Over the years, I have spoken with many Christians and churchgoers on the topic of Bible versions, and if they are willing to discuss it in detail, many of them are quite defensive about the version they use. What led me to write this book is that most of those heated debates are done in willful ignorance, meaning that, in many cases, those who argue in favor of the King James Bible and those who argue in favor of other versions are both arguing without a basic understanding of the subject matter, or they simply repeat things they have heard from someone else without having researched it themselves.

In this book, we are going to explore the history behind various Bible versions, and compare that to the compilation of the King James Bible (KJB), to demonstrate that the KJB is the superior, uncorrupted Bible, suitable for modern English reading, that every Christian should use for their study of the Word of God. I will provide evidence to show a clear distinction between what are sometimes called "new-age versions" and the KJB, why there are only two categories of Bible versions, and why those differences are irreconcilable.

In years past, I have labeled all other Bible versions as "new-age versions" out of habit because I was taught to do that as a young Christian.

new age (adj): of or relating to a movement espousing a broad range of philosophies and practices traditionally viewed as occult, metaphysical, or paranormal
(See 'new age', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

As we will discover in this book, this label is somewhat accurate, and (out of habit) I may occasionally refer to them as "new-age" in my online audio teachings. However, I believe it is more generally accurate to call them "corrupt" versions, or (as I will point out in a later chapter) "watered-down" versions.

corrupt (adj): spoiled; tainted; vitiated; unsound; changed to a worse state; not genuine; infected with errors or mistakes
(See 'corrupt', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 16, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Any Bible version (in English) that is not the KJB (e.g. NIV, NASV, ESV, RSV, NKJV etc), I will hereafter refer to as a corrupt or watered-down version. This may offend some readers, and I can understand your passions (because the Word of God is sacred to those of us who worship Him), but if you take the time to read this book, I hope you will see the reasons why the label "corrupt" is fitting for all these modern versions.

I am not arguing that anyone is going to hell because they used a corrupt version of the Bible; rather, I would argue that there is enough of the Gospel of Salvation in most of the corrupt versions for a man to be saved. However, if a born again Christian is looking to study so he can increase his knowledge and understanding of God's Word, he should use the King James Bible.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
-Psalm 12:6

pure (adj): clear; free from mixture; without spot; not sullied or tarnished; incorrupt; absolute; not vitiated with improper or corrupt words or phrases
(See 'pure', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Sept 25, 2014 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
-Proverbs 30:5-6

There are many who teach (or, at least, heavily imply) that pure translation is impossible, and that some vital information is lost when translating words from one language to another, but I would object to that notion because it is wildly incorrect, especially when it comes to the guiding hand of the Lord. In later chapters, we will learn how God used translation to give us some of the Bible, even in the Old Testament. Through selfishness and laziness, wicked men (who fancy themselves "scholars") have changed the Word of God, relied on unreliable manuscripts, and created fallacious systems of interpretation that have resulted in a great variety of corrupt versions of the Bible, so many that I will not be able to cover all of them in this book.

Just from a logical standpoint, the existence of countless Bible versions is nonsensical. The Lord Jesus Christ clearly told us that Satan is the father of lies:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
-John 8:44-45

Thus, the Lord God tells us the truth, and Satan must tell not just one lie, but many lies and deceptions to turn us away from the truth. This is because Satan knows that the more options a man has, the more paths that man has to follow lies, and the less likely he is to find the truth. I have long been fascinated to hear so many preachers and evangelical churchgoers declare fervently that there is only one God, one Christ, one truth, and one path to heaven, but when it comes to religious traditions, they turn away from the singular path to justify spiritual diversity. For example, Jesus told us there is one fold and one shepherd (John 10:14-16), and Paul rebuked Corinth for creating denominations that separated the church (1Co 3:3-7), but today, most churchgoers believe that the church has many denominations, when in truth, there is only one church that does not participate in denominationalism.
(Read "Denominations Are Unbiblical" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In the same regard, churchgoers now think it is a normal thing to have countless versions of God's Word in the same language. When the Word of God was kept by the Levites in the Temple, there was only one edition of it in the Hebrew language; there were not many different Hebrew versions of the law and prophets, but the fact that, today, so many people believe that having many English versions of the Bible is normal (or worse, is somehow "helpful") only contributes to the stockpile of evidence that they have been brainwashed by corrupt preachers of religious institutions.

For some odd reason, there are a great multitude of churchgoers who believe Satan is working from behind the scenes to corrupt and deceive, but when it comes to the creation of Bible versions, they swiftly change their philosophy (i.e. way of thinking) to believe that Satan has no influence in that regard, even though the Devil has been working to corrupt God's Word since before the fall of Adam and Eve. Likewise, there are many churchgoers who believe there are wicked men who are working to corrupt the truth, but when it comes to the creation of Bible versions, every so-called "scholar" magically becomes pure of heart, and none can be said to have any prideful, greedy, or self-serving intent.

