KING JAMES ONLY?
The first edition of the King James Bible, which was edited by Francis Bacon and prepared under Masonic supervision, bears more Mason's marks than the Cathedral of Strasburg.-Manly P. Hall, from a lecture Rosicrucian and Masonic Origins 1929
King James Sir Francis Bacon
The 1611 King James Bible is ornamented with Bacon's symbols and in my own special copy of the record edition, also dated 1611, these symbols are Rosicrucianly marked to call the attention of the initiated to them and to tell them that the 1611 Bible is without possibility of doubt, one of Bacon's books.....When Bacon was born, English as a literary language did not exist, but once he died he had succeeded in making the English language the noblest vehicle of thought ever possessed by mankind. This he accomplished merely by his Bible and his Shakespeare." --Edwin D. Lawrence author of Bacon is Shakespeare and The Shakespeare Myth from a lecture October 9, 1912
Origin of King James Onlyism
I would like to start off by saying that I am not anti-KJV, and have several King James Bibles myself, including a replica of the original 1611. It is a decent translation, and I use it often, but I am opposed to those who promote a doctrine called “King James Onlyism.” This is a false claim that the King James is the only English version that is the Word Of God, and some go as far as to say it was a special translation that corrects even the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which it was translated from, which is rank heresy.
This doctrine began with a Seventh-day Adventist missionary, theology professor and college president, Benjamin G. Wilkinson. In 1930, he wrote Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, which promoted this position in order to defend the false teachings of Seventh Day Adventism which the English Revised Version exposed. The main heresies were Sabbath-keeping for gentiles (Acts 13:42), and soul sleep (Hebrews 9:27), which the King James version could be used to promote. His book was filled with lies and errors, and was not widely read or taken seriously by mainstream Christianity.
David Otis Fuller, a Baptist pastor discovered Wilkinson’s book, and then wrote his book, Which Bible? He essentially stole half of Wilkinson's book, but tried to hide his Seventh Day Adventism affiliation, and correct some of the worst of his errors. This false doctrine was later picked up by other Baptist teachers who read this book, and has since spread rapidly especially among fundamentalist Baptist Churches.
Which King James Version?
Few people seem conscious of the fact that a currently circulating King James Bible differs in significant details (though not in general content) from the one issued in 1611. They assume that the King James is a fixed phenomenon like "
the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.“ (Jude 3). There were actually six subsequent revisions of the original 1611 KJV, containing at least seven-hundred word changes, which would mean God's "infallible translation" is not infallible. It had been revised in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and 1850. Which of these is the inspired one? I have never heard a good answer to that from any KJO. Also, If the KJV is the only "infallible" Bible, then no one who lived before 1611 had access to the Word Of God.Thousands of Errors Corrected!
William Kilburne, in 1659, claimed to find 20,000 errors that had crept into six different editions printed in the 1650's. New marginal references were introduced into printings in 1660, and still other changes came as Dr. Anthony Scattergood in 1683 added 7,250 references in an edition no longer in existence. In 1727 the King's printer at Edinburgh issued an edition in which several thousand errors in the marginal materials on the Old Testament were amended and corrected. The American Bible Society in the nineteenth century, after examining six editions of the KJV then circulating and finding 24,000 variants in the text and punctuation, claimed that "of the great number, there is not one which mars the integrity of the text or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible"; but the Society did a revision in 1860 which was later abandoned because of protests from its supporters.
