"The King James Bible Alone, and the King James Bible in its Entirety, is the Word of God Written for the English Speaking People"
Do we act as if we really believe that "the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written"? I am quoting, of course, from our doctrinal statement that each of us affirms every year. That statement is based on and rightly derived from passages of Scripture such as 2 Tim 3:16, "All Scripture is: θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) 'God-breathed')," and, as such, it all shares the characteristic of being the very words of God.
But do we ponder the implications of this stupendous affirmation? We are saying that throughout the entire history of the world, and throughout all written documents of all civilizations, the eternal, omnipotent Creator of the universe, the God who will one day judge every human being who has ever lived - this God who is over all has given the human race just one collection of his written words: This book. The Bible.
The King James Bible alone is the Word of God written. There are no other written words of God anywhere else in the entire world. And the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God written. Every single bit of the King James Bible has a fundamentally different character from every other bit of writing in the entire world.
Now do we act as if we really believe this, that "the King James Bible alone, and the King James Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written"? In many ways, we do. We write commentaries by the hundreds, massive commentaries. I picked up Peter Ruckman's commentary on Revelation the other day in the bookstore and wondered if they were going to sell it by the pound. We produce Bible translations, many very good translations. We require Greek and Hebrew in our seminaries because we take the Word of God seriously. We require courses in exegesis and in exegetical preaching. We require faculty members at our colleges and seminaries to hold to Biblical inerrancy.
The result of all of the detailed attention that we pay to the Word of God is seen in the book displays here in our meetings. This is another indication of the value we place on the Word of God, for there are more Christian books available in English in the United States today than in any other culture in any other country at any other time in the history of the world. Psalms 90:17 is a prayer, "Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish thou the work of our hands upon us, yea, the work of our hands establish thou it." God has heard that prayer again and again with regard to the members of Christ's body and their work. He has truly established the work of our hands. He has given abundant favor and blessing to our work, and we should be profoundly grateful. We wouldn't do these things, we wouldn't pay so much attention to this Book, unless we really believed that "the Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written." The Bible Alone is our very lives!
 |
|
I reject all modern English translations because they are based on corrupt Greek manuscripts and especially the Westcott-Hort Greek text. Also I reject the Ancient Greek Septuagint of the Hebrew Bible. Del Wray
NoticeThe Scripture verses on this page; Slide mouse over to see popup of verses
Click for full chapter and verse rendering. Thanks to AV1611
Some servers do not use this function. We use Google Chrome works well.
"I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what he will say unto me, and what I shall answer when I am reproved." Habakkuk 2:1
MY STATEMENT OF FAITH ON THE KING JAMES BIBLE
"I 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). I 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 (Psalms 12:6-7; Psalms 19:7). I do not subscribe to the heresy that only the "original manuscripts" are inspired and preserved. The Holy Bible is our sole authority for truth for all Christian belief and practice. This too, as a church we all do agree."
Evangelist Allen Domelle sums up my position completely.
A Brief History of the King James Bible
|
|
|
*LXX - A Model of Reverse Engineering - by Scott Jones
*The Septuagint
*Was the Septuagint the Bible of Christ and the Apostles?
*What is the Septuagint?
What is the "Septuagint"?
If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here's how the legend goes:
The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.
The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.
In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.
Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.
Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?
The verifiable facts:
The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.
The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.
The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!
The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.
New Testament evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find "original readings" that were supposedly "lost from the Hebrew"?.
Roman Catholics Need It
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:
"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.
So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!
Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That's right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!
In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.
So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.
Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.
We Don't Need It.
But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.
So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.
Let's stick to our preserved Bible, the King James Bible in English, and leave the Alexandrian perversions alone.
If you look in the preface of a modern Bible, you will probably find a reference to the Septuagint, or LXX for short. The translators of all modern Bibles, including the New King James, use the Septuagint along with other texts in translating the Bible. They claim that the Septuagint contains true readings not found in the preserved Hebrew text. Thus they give it great importance. But what is the Septuagint? Here's how the legend goes:
The Septuagint is claimed to have been translated between 285-246 BC during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Alexandria, Egypt. His librarian, supposedly Demetrius of Phalerum, persuaded Philadelphus to get a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Then the Scriptures (at least Genesis to Deuteronomy) were translated into the Greek language for the Alexandrian Jews. This part of the story comes from early church historian Eusebius (260-339 AD). Scholars then claim that Jesus and His apostles used this Greek Bible instead of the preserved Hebrew text.
The Letter of Aristeas
The whole argument that the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek before the time of Christ rests upon a single document. All other historical evidence supporting the argument either quotes or references this single letter.