As we will soon discover, there have been many men who have worked very hard to corrupt the Word of God to further their own agenda. However, before we get to that information, let's begin by establishing what the Lord God has said about His Word.
 


The word 'communicate' generally refers to the act of delivering something from one person to another, which is most commonly used to describe the exchange of knowledge between persons through conversation. This is because the word 'commune' generally means "to converse," which is to have an intercourse of thoughts between two or more people.

I have no doubt that the Lord God can infuse a man with knowledge by the power of His will alone, which was demonstrated by God when He created Adam. Adam was given knowledge from the first moment he was created, which allowed him to understand the commandments God gave him, and to do the work God had set for him to do. (Gen 2:15-17) However, the Lord God created and established verbal and written communication to be used by mankind for the acquisition of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.

In his teachings, the Lord Jesus Christ explained to us that the written Word of God is a method of opening a man's understanding, that he might hear the Gospel of Salvation and be saved from hellfire:

There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.
-Luke 16:19-31

Abraham told the rich man in hell that it would be meaningless to send Lazarus back as a spirit to warn others, and that is because mankind will create excuses to justify the things they already want to believe, or in other words, in their hearts, they are not converted to the truth through interactions with spirits, otherwise, Belshazzar (son of Nebuchadnezzar) would have been instantly converted upon seeing the ghostly hand write messages on his wall. (Dan 5:5-6) Men are not brought to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of sin) in such ways, but rather, men are converted through the understanding of God's Word, either by reading the Bible, or by hearing from another man who is reading it.

Of course, in the beginning, there was no written Word of God, and as far as anyone understands, Moses was the first to compile God's Word for mankind, being the author (via the guidance of God) of the first five books, commonly known as the "Torah." Before the Bible was completed, it was required that the Lord (either through angels, or the Holy Spirit through visions) directly communicate with men to document His Word, however, once the prophets documented His Word into the Scriptures that we have today, the Jews (and later, the Christians) were tasked with keeping and preserving the Bible, in its proper contextual meaning, throughout the past 4,000 years.

As I pointed out in the introduction to this book, the words of the Lord God are pure, meaning that they are free from all defilement by the nature of sinful man, in that they are holy, having no fraud or deceit in them. These ideas are contrasted in Psalm 12, which I briefly quoted in the introduction, but let's go over most of the chapter (which only consists of eight verses) in more detail:

Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the
faithful fail from among the children of men.
-Psalm 12:1

A godly man is not a man who is holy or righteous of himself (Rom 3:10-12), but in this passage, the godly are those who have their trust firmly grounded in God's Word, with strengthened faith in his promises, who also exhibit charity and mercy to those in need. The world tends to have a pathetic view of a "godly" man because they judge such things based on his piety (i.e. religious stature), by his title or outfit, but it is delusional for mankind to think that someone can achieve godliness through such pointless means. Rather, the godly men being referred to are those who have received the grace of God through repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of sins) and faith in His promises of mercy and salvation.

Such men do not "cease" in the sense that they no longer exist, otherwise, God would have no reason to preserve the world. Godly men cease in the sense that they are few in number, being scarce in places they are desperately needed because, without them, the poor and needy often go without aid, and there are few who look to the Messiah, to study His Word and correct themselves according to His righteousness, so that the truth of the Word of God is not preached as readily as we would hope.

They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
-Psalm 12:2

This is referring to false teachers, who lie in their doctrine, and become hypocrites in their practices, pretentiously speaking useless religious things with their neighbors. Such vanity does no good for one's neighbor, and therefore, does not abide by the Great Commandment that fulfills the law and prophets, which is to love one's neighbors by considering their good in relation to our own. (Mat 7:12)

flatter (v): to soothe by praise; to gratify self-love by praise; to please by applause or favorable notice, by respectful attention, or by any thing that exalts him in his own estimation, or confirms his good opinion of himself; to praise falsely
(See 'flatter', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 16, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Just as the magicians and soothsayers spoke flattery to Nebuchadnezzar, that they might selfishly incur favor with him, so do false teachers, who flatter to gain the favor of potential followers, and most especially those who give them money. These double-hearted (or double-minded) men say one thing with their mouths, but something else with their hearts, or in other words, the mouth and heart of a hypocrite do not align.

The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips,
and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
-Psalm 12:3

This is not said in the sense that God would literally, physically cut off a man's lips, but rather, He will cut them off in the sense of putting them to silence, either through punishments in this life to humble them, or by the punishments of eternal hellfire. In the same sense, the prideful tongue is condemned, and those false teachers who preach against Christ's doctrine in their arrogance will be destroyed if they will not be humbled to repentance.

Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail;
our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
-Psalm 12:4

Such false teachers impose their rules and regulations on their followers, claiming them to be Biblical rules and regulations, when they are not, and by seemingly good words and deceptively fair speeches, they fool the simple who do not know any better. (Rom 16:17-18) Therefore, these men and women, who flatter their audiences with proud speech, believe that they may say whatever they want without consequence because God kept silent at the time they spoke (Psa 50:21), while they prattled their words to no spiritual profit (2Ti 2:14), having a heart like an antichrist, imagining themselves to be godly of their own merit, and exalt themselves above all that is called God. (2Th 2:4)

For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
-Psalm 12:5

The poor and needy are most often those who are the servants of God, who are needy in the sense that those who claim to be their friends abandon them, and those around them often take advantage of their charity and kindness, leaving them with little worldly substance to provide for their needs and comforts, which also results in them being poor in spirit (albeit, rich in eternity, Mat 5:3), not only from lack, but also because of the rich and powerful, especially those with religious standing, who oppress them. Because of these afflictions, the Lord God promises to have mercy on His poor and needy children, preserving them from those wicked who scorn and despise them.

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
-Psalm 12:6

The words of the Lord God are divine, being untainted from the arrogance and deceitfulness of men, and therefore, the words being pure and holy (Pro 30:5), the doctrines preached by the faithful saints of God are also pure and holy when preached from an untainted Bible. The words of God are worth infinitely more than silver, but a silversmith will boil and skim the dross (i.e. scum) out of the metal, and those who work to make exceedingly fine and pure silver repeat this process many times, so is the Word of God, to make it the purest treasure in the world.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever.
-Psalm 12:7

I used to teach that this verse was referring to the words of the Lord mentioned in the previous verse, but I was incorrect in that assessment, which was partially due to the influence of those who taught me when I was a newer Christian. The correct interpretation here is that the preservation is used in the sense of protecting the poor and needy (i.e. not all who are poor and needy, but specifically, the poor and needy children of God) from evil forever (i.e. in every generation until the end of time), and this is done by His power and good will, according to the promises which He has preserved for us in writing.

I have listened to preachers argue that Psalm 12 is a promise of preservation of God's written Word, while others have argued that Psalm 12 is a preservation of the poor. I would argue that both are correct because even though verse seven is speaking of the preservation of the poor and needy, those poor and needy are an indirect reference to the born again saints, and in order for those saints to gain knowledge of those promises (and for the wicked to know of the warnings of punishment against them for the evils they do against the children of God), God's Word must be preserved for them to read and understand.

The Lord God and His Word are one:

In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.
-John 1:1

Therefore, the Word of God should be taken just as seriously as God Himself, not only because of the sacredness of His Word, but also because He puts high value on His Word, and includes dire consequences for the mishandling of His Word, as well as the words which we speak from our mouths.

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 which are written in this book.
-Revelation 22:18-19

For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.
-Psalm 119:89

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
-Matthew 24:35

But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.
-Matthew 12:36

This is not to say that the ink of the words, nor the paper on which the words are written, will survive for eternity, because all that will burn up in the final Day of Judgment. However, the Word of God, in its philosophical context, as He has spoken it to men, will not pass away, meaning that it will last for all eternity, and therefore, it stands to reason that the Lord would preserve His Word for mankind because He wants all (i.e. as many as possible) to come to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of their sin.

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
-2 Peter 3:9-10

Despite this, some defend corrupt versions by claiming that the perfect Word of God cannot be obtained on earth because it is only preserved in heaven, but that begs the question: How could anyone have any knowledge of spiritual and heavenly things if they were all locked away in a place we cannot go to find them? How could you know for sure that the Word of God can only be found in heaven if you cannot inspect heaven to know that for sure? For that matter, how could anyone enter the Kingdom of Heaven if the method of entry is hidden behind impenetrable gates? Not only is that nonsensical (because the Word of God was spoken and written by the goodwill of God for mankind's benefit), but the Lord God also told us that the things written in the Bible are from heaven, given to us and documented for us, to receive knowledge, understanding, and wisdom through study.

If thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which are written in this book of the law, and if thou turn unto the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul. For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
-Deuteronomy 30:10-12

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.
-Psalm 111:10

Imagine for a moment that a dying father wrote a final letter to his son, and gave it to his wife with the instructions that it was to be buried in the woods so that his son cannot find it. Unless the father hated his son, I cannot think of any logical reason to explain why he would do such a thing, and therefore, because the Lord God is the essence of all that is good, kind, and loving (because God is love, 1Jo 4:8, 1Jo 4:16), it stands to reason that He would preserve His pure words for His children, uncorrupted, "as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

The truth is that the Lord God continually tries and tests men, most especially His saints, to prove them. In other words, God establishes the truth with direct evidence, to distinguish those who are His faithful servants from those who are of the world.

Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or no.
-Exodus 16:4

Now these are the nations which the LORD left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan; Only that the generations of the children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof; Namely, five lords of the Philistines, and all the Canaanites, and the Sidonians, and the Hivites that dwelt in mount Lebanon, from mount Baalhermon unto the entering in of Hamath. And they were to prove Israel by them, to know whether they would hearken unto the commandments of the LORD, which he commanded their fathers by the hand of Moses.
-Judges 3:1-4

Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?
-2 Corinthians 13:5

The Lord God does not do this because He needs to find out if we will follow Him (i.e. He is omniscient, which means He knows everything), but rather, He has provided evidence of the truth in the sight of men, so that, on the Day of Judgment, in God's final courtroom, the evidence will be indisputable. Christians will be led by the Holy Spirit towards God's Word because we know that we need His instruction, and so if we Christians want to be approved by God, and to live according to His righteousness, then we must study His Word to understand it.

Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-2 Timothy 2:14-15

The heart of the righteous studieth to answer:
but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
-Proverbs 15:28

If we are to study the Word of God as instructed, then it stands to reason that His Word must be documented for us to study. Therefore, it logically follows that there must be a pure, preserved Bible that has been kept and guided by the hand of God, first put to the responsibility of the Jews, then to the Gentile Christians.

Certainly, mankind is fraught with errors and prone to mistakes, and I would furthermore argue that there have been many people over the past 2,000 years who have deceitfully attempted to change God's Word to their own liking. However, the power of God is not limited to the flaws and deceits of mankind, and since the Lord has told us that His Word is pure, and given us commandment to study it, then I trust that He has guided the preservation of His Word with great care.

The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and
he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.
-Proverbs 22:12

If people believe that the Word of God is filled with the errors of men, then how can anyone trust in what is written? I do believe that there are many versions sold in supposedly "Christian" bookstores across the world that are brimming with error, deceit, and manipulative interpretations, but I also believe this is a test for us, that we would take the study of God's Word seriously enough to question what we are reading, research the origin of Bible versions, and judge righteous judgment to discern the truth.

judge (v): to compare facts or ideas, and perceive their agreement or disagreement, and thus to distinguish truth from falsehood
(See 'judge', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 18, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
-John 7:24

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
-1 Thessalonians 5:21

In the beginning, the Lord God gave the first man, Adam, His Word and commandment:

And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
-Genesis 2:15-17

Then, Satan tricked Adam and Eve by introducing a new version of God's Word:

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
-Genesis 3:1-5

Notice that Satan first repeated God's Word because it would be impossible at this point of the corruption process to deny that God said it, and furthermore, providing SOME of the truth helps to make the lie look more credible. However, Satan only repeated the parts that were beneficial to his end goal, and then changed the parts that would manipulate (or gaslight) Eve into questioning if what she knew was really true.

subtil (adj): sly; artful; cunning; crafty; insinuating; deceitful; treacherous
(See 'subtil', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved May 18, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Many of the changes to new versions of the Bible are subtle (subtil), but the more that is changed, the more people question whether or not what God said in His Word is true, or worse, they come to believe that the subtle changes are the pure words of the Lord. Before we get into analyzing some of those changes, let's learn about the origin of the KJB and compare it to the origin of the many corrupt English versions we see today.
 


To clarify, I did NOT title this chapter "the originals," but rather, "the origin," and the reason this distinction is important is because it is nearly impossible to find the original documents for any ancient text. Most ancient history is based on texts that are a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of the original, but not the original itself.

The reason for this is quite simple: Documents decay over time. Whether paper or parchment (i.e. untanned animal skin), or vellum (which is a higher quality parchment), eventually, the writing will decay and the information will be lost.

Of course, some of our ancestors took great pains to seal away documents in storage for long periods of time, but those are extremely rare circumstances in which the document is never used, meaning that no one is actively reading or studying it because rolling and unrolling a scroll repeatedly will speed up the decay rate of the document. (This is an important point that I will bring up again later.) Also, it is important to consider that a single document, even under strict storage conditions, can be easily stolen, or destroyed by earth, wind, water, and fire, which means it is not a good idea to have only one, so the logical thing to do is make copies of the original during a time where the original is in a good enough condition to be clearly read.

