomites", except for 1 Corinthians 6:9 that uses the vague term "homosexual offenders." According to this verse in the NIV, those who "offend" homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God. The NIV chief editor, Edwin Palmer, believes that God's sovereignty so overwhelms our humanity that we are not responsible for our own sin; in his own words he stated, "All things are foreordained by God; the moving of a finger... the opening of a window... the mistake of a pianist while playing - even sin... The Bible describes man as passive in the whole matter." (Note: I later found out that this statement was a result of his Calvinistic beliefs; something is wrong with a school of thought, if it can lead someone to a conclusion like this!) This is similar to theological liberals stating that they believe that homosexuality is in the genes. In other words, it's not our fault; God made us that way!
What about Kenneth Taylor, who lost his voice in the middle of translating the Living Bible. His psychiatrist suggested that the voice failure was Taylor's psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the Word of God. Philip Schaff, who was on the Greek committee and director of the American Standard Version and who openly admitted to holding beliefs that were considered heretical, had lost his ability to speak entirely. Westcott, who (along with Hort) wrote the Greek text on which all modern versions are based, also lost the ability to speak audibly. John (J.B.) Phillips, who wrote the New Testament in Modern English, aside from losing his voice, also had periodic bouts of insanity. Phillips also believed he had ESP and found comfort in Psychiatry during his bouts, comfort he believes Christianity does not offer. Robert Bratcher, the chief translator of the Good News Bible, denied that Jesus Christ was God.
At least Frank Logsdon, the man who was involved in the NASV committee and wrote the preface for it, totally renounced all his involvement with that translation before he died. He was shocked and ashamed of all the changes and deletions that the committee made. I'm glad he repented of his work on the NASV. He also became convinced that the King James Bible was inerrant and chose to promote that translation. I believe that he was saved and that we will see him in Heaven. Unfortunately, the havoc that the NASV has wreaked cannot be undone.
Are these people reliable, godly, committed Christians; people that God would use to preserve His holy inerrant Word? Many of the people on these translating committees don't even believe that we can have an inerrant Bible today. What good is their statement that "we believe that the originals were inerrant" when we no longer have any originals? But God promises that His Word will never pass away and will be preserved forever. (See Psalm 12:6-7 in the KJB, and Matthew 24:35) Where is this infallible, inerrant, preserved Word if we don't have the originals? What about the King James Bible? I can prove over and over again that there are corruptions and contradictions in all these newer versions, can you prove that there are "errors" in the King James?
Many people complain about the "thee's and thou's", but a little education will clear this up: in the King James Bible, the words thee, thy, thou, thyself, and thine, always refer to one person, and the words ye, your, yours, and yourself, always refer to more than one person. (By the way, these pronouns accurately reflect the pronouns in the underlying Greek and Hebrew texts. Sometimes the Biblical writer will switch between the singular and plural pronouns in the same passage or verse, and this emphasis is lost in modern versions. Consider two passages that clearly illustrate this point: Luke 22:31-32 and John 3:7) The only other real drawback with the King James Bible are the old words, but I have a list of several hundred archaic words in the NIV, NKJV, NASB, and NRSV, and in most cases the KJB reading of these same passages is much easier to understand - a quick glance in a Strong's Concordance or a good dictionary such as (Webster's 1828 Dictionary) will dispel any confusion. How many times have you come across hard to understand (multi-syllable) words in the NASB? The KJB uses mostly one or two syllable words, and it has been proven to have a lower reading level than most modern versions despite claims to the contrary. The history of the KJB, plus its simplicity over all, prove that it is the version honoured by God. (Most scholars will readily admit that God wrote His word in the common language of the people.) Only now there is so much confusion and slander regarding the King James Bible that most people won't even try to read it.