In this so-called Letter of Aristeas, the writer presents himself as a close confidant of king Philadelphus. He claims that he persuaded Eleazar, the high priest, to send with him 72 scholars from Jerusalem to Alexandria, Egypt. There they would translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, forming what we now call the Septuagint.
Jewish historian Josephus, Jewish mystic Philo (both first century AD) and others add to the story. Some say the 72 were shut in separate cells and "miraculously" wrote each of their versions word-for-word the same. They say that this proves "divine inspiration" of the entire Septuagint.
Thus, the Septuagint is claimed to exist at the time of Jesus and the apostles, and that they quoted from it instead of the preserved Hebrew text. This story has been passed around for centuries. But is it the truth? Was this Septuagint really written before the earthly ministry of the Lord Jesus and His apostles? Did they quote it? Was it really inspired by God? And if the story is a fake, why make up the story? Is there another reason to get people to use (or believe in) the Septuagint?
The verifiable facts:
The writer of this letter, Aristeas, claims to have been a Greek court official during the time of Philadelphus' reign. He claims to have been sent by Demetrius to request the best scholars of Israel to bring a copy of the Hebrew scriptures to Alexandria to start the Septuagint translation project. He even goes so far as to give names of Septuagint scholars, yet many of the names he gives are from the Maccabean era, some 75 years too late. Many of them are Greek names, definitely not the names of Hebrew scholars. There are many other evidences that this letter is from a different time period, and is thus a fake. The writer is lying about his identity.
The supposed "librarian," Demetrius of Phalerum (ca. 345-283) served in the court of Ptolemy Soter. Demetrius was never the librarian under Philadelphus.
The letter quotes the king telling Demetrius and the translators, when they arrived, how wonderful it was that they came on the anniversary of his "naval victory over Antigonus" (Aristeas 7:14). But the only such recorded Egyptian naval victory occurred many years after Demetrius death, so the letter is a fraud!
The Letter of Aristeas is a hoax that doesn't even fit the time period in which it claims to have been written. And since the other ancient writers merely add to this story, it is clear that the story itself of a pre-Christian Septuagint is a fraud. Even critical textual scholars admit that the letter is a hoax. Yet they persist in quoting the Letter of Aristeas as proof of the existence of the Septuagint before Christ.
New Testament evidence
Many scholars claim that Christ and his apostles used the Septuagint, preferring it above the preserved Hebrew text found in the temple and synagogues. But if the Greek Septuagint was the Bible Jesus used, he would not have said,
"For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18)
Why would Jesus not have said this? Because the jot is a Hebrew letter, and the tittle is a small mark to distinguish between Hebrew letters. If Jesus used the Greek Septuagint, His scriptures would not have contained the jot and tittle. He obviously used the Hebrew scriptures!
In addition, Jesus only mentioned the scripture text in two ways, (1) "The Law and the Prophets" and (2) "The Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms":
"And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me." Luke 24:44
The Hebrews divide their Bible into three parts: the Law, the Prophets and the Writings. Jesus clearly referred to this. The Septuagint had no such division. In fact, it contains Apocryphal books interspersed throughout the Old Testament. The sequence is so hopelessly mixed up that Jesus could not possibly have been referring to it!
Who is pushing the Septuagint?
So why do we still hear the story? Why do people give it a second thought? Are there other reasons why they still try to use the Septuagint to find "original readings" that were supposedly "lost from the Hebrew"?.
Roman Catholics Need It
According to the Roman Catholic Douay Bible:
"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.
So Roman Catholics desperately want the Septuagint to be genuine —even inspired! You see, the so-called Septuagint is where they got the Apocrypha (books that are not inspired and have no place in our Bibles). If the Septuagint goes, then the Apocrypha goes with it!
Ecumenical Textual Critics Need It
The supposed text of the Septuagint is found today only in certain manuscripts. The main ones are: Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph); Codex Vaticanus (B); and Codex Alexandrinus (A). That's right. The Alexandrian manuscripts are the very texts we call the Septuagint!
In his Introduction to The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English (1851) Sir Lancelot Brenton describes how some critical scholars have attempted to call the Septuagint by its real name, the Alexandrian Text, but the name never stuck. Thus he admits that they are one and the same.
So we have textual critics who believe desperately in the 45 Alexandrian manuscripts (against more than 5,000 copies favoring the Textus Receptus). They use these to translate all modern New Testaments. But these Alexandrian manuscripts also include the Septuagint Old Testament (with the Apocrypha). They have fallen for a trap.