Christ's apostles sat down and wrote their epistles (e.g. Acts, Romans, Hebrews, etc), which the Holy Ghost directly inspired them to write, and they typically wrote these documents on vellum because it was known to last longer. The churches would use these documents frequently, studying them to gain understanding, and with that heavy use, the ink would slowly wear out and fade, which forced them to make copies, and they would discard the originals since they could no longer be read. There is a general philosophy (i.e. a way of thinking) that has been passed down through schools and church buildings, namely, that ancient men were primitive idiots, and modern men are intellectually superior, but advancements in technology do not make a man intellectually superior. The truth is that, often, the convenience of technology makes men weak, complacent, lazy, and greedy. The nonsensical, evolutionary-based "ancient-man-was-stupid" philosophy has created the idea among many churchgoers that no one in the past could have completely copied or translated the Bible without making mistakes that were left unnoticed, and therefore, they also end up believing that "older is better," which puts an absurd reliance on the original documents alone, and any scholar worth his salt could tell you that is not how the process works.

For example, Spencer McDaniel has degrees from Indiana University and Brandeis University (Massachusetts), specializing in Ancient Greek and Roman (Latin) texts, and she wrote about Pliny the Elder (23-79 A.D.), who recorded what happened to the libraries of Carthage in northern Africa (what is today the country of Tunisia) after the city was destroyed by the Roman armies. In one of her articles, McDaniel points out that what remains of that library mostly exists in scrolls that were seized by Rome, ordered to be translated into Latin, and were also later translated into Greek, the language in which most of the documentation we have today was preserved.
(See Spencer McDaniel, "Are There More Surviving Ancient Writings in Greek or Latin?" Tales of Times Forgotten, Sept 25, 2021, retrieved May 19, 2023, [https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/09/25/are-there-more-surviving-ancient-writings-in-greek-or-latin])

McDaniel also confirmed what I have long known to be true, which is that there is "much more surviving Greek than Latin literature," which means that there are more surviving documents in the Greek language about Rome than there are original Latin Roman documents, forcing scholars to turn to other languages to assess the history of the Roman Empire. The reason I mention this is because historians rely on these translations to give an accurate account of the history of ancient kingdoms, which is then developed into books and documentaries, which are then studied by students and taken to be an accurate historical account of the events that transpired.

McDaniel then makes a very important point:
"Well of course we only have copies of copies of copies. I don't think there is a single ancient literary text for which we have the actual, autograph manuscript handwritten by the original author themself. If you're expecting original autograph manuscripts of texts that were originally written two thousand years ago or more, that's an unrealistic expectation. Most people would agree that, if copies of the text of a work of ancient literature have survived, then the work has survived, even if we don't have the original autograph manuscripts. It's sort of like how, if you read a modern printed edition of Pride and Prejudice, you would still say you're reading Jane Austen's work, even if you aren't reading her handwritten manuscript."
-Spencer McDaniel, "Are There More Surviving Ancient Writings in Greek or Latin?" Tales of Times Forgotten, Sept 25, 2021, retrieved May 19, 2023, [https://talesoftimesforgotten.com/2021/09/25/are-there-more-surviving-ancient-writings-in-greek-or-latin]

McDaniel is 100% correct, and the average person today has very little understanding of how much we rely on copied works for historical analysis, which is why scribes used to be commonly employed. Before the invention of the iron moveable-type printing press in the 15th century, the primary method of copying manuscripts was done by hiring scribes, who were authors, public clerks, and secretaries, and though scribes most often pride themselves on being intellectually superior (which is why Jesus so often rebuked them, Mat 23:13), there are some scribes who are called unto the kingdom of heaven, doing their work faithfully with humility. (Mat 13:52)

Despite this fact, many churchgoers and pastors (who lack understanding about this subject) put heavy emphasis on the "originals" for credibility, but it should be noted that the Lord God (in Scripture) did NOT put that same emphasis on the "originals." For example, Jeremiah's prophecies were not originally written by Jeremiah, but rather they were dictated by Jeremiah and written by a scribe named Baruch:

And it came to pass in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah, that this word came unto Jeremiah from the LORD, saying, Take thee a roll of a book, and write therein all the words that I have spoken unto thee against Israel, and against Judah, and against all the nations, from the day I spake unto thee, from the days of Josiah, even unto this day. It may be that the house of Judah will hear all the evil which I purpose to do unto them; that they may return every man from his evil way; that I may forgive their iniquity and their sin. Then Jeremiah called Baruch the son of Neriah: and Baruch wrote from the mouth of Jeremiah all the words of the LORD, which he had spoken unto him, upon a roll of a book.
-Jeremiah 36:1-4

This roll (i.e. scroll) was the first edition of the book of Jeremiah, and it was taken from Baruch by an apparitor (i.e. an official steward of the king who was sometimes a magistrate over religious matters) named Jehudi, and the document was kept in store by another scribe named Elishama. The scribes had read the document and told the king (Jehoiakim) what was in it, but the king was curious to have the roll read to him directly to verify what it said, and so he ordered Jehudi to bring the roll to him:

