3 common questions

1. Are all Bibles generally the same?

No, as all modern versions translate using different manuscripts then the original text we have had delivered to us from the time of the apostles until now. In addition to this they are different translation philosophies, and different people translating some of which had downright demonic practises such as the case with Wescott and Horte who communed with an auditorium of spirits regularly to “translate” the Bible. All modern bibles are based on this translation called the Critical Text. This alone should make you run from these allegories they call bibles. To make matters worse, in the case of most modern Bibles, it is not even believers translating them. Scofield who was a Jewish Hired Lawyer is an example of this ... What business a Jewish person, who has rejected Christ, has in paying a lawyer to produce a translation is beyond me, but I can guarantee, that without the Holy Spirit it will be a corruption. It as though Christians forget the Devil is the most crafty and cunning of all creatures [Genesis 3:1] who is the father of lies [John 8:44] and deceives better then any man. Who cannot destroy Gods word, nor remove Gods word, but can offer a counterfeit. And that is exactly what he has done with modern Bibles. Even bibles like the Amplified Bible which claim to be based solely on the Textus Receptus or TR (Received Text) had to change a minimum of 10% of the Bible in order to gain copyright. God cannot lie [Titus 1:2] and He does not change his mind [Numbers 23:19]. God’s Holy word cannot be added to or have anything taken away [Revelation 22:19] and thats exactly what all these modern bibles we call allegories do! God is also not the author of confusion [1 Corinthians 14:33] and He has refined his word 7 times like silver [Psalms 12:6]. 7 Times happens to be the exact number the King James Bible is in getting it to its final English form in the 1611 version, which has been updated faithfully with changes to no words aside spelling and grammar and syntax as our modern understandings have changed. God has faithfully preserved his word, and it has not changed since the first penning of his word as early as Moses and again with the Apostles. We can trace his true word of the Byzantine type texts (Received Text) to as early as 150 AD, and the modern claims of the other manuscripts, founded in the same place as the seat of Apostasy and the Gnostic Gospels, which are claimed to be older are bogus. There is no proof of this, and older does not mean more true accurate or better. Especially when these “older” manuscripts were penned some 450 miles from where the events of the Bible actually happened.

2. Are modern translations just an easier version to read?

They might be easier to read, but they are certainly harder to understand, and are far less clear. The KJV uses Thee, Thou and Ye to clarify who the speaker is speaking to, when the Bible says Ye, it means the speaker is talking to more then one person or a group, and when he says thou, he is talking to an individual, this helps us greatly determine how this was said, and why it was said and to whom. You cannot determine this with a modern Bible. Plus in many instances such as is in [1 Timothy 3:16], there are changes that leave the reader to question the deity of Christ. In the KJV it says “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” In the NIV it reads thus:  "Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great: He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory."

Now you and I know this is about Jesus, but if I were Satan I would use this right here to twist the deity of Christ. The Antichrist himself might use this as it just says the He was manifest in the flesh. He what though? He as in an Angel? A Man? A Prophet? You know what the KJV calls Jesus here? 𝙂𝙊𝘿 𝙒𝘼𝙎 𝙈𝘼𝙉𝙄𝙁𝙀𝙎𝙏 𝙄𝙉 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝙁𝙇𝙀𝙎𝙃! Not "he" BUT GOD!!!

3. Is Anything really changed?

Oh yes, 100s of thousands of changes, some just grammatical, but far too many (1 would be too much) of the changes actually effect doctrines heavily. What they change messes with the Trinity, the Virgin Birth, the Parentage of Jesus, the Deity of Jesus and the list goes on, they change things in the OT calling Lucifer the bright and morning star, which in Revelation is the title of Jesus Christ, which is essentially calling Satan God. And the list goes on, these are not simply different translations, they are corruptions and are laced with heresy and blasphemy. And anyone who doesn't see that, yet proclaims to be a teacher, I wouldn’t trust them farther then I could throw them. If you would like to see a list of changes you can download this pdf here.

10 Facts Concerning the “Modern” (Corrupted) Bible Translations:

1. All modern Bible translation include the use of two collections of texts known as the the Wescott & Hort type manuscripts, these manuscripts have the official names of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Links to information and further reading on these can be found here: Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus

2. Modern versions make 100s of thousands of changes to the text. One among thousands of examples is Psalms 8, which is a prophesy of Jesus that ties in with Hebrews 2:7, as it is word for word the same thing. Yet in the NIV it takes that prophecy of our Lord and makes it about us, which is blasphemy.

3. The NIV removes 16 entire NT verses (Mathew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36. 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7. 28:29, Romans 16:25.)

4. The NIV puts footnotes on 27 other NT verses saying these probably aren't in the Bible.

5. The hundreds of examples of this do effect doctrine, and they do effect key points of Jesus' deity or mess with the doctrine of the Trinity. There is a serious blatant attack on the true word of God coming from these "bibles." (All examples when the booklet and other media is produced)

6. The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered in a wastebasket in St. Catherine’s Monastary (near Mt. Sinai) in 1844 by Constantin von Tischendorf.

7. The Codex Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library in 1475 and was rediscovered in 1845.

8. These Manuscripts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus make up only 3% of total manuscripts, and are full of missing sections, poor copying, repeated lines, and other signs that these were either at worst corrupt attempts at polluting Gods word, which was known to be an issue at the time of the Apostles when these were written, or at best, signs that these were simply someone's attempt to copy the Bible for perhaps writing practice. Hence being in a wastebasket.