Catholics now argue the following: If you accept the Alexandrian text (which modern scholars use as the basis for all new translations) for your New Testament, then you also have to accept the rest of the Alexandrian text (Septuagint) , which includes the Apocrypha. What we are seeing is the development of an ecumenical Bible, including the Apocrypha. Some versions have already gone this way. For many Protestants, all roads are truly leading to Rome.
We Don't Need It.
But do we Christians need the Alexandrian manuscripts? Not at all! For the Old Testament we have the Preserved Words of God in the Hebrew Masoretic text. For the New Testament we have the 5,000-plus manuscripts in Greek, plus the many early translations spread abroad, to witness to the actual words of Christ and His apostles.
So the Septuagint story is a hoax. It was not written before Christ; so it was not used by Jesus or His apostles. It is the only set of manuscripts to include the Apocrypha mixed in with the books of the Bible, so as to justify the Roman Catholic inclusion of them in their Bibles. And it is just those same, perverted Alexandrian codices —the same ones that mess up the New Testament —dressed up in pretty packaging.
Let's stick to our preserved Bible, the King James Bible in English, and leave the Alexandrian perversions alone.
The Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Septuagint
In Romans 3:1-2, God's word tells us that the Jews were committed to the oracles of God. The Hebrews were given charge of keeping and copying God's word. That is why twice in the Old Testament they were instructed not to add to or take away from the Word of God.
"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
Deut. 4:2
"Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." Proverbs 30:6
Faithful Hebrew scribes took the task of copying God's word seriously. According to the Hebrew Talmud the rules of the scribe consisted of the following:
- The skins of the parchment had to be prepared in a special way and dedicated to God. In order to have God's words written on them they had to be clean.
- The ink that was used was to be black and made in accordance to a special recipe used only for writing scripture.
- The words written could not be duplicated by memory, but must be reproduced from an authentic copy which the scribe had before him. The scribe had to say each word aloud when he wrote them.
- Each time the scribe came across the Hebrew word for God, Jehovah (YHWH), he had to wash his whole body before he could write it.
- If a sheet of parchment had one mistake on it the sheet was condemned. If there were three mistakes found on any page the whole manuscript was condemned. Each scroll had to be checked within thirty days of it's writing or it was considered unholy.
- Every word and letter was counted. If a letter or word was omitted the manuscript was condemned.
As to the accuracy of the Hebrew Old Testament in our day, a study was done on the 581 manuscripts of the Old Testament which involved 280,000,000 letters. The study concluded:
- Out of 280,000,000 letters there were 900,000 variants. Although seemingly large to the reader it is only one variant in 316 words, which is 1/3 of 1%.
2. Of those 900,000 variants, 750,000 pertained to spelling, whether the letter should be an I or U. This has to do with vowel points for the purpose of pronouncing the word.
3. That leaves 150,000 variants in 280,000,000 letters. That is one variant in 1580 letters with a degree of accuracy of .0006 (6 ten thousandths).
4. Most of the variants were found in just a few manuscripts; in fact, mostly in just one corrupted manuscript.
5. The earliest Masoretic Text is dated 900 AD. In the Book of Isaiah, only one three letter word was different.
6. The Masoretic text is the true text, because the Dead Seas scrolls were written by the Essenes.
The Septuagint exhibits considerable differences among themselves and they disagree with the Masoretic Text. The following are just a few of the errors:
1. There was a 500 year difference just during the time between Adam and Noah.
2. The Greek Septuagint teaches a local flood. It has Methuselah dying 14 years after the flood and he was not even on the ark!
3. The years of the Kings of Israel were incorrect.
4. Lucifer was not the Anointed Cherub as recorded in Ezekiel.
5. The account of the seventy‑two translators, which came to 6 out of each tribe, was not acceptable according to scripture. The Levites were the only tribe to keep and record the Oracles of God.(1 Chron. 16:4)
6. Jews were not permitted to live in Egypt (Deut. 17:16), but they did and they fell into idolatry. (Jeremiah 44 "Queen of Heaven")
7. All copies of the Septuagint had originated from the school of Alexandria which was the home of Gnostic and Aryan teachings.
8. The story of the Septuagint, which has several contradictions, only deals with the translation of the first five books of the Old Testament, not the other thirty-four.
9. Both texts cannot be correct. Since the Hebrew text has demonstrated itself to be the word of God, then the Septuagint should be rejected.
Did our Lord Jesus Christ use the Septuagint?
It would seem that Jesus did not use the Septuagint for several reasons:
1. In Matt. 5:17 & 18, Jesus refers to the Law and the Prophets and then continues to say that not one "jot" or "tittle" would pass from the law until all be fulfilled. Jot & tittle refer to the Hebrew, not Greek.