And they went in to the king into the court, but they laid up the roll in the chamber of Elishama the scribe, and told all the words in the ears of the king. So the king sent Jehudi to fetch the roll: and he took it out of Elishama the scribe's chamber. And Jehudi read it in the ears of the king, and in the ears of all the princes which stood beside the king. Now the king sat in the winterhouse in the ninth month: and there was a fire on the hearth burning before him. And it came to pass, that when Jehudi had read three or four leaves, he cut it with the penknife, and cast it into the fire that was on the hearth, until all the roll was consumed in the fire that was on the hearth.
-Jeremiah 36:20-23

Jeremiah was not specific about who cut up the roll and burned it because 'he' in the context could have referred to the king or Jehudi. If it was Jehudi, then it is certain that he did so by the command of the king, because others among them begged the king not to burn the Scriptures:

Nevertheless Elnathan and Delaiah and Gemariah had made intercession to the king that he would not burn the roll: but he would not hear them.
-Jeremiah 36:25

Although they begged him not to do it, the king and the princes with him were all complicit in the destruction of Jeremiah's prophecy because not one of them had any fear or repentance for burning the holy communication of the Lord:

Yet they were not afraid, nor rent their garments, neither the king, nor any of his servants that heard all these words.
-Jeremiah 36:24

Therefore, the originals of the book of Jeremiah have been lost forever, and cannot be retrieved. However, despite the loss of the original, the Lord God gave His Word to Jeremiah a second time to write down again:

Then the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah, after that the king had burned the roll, and the words which Baruch wrote at the mouth of Jeremiah, saying, Take thee again another roll, and write in it all the former words that were in the first roll, which Jehoiakim the king of Judah hath burned.
-Jeremiah 36:27-28

It does not end there because God commanded that, after the prophecies were read to Babylon, they were to be tied to a stone and thrown into the river as a sign to them that Babylon would sink. This means we do not have the second copy of Jeremiah's prophecies either.

And Jeremiah said to Seraiah, When thou comest to Babylon, and shalt see, and shalt read all these words; Then shalt thou say, O LORD, thou hast spoken against this place, to cut it off, that none shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, but that it shall be desolate for ever. And it shall be, when thou hast made an end of reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of Euphrates: And thou shalt say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise from the evil that I will bring upon her: and they shall be weary. Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.
-Jeremiah 51:61-64

Thus, the second copy of Jeremiah's prophecy was destroyed and lost forever. Not only did God know full well that the king would burn the first copy, He commanded the destruction of the second copy. Therefore, the only reason we still have Jeremiah's prophecies is because God gave them to Jeremiah a third time and he wrote them down, and we are relying on a translation of copies of copies of copies of Jeremiah's third copy of his prophecies.

The point of this story is that the Lord God does not need "originals." He can recreate His Word perfectly, exactly as He spoke it, any time He wants. It stands to reason that if He can have His Word rewritten at will, He can also preserve it at will, through translation, and with complete accuracy.

In summary, historians today rely on the accuracy of ancient scribes to translate, record, and preserve information. However, when concerning the Word of God, it becomes allegedly "impossible" for ancient scribes to accomplish such a thing, and there are deceptive reasons why modern religious scholars adopt that corrupt philosophy.

Did ancient scribes and scholars make mistakes? Of course they did, just as any craftsman today can make a mistake, but when your living relies on you producing quality, flawless work, craftsmen are very careful not to make any mistakes that would upset their clients, which served as a quality control mechanism.

Thus, scribes whose living and reputation relied on 100% accurate copies took the matter of making copies very seriously, as would anyone in a skill-based profession. However, I would also argue that the scribes who handled the Holy Word of God were FAR more strict with the Bible than they were with ordinary documents.

In Jewish society, when it concerned the Word of God, manuscript copying was handled with extraordinary care, far beyond the standards of the average scribe, because they believed (for good reason) that their very lives (and the lives of all those around the world) hung in the balance of them perfectly copying every jot and tittle (i.e. dots and lines in the Hebrew alphabet, Mat 5:18) to its finest detail. For the purpose of making sure Christians understand how seriously the Jews (i.e. the Levites) took this process, the following are some of the rules that were documented in the Talmud (Jewish commentary) for copying the Holy Scriptures, taken from the writings of R. Solomon Ganzfried (1804-1886), in an English translation by Judah Eisenstein of the volumes of An Encyclopedia of All Matters Concerning Jews and Judaism.
(See Judah D. Eisenstein, Ozar Yisrael, An Encyclopedia of All Matters Concerning Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1-10, New York: Pardes, 1951; See also Emanuel Tov, The Torah Scroll: How the Copying Process Became Sacred, retrieved May 19, 2023, [https://www.thetorah.com/article/the-torah-scroll-how-the-copying-process-became-sacred])

"There are some zealous scribes who do not write the Name unless in a state of purity, and this is good. Sometimes, on account of this, they write a complete sheet and leave blank spaces for the Names, to write them in after they have been to the mikveh, and this is also good."
-Keset HaSofer 10:18

The "mikveh" or "mikvah" is a ceremonial bath, similar to what you might see in a baptismal in some church buildings, commonly used in Jewish societies around the world, which is filled with water from a natural spring or rain, and many scribes would wash themselves before writing the name of God. This demonstrates how seriously they took the matter of copying the sacred Word of God.