9. Some obvious issues with these Documents is that they are claimed to be the oldest known to man, yet some are stark white, and others are aged looking, while yet no carbon dating or other ways of measuring age have been done to the codex's. The Codex's are just posited as older, without any evidence to back up those claims, despite the clear logical truth that older doesn't mean more truthful or even inspired by God. Lest we say all the documents sent to Churches in the apostles day are all valid now, despite them being from false teachers pretending to be apostles. Older does not mean better, in the same way whoever tells the story first is the more truthful. Unfortunately for whatever reasons people like James White seem to think this is a good argument, when its clear this argument is indeed invalid .

10. These documents hail from Egypt and Alexandria, which were 432 miles apart from where the apostles were or about 30 days of walking apart. So to claim they had the truth more so then the Apostles would be just folly, but that's what Bible Colleges and unknowing pastors are doing, when they read from anything but the KJV. They simply do not know the history and thereby are deceived into thinking these documents are in fact the word of God.

LOGICAL TRUTH

The main issue with using any modern version "Bible" is that it incorporates the Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And that modern Bibles DO effect doctrine and change things left, right and center.

Here is what you would have to believe, if you believed these corrupt manuscripts are the word of God:

• You have to believe that the Apostles who wrote the word of God, and served God with their lives unto death, corrupted their own books.

• You have to believe that people who believed in the Deity of Christ, and served Him unto death often corrupt Bible manuscripts.

• You have to believe that people who died to get the Gospel to the world, couldn’t be trusted with the Bible in writing it or in delivering it faithfully throughout the ages.

• You have to believe that the Celtic Christians, Waldenses, Albigenses, Henricians, Petrobrussians, Paulicians, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Protestant churches, the Anabaptists and the Baptists all did not have the pure word of God, but instead the Roman Catholics (known murderers, pedophiles, and worshippers of Idols among many other horrid, and wicked evil things throughout history) and the nineteenth century rationalists did have the pure word of God, but only at the 15th century when the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus came out.

• You then also have to assign God as a liar when He promised to preserve and keep his word. (1 Peter 1:25, Isaiah 40:8, Luke 16:17, Psalms 12:6-7)

• You also have to accept that men for 1500-1800 years had the wrong bible, and God is either too weak, careless, or too imperfect to make sure His word was preserved.

Judge for yourself

What's more accurate, a weak God who makes mistakes and fails to do things right (not the God of the Bible), or the actual God of the Bible who has been keeping his promises as he cannot lie, and therefore did in fact preserve His word to us all the way from Moses to Jesus to us. (Titus 1:2)

Whats more true?

That the Roman Catholics who have been perverting the world and Bibles, and doctrines for the last 1500 years are to be trusted? Or those faithful men and women, that descended down all the way from Jesus until now, who by the way were murdered by Catholics for preaching the actual Gospel?

You gotta be on some sort of payroll if you are going to advocate other Bibles, that or someone who has been duped and deceived!

FACTS FOR WHY KJV

• The KJV uses only the Textus Receptus or the Majority Received Text.

• The Textus Receptus comes straight from the the apostles down to us today instead of Egypt and Alexandria, which was far departed from the events in the Bible due to geographical distance (30 days of walking apart from one another).

• All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• Papyrus 66 used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The Celtic Church used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The Waldensians used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• Curetonian Syriac is basically a Textus Receptus type manuscript.

• Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• The vast majority of extant New Testament Greek manuscripts are Textus Receptus type manuscripts (99% of them).

• The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

• Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

• 85% of papyri used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort type.

• 97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus type manuscripts, only 9 manuscripts used the Westcott-Hort type.

• 99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used the Westcott-Hort type

• 100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus type manuscripts.

Additional interesting facts:

1. Those who produce these other Bibles are also owners of large media companies like 20th Century Fox, which is owned by the corrupt and rich, operated by non-believers, Jews, Muslims, Agnostics and Atheists. What business does media company, famous for movies and fiction, Jewish people, or Atheists or anyone else who isn’t a born again Bible believing Christian have in creating a Bible, and or trying to translate one?

2. The KJV (King James Bible) was translated from 1603 to 1610 and was translated by upwards of 54 men. These 54 men were some of the greatest scholars of that time, all spoke and understood many languages with one, Lancelot Andrews, who knew Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldean, Syriac, and Arabic, AND spoke over 15 languages. These men were far more qualified than today's scholars as their ability to understand, and know the original languages was far superior to anyone today. These men translated the Bible from the Textus Receptus only, and rejected things like the septuigant and the vaticannus as they widely recognized them as frauds, as did other men we mentioned such as Erasmus.

3. How the KJV Bible was translated was by these 54 or so men, dividing themselves up into 6 groups, 9 men per group, to translate a book of the bible. Each word and verse of scripture was evaluated 9  times by each man of the group and then again another 6 times by the leader of each of the 6 groups, totaling 15 total evaluations of each verse of the Bible.

4. It took these men 7 years to translate the Bible using only the text that has been passed down from the ages all the way up to 120 years of Jesus death and resurrection.

In Summary…

The KJV is the only true word of God, that is founded on the original texts. Other works have been attempted, but all of which have failed in areas the KJV did not. For example, those who translated using only the textus receptus often translated into modern English, throwing out the useful thees and thous, or their translation philosophy was inferior, translating thought for thought. Where in the people who handled the KJV considered the TR to be the word of God, and translated it with such precision, that it is impossible for you to misread it. Now people can still teach falsely reading the KJV, but its not the fault of the KJV, its the fault of the wicked heart of the person.

The KJV is the true word of God. And to read any other version is plain folly. It may be hard to get into it at first, but trust me, it is an incredibly small price to pay for the eternal salvation you were given. Those who often cant take the time to read the KJV, and get used to it, are often those who are not willing to pick up their cross. Christianity is not about comfort, its about serving God and carrying your cross.