The 1611 editions of the KJV had "Then cometh Judas" in
Matthew 26:36, which should have been "Then cometh Jesus." The second edition by dittography repeated twenty words of Exodus 14:10. The two editions of the KJV issued in 1611 differ from each other in several other respects. Printers errors in various later printings created oddities like the "Wicked Bible" (which omitted "not" from the seventh of the ten commandments), the "Unrighteous Bible" (in which the unrighteous inherit the Kingdom), the "Vinegar Bible" (with its "Parable of the Vinegar") the Ears to Ear Bible, and many others. Though quite humorous, these examples show that the printing of the Bible is a process subject to human error. The running together of "headstone" (Zech. 4:7) is a printer's error of 1611 which remains uncorrected. Another printing error continued in modern printings and defying explanation is "strain at a gnat" (Matt. 23:24) where the 1611 version correctly had "strain out a gnat." The Apocrypha, had been printed between the Testaments in all English Bibles since Coverdale's until it was omitted in some 1629 editions of the KJV, but the omission did not become general until the nineteenth century. If God were going to create a specially inspired English version, would he have mixed scripture with unscriptural writings? None of the people I’ve ever met actually use a 1611 version anymore, yet they often claim to hold to the original 1611 Authorized Version.
Errors In Today’s King James Version
Acts 12:4
“...intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. “Why does the KJV use "Easter" to refer to the sacred Old Testament memorial of the Passover? Easter is the name of a pagan goddess of spring, also given to her pagan holiday borrowed by the Catholic religion to bring pagans into their religion. After learning what Easter really means, what God respecting Christian would continue to grieve his Holy Savior by using this idolatrous word to refer to anything truly Christian, especially the resurrection of our Savior. The Greek word, pascha, should be properly translated "passover," as it is in all other places in the KJV. The sad truth is that most KJV only people still observe the pagan holiday that the Catholic religion began.
The NASB translates this Greek word as Passover all 29 times.
I Corinthians 11:29
“...he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself…”Why is the word "damnation" used here? Do you think one loses their salvation and is "dammed to hell" if he does not take the Lord's Table correctly? Luther, Calvin, and the Roman religion think so! They focus on this verse. This was written to the saints at Corinth, born-again believers. Those who think they can lose their salvation must be doing something to keep it. That "something" is works, therefore they are not saved. True Believers have "eternal" life, we can "never" perish (see
John 10:28). The word "damnation" should be properly translated "judgment" as it is in vs 31and 32, referring to "chastening" of the Lord.I Timothy 3:1
“...If a man desires the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.”Do you have the
"office of bishop" in your church, or any "bishops?" Not if you are in a sound fundamental Bible church. You have elders who are "overseers." "Bishop" is a Catholic word adopted by other apostate religions. The KJV Bible states in Acts 14:23 that the apostles "...had ordained them elders in every church..." , in Acts 20:28, "overseers," not bishops."Some other errors are as follows:
2 Samuel 8:4
And David took from him a thousand chariots, and seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand footmen: and David houghed all the chariot horses, but reserved of them for an hundred chariots."Seven hundred" or "seven thousand?"
2 Samuel 10:18
And the Syrians fled before Israel; and David slew the men of seven hundred chariots of the Syrians, and forty thousand horsemen, and smote Shobach the captain of their host, who died there."Seven hundred" or "seven thousand?" "Horsemen or footmen?"
2 Chronicles 22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.Twenty two" or "forty two?"
2 Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother’s name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem."Eighteen" or "eight?"
False Gospels In The King James
King James was the “Head” of the Church of England, which is essentially the Anglican Church, or the equivalent of England’s Roman Catholic Church. At the time of the translation, the Roman Church, as well as the Anglican Church were threatened by separatist and reform movements, and many of their false doctrines were being threatened with being exposed. Two of these were infant baptism, and the power of salvation through the “Church“ . In order to mislead the masses, the translators used a transliteration of the Greek word “baptizo” as baptism, and for the Greek word “ekklesia“ used the word “Church.”
By translating “baptizo” as baptism rather than “immersion” which would have given the English reader a clearer understanding of what was being referred to, the Anglican Church was able to cause confusion as to what these verses were actually teaching. To this day, millions of professing Christians are mislead by this word, and end up with a works based gospel as a result, which is referred to as baptismal regeneration. Many of the denominational Churches still promote this “sacramental Gospel” which assures that people place their faith in themselves rather than Jesus Christ.