(See Shoshanna Lockshin, "What Is A Mikveh?" My Jewish Learning, retrieved June 1, 2023, [https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-mikveh])

Of course, this could be a very time consuming process, and so what some scribes would do is leave the spaces with God's name blank on the page, perform the mikveh, and then write in God's name on all the blank spaces, which allowed them to only perform one bath for a page, instead of one bath for each instance of God's name. The author goes on to note that, although he considered the discipline to be good, it was not good to do this in most instances because, depending on the collection of pages being worked on at the time, going back to write in the names later after one dip in the mikvah could make it appear that the other writing had aged, while the names appeared newer, and may lead those in the future to believe something was added fraudulently to the text.

"The ancients were called soferim (lit. 'counters') because they counted every letter in Scripture."
-Kiddushin 30a

Certain scribes were tasked with counting the letters of every page that had been copied. Numbers of the amount of Hebrew letters of each section of a scroll were known, and would be counted repeatedly (forward and backward) to make sure the text was flawlessly accurate to the original.

"A scroll (some of whose letters) are erased may not be used for the lections... A scroll of the Torah in which a whole line is erased may not be used for the lections. If the greater part of a line is erased and the smaller part intact, the use of the scroll is permitted. If a Torah scroll contains an error, it may not be used for the lections. How many? 'Three in a column,' these are the words of R. Judah. R. Simeon b. Gamaliel says: 'Even if there be one error in one column, the scroll may not be used for the lections.'"
-Sof. 3:8-10

When copying the Bible, if there was an error, that error could either be noted, or it could be erased and fixed. This could have been a very frustrating process, considering that many columns (i.e. groups of text) of the Torah were copied on one scroll, and only one error on one letter could ruin the entire document. If such an error was found on any copy, the manuscript was either marked as flawed or destroyed, and if marked as flawed, it could still be read, however, it could not be used for any teaching, nor could it be used as a basis for copying future manuscripts.

It is fascinating that, in my experience, I have listened to various atheists and other skeptics object to the validity of Scripture because they claim that it is an "old and unreliable" book that was created by men (i.e. they do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures), and changed countless times through various copies and translations. However, those same people absolutely trust in a version of history that was acquired through a much more lackadaisical process of producing copies and translations, and they never seem to question it.

The Word of God, for both the Old and New Testaments, has MUCH more documentation to back it up than any other document researched by scientific institutions, which means it is the BEST historical record that mankind has for anything that is more than 2,000 years old. Though many people argue about translation and copying errors, thousands of ancient copies been discovered, and the more copies there are in existence, the easier it is to establish the validity of the document in question.

Majority opinion does not prove truth, but a majority of evidence shows us the truth, which is the way it works when handling historical documentation. For example, let's suppose that there was a popular old hymn in a song book that had a line that read, "All praise be to the Lord," but another modern song book reads, "All praise be" — how would we know which one was correct?

We would have to go back to various song books that were copied by different publishers, as far back as we have older copies, to see what they say. We would also have to go back to other people throughout history who talked about the song in commentaries to see how they quoted it, and compare it to those we have now to see which version is correct.

These thousands of collected copies of Scripture have been called the "Received Text" (or Textus Receptus in Latin), or the "Majority Texts" because the great majority of the received manuscripts throughout various times and locations have all agreed with each other. These preserved manuscripts also have other names, such as Eastern Texts, Byzantine Texts, Antioch Texts, Syrian Texts, and more. None of these individual documents consist of the entire Bible (and that was due to the heavy persecution of the church by which her enemies would destroy any documentation they found), but rather, they are pieces of it (preserved by Christians over the centuries at great risk to their own lives), such as an epistle, or a page, or a fragment of a page here and there, and by comparing the various pieces, linking verses that matched, the whole puzzle fit together into the Bible we know today.

The Majority Texts are comprised of over 5,300 manuscripts (mostly in Greek), and when comparing all of those documents against one another, they match perfectly and correlate together. Also, early Christian authors quoted from Scripture many times, and when those quotes of Scripture are compared to the Majority Texts, they are consistent.