The problem is not so much that people can't understand the Bible (don't forget the Holy Spirit - 1 John 2:20, 27), it's that people don't want to obey what they already understand. God promises to give us greater understanding if we obey Him; if we don't apply what He has already revealed to us, then He will take away what little we have. (Matthew 13:11-12; Mark 4:24-25; Luke 8:18) Maybe this is the reason that so many "Christians" are running after every new "Bible"; maybe these newer translations by lukewarm (dare I say, apostate) Laodicean scholars can help compromising Christendom understand what God's Spirit hasn't (or won't) reveal to them. Reminds me of a King named Saul, whom the Lord wouldn't guide because of all his rebellion and sin. (See 1 Samuel 14:37; 28:6, 15)
Read the footnotes in your Bible and see what they are explaining away. (See the NKJV - it's famous for these types of footnotes!) Look in a Strong's Concordance for the names "Jesus", "Lord", or "Christ", and see how many times they are removed from the NIV, NASV, NRSV, etc. See how many times they delete the references to Jesus being Lord, or God, or Christ. To a New Ager, "the Christ" is someone who has reached godhood or has a divine spirit living within him. Notice how many times these newer versions say "the Christ" instead of "Christ"; and see how many times when it mentions Jesus Christ in the KJ that either "Christ" is removed, or "Jesus" is removed in these modern versions so we don't confuse Him with "the Christ." Also "the One" is the chief Babylonian god, not our God. The only time the KJB uses a title that is even remotely similar is when it says "Holy One (of Israel)", "Just One", "Mighty One (of Israel, of Jacob)", and "High and Lofty One." These are descriptions that tell us something about the character of God. God (the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and my God as well) is never called "the One" in the KJB, but some of these newer versions use "the One" everywhere (like the NASV, NKJV, NIrV, and NLT - New Living Translation, supposedly a more literal translation of The Living Version, TLV.) The One is not Jehovah God!! Any historian commenting on the religion of old Babylon, like Alexander Hislop in his book "The Two Babylons," can tell you that. So can any New Ager, or witch, or satanist! New Agers refer to Lucifer as "The One" and use the terms "Living One," "Coming One," and "Mighty One" (without the clarification "of Israel," or "of Jacob") to reflect religious philosophies that are worlds apart from Biblical Christianity.
Open your eyes if you are serious about serving God; this is an issue that you can't just overlook. There is so much deception out there; if the elect don't open their eyes they will be deceived, like Jesus said. But if we are following Him closely and bringing everything in our lives under the subjection of the Word of God, we won't be deceived. I don't think just being a Christian excludes you from deception; check how many times it says in the New Testament, "be not deceived." And also check how many false cults are in the world, all claiming to teach true Christianity. These cults have thousands upon thousands of followers, some who truly believe they are Christians.
Look at the following changes about Jesus' deity and eternality:
Matthew 1:16 in the NIV adds an extra comma to imply that Joseph is Jesus' father. Luke 2:33 in most modern versions change the word Joseph to "his father." (See also Luke 2:43)
Isaiah 7:14 in the NRSV has "young woman" and not "virgin." (See She Was A Virgin) Luke 1:34 in some versions have Mary saying "How can this be seeing I am not married." Last I checked (and according to John 4), being unmarried doesn't necessarily imply virginity, especially in North American culture today!
In Galatians 4:4, most modern versions completely remove the miracle of the virgin birth by changing the words from "made of a woman, made under the law" to "born of a woman..." Funny thing is: I was born of a woman, how about you? Where's the miracle there? If God wasn't Jesus' Father (as declared in numerous passages), and if Mary wasn't a virgin, then Jesus wasn't God!
In fact many newer versions declare in 1 Timothy 3:16 that "He was manifest in the flesh." They just don't say that "God was manifest in the flesh!" If Jesus had a human father that would also mean that He inherited Adam's sinful nature that is passed down through his descendants, according to Romans 5:12, 19.
John 1:18 in these same versions state that Jesus was "the only begotten God," not "the only begotten Son of God." When was Jesus' Godhood begotten? The NIV calls Jesus "God the One and Only."