Galatians 2:16
"Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."Sometimes the word “baptizo” is used in reference to the water ceremony, but many times it isn‘t, and is misleading to those who don’t understand this concept.
By translating the Greek word “ekklesia” as “Church,” the Anglican so-called “church” was able to claim to hold the power of salvation over people, just as the Catholic Church does. The first complete English Bible was the Tyndale Bible in about 1524, and that Bible did not use the word "church" anywhere in its pages, but instead used the word "congregation." This is a more accurate translation, but still does not fully capture the original meaning of “ekklesia“. In the Greek, the word translated "out" is "ek" and the word translated "called" is the word "kalesantos." The Greeks would put them together to form another word, "ekklesia" which means "called out ones" and refer to an assembly or gathering of people that has been called together.
"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;" (1 Peter 2:9). The “Church” refers to the people who God has called out of the world, rather than referring to any particular institution. By choosing this misleading word, they were able to fool the masses into putting their faith in the “church” as an institution, rather than realizing that we as born-again Christians are the Church.
The translators themselves were not KJO
The original translators of the KJV totally disagreed with the KJO position. In the preface of the 1611 KJV, we read: "...we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest or least esteemed] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession... contains the Word of God, nay, IS THE WORD OF GOD", and "No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be currant [used], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth [translating] of it."
This is completely opposite of what the King James Onlyists teach today.
Corrupted Manuscripts?
The KJO advocates often claim that the manuscripts used to translate the King James version are superior to the transcripts used in the more modern Bibles. This is based mainly on misunderstandings of the facts. The truth is that we don’t have any of the “originals” or exact copies of them, since no two of the manuscripts are exactly alike. By that reasoning all of the current manuscripts are corrupt. Therefore, none of the manuscripts in existence today perfectly parallel any of the translations.
The New Testament was inspired by God, and came from the pens of its writers in infallible form, free from any defect of any sort, including scribal mistakes. Scribes and printers made mostly accidental and some deliberate changes in the Greek text as they copied it. As a result, the surviving manuscript copies of the New Testament differ among themselves in numerous details. There have been many attempts made to sort through the manuscripts of the New Testament and weed out the errors and mistakes of copyists, in order to restore the text to its original form. The two most famous attempts at restoring the original text of the New Testament are the Textus Receptus, dating from the Reformation and post-Reformation era, and the Greek text of B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, first published in 1881. These two texts were based on differing families of manuscripts, using different techniques of textual criticism, and therefore the results had some minor differences.
Often, the promoters of KJVO refer to manuscripts other than the textus receptus as "corrupt", because they differ from the TR. They are basing this on the assumption that the TR is infallible, and therefore anything that disagrees is corrupt. This is of course faulty reasoning since they haven’t proven that the differences aren’t additions in the KJV version rather than subtractions in the others.These ideas originated from books by people who have compared the versions, and looked for minor variations in the translations, and pointed out where the King James seems superior to the others, because it provides more information. They then claim that this proves that Satan has corrupted the modern Bible, and tried to destroy some critical doctrine.
The truth is that there is not a single important or major difference between them in their vital teachings. No doctrine is "corrupted" by either "family" of manuscripts. The Gospel along with every doctrine is still present in all of these families of manuscripts, despite any "omissions" or "additions" that copyists have made in them. Where they differ, it is usually a case of the textus receptus supplementing or filling out passages by borrowing words from a parallel Gospel account or a similar phrase in another Epistle; an addition based on liturgical usage; expanding a title of one of the three persons of the Trinity; revising an Old Testament quotation into conformity to the Septuagint translation, or smoothing out an apparent difficulty in the original text. All in all, there is only a small percentage of difference between the "Textus Receptus" family of manuscripts and the other "family".
You can also play this verse comparison game in reverse to prove that some other version is superior, such as the NASB for example.
"Who by the Holy Spirit, through the mouth of our father David Thy Servant, didst say, WHY DID THE GENTILES RAGE, AND THE PEOPLES DEVISE FUTILE THINGS?"