2. In Matt. 23:35, Jesus tells the religious leaders of the day that they were guilty of the blood of the righteous from Abel to Zacharias. Zacharias is found in II Chronicles, which is the end of the Hebrew Old Testament, were as the Septuagint ends with Daniel before it goes into the Apocrypha. It seems as if he was telling them from beginning to end that they were guilty.
3. Jesus never made reference to any of the Apocrypha books which are in the Septuagint.
4. The Hebrew language was still active. When Paul met the Lord on the Damascus road Jesus spoke to him in Hebrew(Acts 26:14). Even when John wrote Revelation, he spoke about the last great battle which is known in the Hebrew tongue (Rev. 16:16) "Armageddon".
Was the Septuagint used by the New Testament writers?
Out of the 263 quotations of the Old Testament that are found in the New Testament, 85 of them correspond to the Septuagint, while the rest correspond to the Hebrew or vary from both. It would seem that there was no standardized Greek text of the Old Testament.
Note: In the preface of the Septuagint there is a quote saying that there is a 3rd century B.C. Septuagint text that is extant(which means that they have such a copy). No such document exists today as we know it.
Was there a Pre‑Christian era Septuagint?
Paul Kahle, an Old Testament scholar (1875‑1964), did extensive research on the Septuagint. His conclusions were that there was never one original, old Greek version and that the manuscripts of the Septuagint cannot be traced back to one archetype (original pattern).
An interesting thing to consider is that today scholars in both Old Testament and New Testament studies are relying on Alexandrian manuscripts to determine what is the best reading.
Years ago the Hebrew was held as the most reliable manuscript of the Old Testament. In the last 100 years the Greek Septuagint has replaced the Hebrew in scholarly circles.
One of Satan's greatest tactics is to sow seeds of doubt that will lead to disbelief concerning God's word. As was in the garden, so is today.
"Yea hath God Said?"
To the Christian, the enemy's aim is to destroy his faith in the word of God. To the unbeliever, he aims to blind the minds of the unbelieving (2 Corinthians 4:4).
Which one will you choose?
Why I Am King James Only
Articles
1 John 5:7
448 Reasons Why I Cannot Trust Any Modern Bible Version
Acts 12:4 - Which Easter?
Archaic Words in the NIV
An Establishment Bible
Bible Scholar Loses Voice On the John Ankerberg Show
The Broad Church Movement and the Modern Bible Versions
Calvinism and the King James Bible
Characteristics of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus
Church, Congregation or Assembly - by Will Kinney
Codex "B" - Its History
Did Rome Give Us The Bible?
Early Witnesses to the Received Text
Easter or Passover in Acts 12:4 by Jack Moorman
ESV - More Changes to the Text - by Will Kinney
The attack on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ by the ESV
Faith OF Christ or Faith IN Christ according to the Modern versions
God's Unchanging Word
The Hampton Court Conference of 1604
History of the Controversy by Dr. Clinton Branine
Holman Christian Standard Bible: Whose Standard is it?
How Accurate is your Translation of the Bible?
How Many Revisions?
The Importance of Thee and Thou
Is the King James Bible Inspired?
Is The NIV the Word of God?
Jerome and Vigilantius
King James Language - The Excuse
King James Only - Where did the term originate?
KJV Verse Comparison with Modern Versions
Lineage of the King James Bible
Lineage of the Modern Corrupt Versions
Murdered by Rome
The New American Standard Version: Another Gnostic Book
The New Eye Opener
New King James Counterfeit
Nineteenth Century Occult Revival - Legacy of Hort and Westcott
NIV Bible Quiz
The NIV Hates the Lord Jesus Christ
The NIV Infection
No Doctrines are Changed?
The Old Latin Version and the King James Bible Readings
The Old Rugged Cross (Revised Version)
Origen’s Gnostic Belief System
Principles of Bible Preservation
Qualifications of the King James Translators
The Received Text
Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible by Pastor Keith Piper
Sodomy and the NIV
Superiority of the King James Bible
Testimony of S. Franklin Logsdon on the NASV
Textual Criticism: Fact and Fiction
Textual Criticism - A Satanic Success Story
They Dare Call This Science
Updated Version or Replacement?
Westcott Hort Only Controversy
What Hort and Westcott Believed
What About Those Thees and Thous?
Which Bible? by David Daniels
Which Bible is Preserved of God by David Otis Fuller
Who Controls the World, God or Satan?
Why 1 John 5:7-8 is in the Bible
Why I am King James Only?
Your Modern Version is Roman Catholic
Please Click to Email Us