Look at Micah 5:2 in the NIV, "whose origins are from old, from ancient times." KJB says "whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."
Look at Philippians 2:6 in the NIV, NASV. They both imply that Jesus was not equal with God.
The NASV's rendering of Psalm 8:5 as "Thou hast made him a little lower than God," does the same thing in a round about way when you consider that this passage was specifically applied to Jesus in Hebrews 2:7. (Funny thing - the NASV translates the phrase as "lower than the angels" in Hebrews, but not in Psalm 8. Why this inconsistency?) (Also, a little apostate side note according to Eugene Peterson's The Message: in this same verse he says that "we've so narrowly missed being gods." Listening to the Serpent again there, eh Eugene? See Genesis 3:5)
Romans 14:10 says "God" instead of "Christ."
For an interesting glimpse of translator's apostasy, look in Jude 25 (NIV, NASV), "to the only God our Savior...through Jesus Christ our Lord." Uh, excuse me, last I checked "the only God our Saviour" IS "Jesus Christ our Lord!"
What about Jesus' physical resurrection and ascension to Heaven:
Mark 16:9-20 are put in brackets and explained away in the NIV and the NASV. They are also explained away in the NKJV footnotes.
Luke 24:51 in the NASV removes "and was carried up into heaven."
Romans 14:9 in the NIV, NASV, NRSV - removes "and arose."
Some ways these new versions pave the way for Catholic doctrine are:
Hebrews 1:3 removes the words "by Himself." Allows room for Mary as co-redeemer.
Matthew 1:25 removes the word "firstborn," thereby removing the implication that she had other children. Though personally, I can't understand how some people can believe that the four other sons and at least two daughters mentioned in Matthew 13:55-56 could possibly be Jesus' cousins (and not his actual siblings as those verses plainly state.)
Mark 1:5 in the NIV implies that the people were confessing their sins to John in order to be forgiven. If you don't think that is implied here, I dare you to read James 5:16 in either the NIV or the NASV. It says "confess your sins to each other." The KJB reads "Confess your faults..."
1 Corinthians 9:27 says "I beat (buffet) my body and make it my slave," instead of "I keep under my body and bring it into subjection." (See also Colossians 2:23) There's a major difference between controlling your body and abusing it, like the doctrine of penance.
Revelation 14:8 removes the word "city." Babylon is not here identified as a city. Wouldn't want Catholics to get the idea that God's wrath is upon their beloved Vatican City (Rome), which has been known as the City on Seven Hills for 2500 years or so. (See Revelation 17:9, 18) In the NASV, Revelation 17:5 says "a mystery, Babylon The Great..." Wouldn't want Christians to do research on the Mystery religions, especially associated with Babylon; they might discover that many (if not all) of the Catholic doctrines (and a few Protestant practices) come straight out of Mystery Babylon. If you don't want to believe this, I highly don't recommend "The Two Babylons" by Alexander Hislop, because he does a great job of documenting this very fact.
There are so many changes and contradictions in these newer versions that it's hard to mention which ones to get your attention.
Here are some contradictions:
Several places in the Old Testament, like Deuteronomy 32:17; Leviticus 17:7; and 1 Corinthians 10:20, make it pretty clear that we are not to seek to contact the dead (and in fact we can't) and when we think we are speaking with the dead, we are actually in contact with fallen angels (devils). 1 Samuel 28:14 in these newer versions say that "Saul knew that it was Samuel." KJ says that "Saul perceived..." In other words, he thought he was communicating with Samuel. Quite a difference, I'd say.
Matthew 5:22 in the KJ says that "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgement." Newer versions remove "without a cause" (because Origen didn't like it in there), thereby making it a sin to be angry at all. This contradicts Ephesians 4:26, and makes Jesus a sinner according to Mark 3:5 and Matthew 23.