(Acts 4:25 NASB)"Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?"
(Acts 4:25 KJV)
The King James Version is “attacking“ the doctrine of Holy Spirit inspiration. It must be corrupted!
Of course I’m being sarcastic, this doctrine is covered elsewhere, and we don’t know which manuscripts added or subtracted from the original.
"To the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now forever. Amen."
(Jude 25 NASB)"To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen."
(Jude 25 KJV)The KJV removed “
through Jesus Christ our Lord”If I was intellectually dishonest like the KJO’s I would claim that Satan was trying to deny His Lordship, but I’m not. This doctrine is also covered elsewhere in the KJV.
One thing that is disturbing is that the KJV refers to the Holy Spirit as “IT” at least four times. In my view, this is borderline blasphemy!
John 1:32
"And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and IT abode upon him."Romans 8:16
"The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God."Romans 8:26b
"The Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered."I Peter 1:11
"Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ and the glory that should follow."The textus receptus was compiled hastily by Erasmus, a devout Roman Catholic Priest. He used a very limited number of manuscripts, and was missing certain verses, for which he relied on the Latin Vulgate. This resulted in renderings which don’t exist in any of the Greek manuscripts, so they are obviously mistranslations. The KJ translators also relied heavily on the Latin Vulgate, along with other available Greek text rather than the textus receptus alone as the KJO’s would have us believe.
The newer English versions, which come primarily from the Westcott & Hort manuscripts
have the benefit of older and more numerous manuscripts. Some of the translations that have come out of these manuscripts are fine, and others are not so good. The inspired Word Of God came in the original Hebrew and Greek writings (2 PETER 1:21).A "translation" into English or any other language , is the inspired Word Of God to the extent that it properly translates the languages in which the Scriptures were first written. The whole PURPOSE for having a Bible translation, the very reason for its existence, is to convey in words which people understand the meaning of words (in the Greek and Hebrew originals) which people do not understand. The degree to which an English Bible translation fails to accurately, clearly, and fully convey the meaning and content of the originals, to that degree it fails to attain to its very reason for existence.
The proper understanding of the doctrine of inspiration is that no translation is inspired, but are someone’s attempt to provide his or her best understanding of the original Greek and Hebrew. If the KJV is the only "infallible" Bible, then no one who lived before 1611 had access to it.
Any English speaking person who seeks after truth should have several reputable translations, along with concordances, Bible dictionaries, Interlinear Bibles, commentaries, etc., because all of our English translations fall short in certain regards. God never promised us a perfect English translation, so we need to be extra diligent. False doctrines aren’t caused by bible translations, but rather by the deceitfulness of men’s hearts. Dishonest people are drawn toward poor translations, and those seeking truth will find it.We should always try to have with us different translations when evangelizing to avoid "foolish questions ...and contentions". We certainly do not want to avoid people and their spiritual needs. No Christian should ever say, " Come back and talk to us when you have the right translation," but it is wise to keep different translations on hand in order to profit the many so that they may be saved.
I Corinthians 10:33
just as I also please all men in all things, not seeking my own profit but the {profit} of the many, so that they may be saved.We have been called to
"....not strive: but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those..." ( 2 Tim. 2:24-25 KJV ). I recommend the NASB, but you may also carry a KJV, a NIV, a NKJV, and a New World Translation. You may even want to have available a Lutheran Catechism, a Catholic Bible, a 1611 version of the KJV, etc. According to Eph. 6:17, the Word of God is our weapon---"the sword of the Spirit." You cannot be a good soldier if you do not know how to use your weapon. An excellent soldier is versatile, and is comfortable with anyone's weapon. Do you want to be an excellent soldier? Then you are in the minority. Most Christians are content with mediocrity and do not want to be in the battle. They will never be excellent soldiers, because the training is done in the battle.
"Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE®, Copyright © 1960,1962,1963,1968,1971,1972,1973,1975,1977,1995 by The Lockman Foundation. Used by permission."
bravenet.com