Mark 1:2 in the KJ says "As it is written in the prophets" because Mark quotes from two Old Testament prophets - Isaiah 40:3 and Malachi 3:1. These newer versions say "Isaiah the prophet."
Luke 2:22, in the NIV and NASV, says " in the days (time) of their purification." This contradicts Leviticus 12:2-8 which states specifically that it is the woman herself who must be purified after bearing a child. Many feel this is a direct attack on the sinlessness of Jesus Christ, as this particular change leaves the implication that the pure, spotless Son of God also needed purification! The KJB reads "the days of her purification."
The NIV states that Jesus was the "one and only Son of God" in John 1:14,18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9. That contradicts both the Old Testament where God calls the angels "sons of God" (Job 38:7), and the New Testament where Christians are called "sons of God" (John 1:12; Romans 8:14, 19) Adam was called the "son of God" (Luke 3:28) as were those saved in the line of Seth (Genesis 6:4). The KJB calls Jesus "the only begotten Son of God." Jesus was the only person who was ever born physically as the Son of God. Angels and Adam were created individually (were not born), some in the lineage of Seth chose to follow the Lord and be saved (therefore they were called sons of God - see Genesis 4:26, and compare with 6:2-3), and Christians are born spiritually as sons of God.
David killed Goliath with a slingshot and a stone and then cut off his head in 1 Samuel 17:50-51; however, according to the NIV and NASV in 2 Samuel 21:19, it says "Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite." This even contradicts another passage in these versions (1 Chronicles 20:5) which states that "Elhanan... killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite." Will they make up their mind. This is worse than a murder mystery; at least then you know that it was the butler who did it! (And you also know who was killed!)
The NASV in John 7:8 makes Jesus out to be a liar when He says, "I do not go up to this feast" and two verses later He's there! The KJB has the word "yet" in verse 8. He was going, but not at the same time His brothers went.
These apostate translators' adding, subtracting, and twisting of God's Word make it so hard for the serious Bible believer to study and rightly divide the word of truth. They are playing at being God over what should be and shouldn't be in there, and this removes and changes many cross-references, parallels, and word studies. It's almost impossible to determine what God meant by a word or phrase in the NIV when you've got that same word translated fifty different ways. In the King James Bible the translators were consistent. These new translators, by rejecting the authority of God's Word, are doing what is right in their own eyes. When you've got 200 or more different translations of a word or passage, you've got total confusion and chaos. God didn't mean 200 different things when He spoke. He meant His Word to be clear and easily understood. (Of course we still have to study it, but when we seek for the meaning of a passage the Lord will reveal what He wants us to understand at that time, if we intend to obey His will when it is revealed to us. John 7:17 makes this clear. Those who seek - from God and His Word - do find.)
Ephesians 5:30, in newer versions, deletes the words "of his flesh, and of his bones," thereby removing the beautiful type of Christ and His church found in Genesis 3:21-23.
Now either I've thoroughly annoyed you with this letter, or I've made you realize that there are some serious differences between the King James Bible and all these modern, newer, "more accurate" versions. (I decided to mainly use the NIV and the NASV for these comparisons, but grab any other version and check out these same passages.) (Note: the NIV and the NKJV have gone through several revisions, so some of the passages that I've pointed out may be even further changed in the edition that you may have.) Hopefully you will pray about this issue and check out other passages as well. There is so much at stake here; this is a choice between deception or truth, between tradition (and peer pressure) or standing alone on the uncorrupted Word of God. Most people will not acknowledge these differences or say that they do not matter doctrinally (or even personally.) Ha!
Does it matter if Acts 8:37 is completely removed? The verse that clearly states that a person must be mature enough to understand and make a choice to follow and believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Does it matter if the words "through his blood" are removed from Colossians 1:14? These are the words that clearly state how this redemption is made possible. Does it matter that 1 John 5:7 is removed? This is one of the clearest references to the Trinity in the whole Bible. Does it matter if your "Bible" states that Jesus was just a created god; or if he was just a man? "He was manifest in the flesh." Well, so was everyone else - we just weren't God (or gods) before! (Never will be either - sorry Benny Hinn, Kenneth Hagin, Copeland, Satan, et. al.)
Does it matter if your "Bible" translates Lucifer as the Morning Star in Isaiah 14:12, thereby equating the person who sought to exalt himself above God and who was subsequently cast out of Heaven with Jesus Christ, the Morning Star? And if that heresy wasn't obvious enough for us, they also added cross-references referring to 2 Peter 1:19 and Revelation 22:16 so we wouldn't miss the point. The Amplified (Satanic) Bible even goes one step further by their note on Isaiah 14:12, where they say:
"'Light-bringer' or 'Shining one' was originally translated Lucifer, but because of the association of that name with Satan it is not now used. Some students feel that the application of the name Lucifer to Satan, in spite of the long and confident teaching to that effect, is erroneous. Lucifer, the light-bringer is the Latin equivalent of the Greek word Phosphoros, which is used as a title of Christ in II Peter 1:19 and corresponds to the name 'bright Morning Star' in Revelation 22:16, which Jesus called Himself."
Does it matter if North American Copyright Laws state that for someone to copyright written material, it must be 10% (or more) different from any other previous published material - yes, even Bibles! A copyright states that the creator of a product has exclusive rights to that product. (So these translators are setting themselves up as the creators of God's Word!) The King James Bible is not copyrighted (not in the same sense we copyright today - it had a Crown Copyright, which protected the text of the Bible and prevented anyone from changing it); however, if you buy a KJB with a concordance, maps, or notes, etc., then these will be copyrighted - not the King James Bible text itself. Every other "new" per-version is copyrighted, including the New King James Version. (There are over 100,000 word changes in this "faithful" translation!) No one can tell me that the difficult words in the King James Bible account for 10% of the text. What are all these other changes? (Why do they change many easy to understand passages if they are trying to be "faithful" to the KJ, and why do many of their changes not only "update" words, but also change the meaning of the passage?)
I don't want to be in any of those translator's shoes. They won't see Heaven unless they repent of their playing around with, deleting, and adding to God's Word:
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book; And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, And out of the holy city, and from the things that are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19
And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. Revelation 20:15
I will pray that you will check out what is written in this letter and will share this knowledge (if you are convinced) with others. May God bless you as you search the Scriptures daily to see whether these things are so. Please don't reject what I am saying until you have prayed about and checked this issue out for yourself. Don't just take some Bible teacher's or "scholar's" opinion as truth. You are accountable before God to be a Berean, to compare every teaching with the Word of God. (See Acts 17:11; 1 Corinthians 2:15 and 14:29; 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22; and Hebrews 5:14, among others.) If I'm wrong on this issue, you have nothing to lose; but if I'm right, Babylon's got a worse foothold than most Christians realize and the final apostasy is upon us. Wake up, Laodicea, before Jesus spues you out of His mouth forever!
I leave you with one promise and one warning:
But to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. Isaiah 66:2
You can't tremble at God's Word if you don't believe that the Bible you read is God's infallible, inerrant, inspired, preserved Word. And if you don't let the Spirit of Truth teach you and change you.
And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they receive not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they might all be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord, we will accept and believe, and yes, even tremble at His Word. How about you? Don't reject what I've told you, before you've personally checked it out, especially if you are convinced. I believe all the true evidence will lead you straight to the King James Bible in English (and Textus Receptus-based translations in other languages.) Don't reject this information just because it is unpopular with the world and carnal Christians. Receive the King James Bible, "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the Word of God, which effectually worketh [continually works] also in you that believe." (1 Thessalonians 2:13)
May God guide you and make you strong in Christ - I know you've got some serious choices to make.
Jerry Bouey
Eagle's Wings Ministries