On the other hand, there are a handful of documents discovered that do not match the rest of the Majority Text, which make up less than 1% of the total documents discovered, and they are called the "Minority Text." The Minority Texts contain a great number of errors, many omissions, and contradict each other, and these corrupt documents also have other names, such as the Alexandrian Text, Codex Vaticanus, Codex A, B, C, D, Sinaiticus, Aleph, and more.

Professor John William Burgon, a 19th century scholar who became Dean of Chichester Cathedral in 1876, and one of the few who personally examined the corrupt Codex Vaticanus (also known as Codex B), wrote a critique of it, and said:
"And now, since confessedly, a chain is no stronger than it is at its weakest link; nor an edifice more secure than the basis whereon it stands;—we must be allowed to point out that we have been dealing throughout with a dream, pure and simple; from which it is high time that we should wake up, now that we have been plainly shown on what an unsubstantial foundation these Editors have been all along building. A child's house, several stories high, constructed out of playing-cards,—is no unapt image of the frail erection before us. We began by carefully lifting off the topmost story; and then, the next: but we might as well have saved ourselves the trouble. The basement-story has to be removed bodily, which must bring the whole edifice down with a rush. In reply to the fantastic tissue of unproved assertions which go before, we assert as follows:—The impurity of the Texts exhibited by Codices B and ℵ [Aleph] is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact. These are two of the least trustworthy documents in existence. So far from allowing Dr. Hort's position—'A Text formed' by 'taking Codex B as the sole authority', 'would be incomparably nearer the Truth than a Text similarly taken from any other Greek or other single document' (p. 251),—we venture to assert that it would be, on the contrary, by far the foulest Text that had ever seen the light: worse, that is to say, even than the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort. And that is saying a great deal."
-John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised: Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review, John Murray, 1883, p. 314-316, ISBN: 9780790533674

To clarify, Burgon, who had analyzed many texts in his lifetime, declared that the documents coming from the Minority Texts are among "the least trustworthy documents in existence" because they contained more errors and omissions than what would be expected by just incompetence alone. His analysis of the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) in comparison to the Majority Texts, resulted in a discovery of thousands of manipulations:
"Thus Codex B differs from the commonly received Text of Scripture in the Gospels alone in 7578 places, of which no less than 2877 are instances of omission. In fact omissions constitute by far the larger number of what are commonly called 'Various Readings'. How then can those be called 'various readings' which are not readings at all? For example, how can that be said to be a 'various reading' of St. Mark 16:9-20 which consists in the circumstance that the last 12 verses are left out by two MSS [manuscripts]? Again, how can it be called a 'various reading' of St. John 21:25 to bring the Gospel abruptly to a close, as Tischendorf does at verse 24? These are really nothing else but indications either of a mutilated or else an interpolated text. The question to be resolved is this: on which side does the corruption lie? Also, how did it originate?"
-John. W. Burgon, Causes of Corruption of the New Testament Text, Sovereign Grace Publishers, 2000, p. 5, [9781878442871]

Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf was a 19th century German scholar who discovered Codex Sinaiticus, which he found in a Catholic monastery at Mount Sinai, and claimed it to have been written in the 4th century A.D. This document is worshiped by many who cling to modern Bible versions, so much that, today, there is a website dedicated to giving the public access to read the original Sinaiticus in digital imagery.
(See Codex Sinaiticus, retrieved June 6, 2023, [https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx])

So there is no confusion on the matter, readers should be aware that Codex ℵ (Aleph) is another name for Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex B is another name for Codex Vaticanus, which was found in the library of the Catholic Vatican, and was also dated to have been written in the 4th century A.D. (Again, these are the two manuscripts that Burgon referred to as "the least trustworthy documents in existence.") Some readers may begin to suspect that there seems to be a correlation between corrupt manuscripts and the Catholic Church, and if so, your suspicion is correct, as we will soon learn.

It should also be noted that John Burgon was also a Catholic, specifically an Anglican (i.e. Anglicans believe themselves to be separate from the Catholic Church, but in reality, it is only for political reasons, not for spiritual), and he became a vicar of the University Church of St. Mary the Virgin in 1863. I am not arguing that Burgon was a saved Christian in any sense (because he participated in the antichrist religious rituals of Catholicism), but his analysis of the Minority Texts versus the Majority Texts is extremely thorough, and because of his religious standing, he demonstrates less of a religious bias, being that he is of a similar Catholic background as the Roman heretics who discovered and promoted the corrupt Minority manuscripts.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

To give more specific detail, Burgon documented his findings when analyzing just the book of Luke using the Minority Texts:
"Now, this is not a matter of opinion, but of fact. In S. Luke's Gospel alone (collated with the traditional Text) the transpositions in codex B amount to 228,—affecting 654 words: in codex D, to 464,—affecting 1401 words. Proceeding with our examination of the same Gospel according to S. Luke, we find that the words omitted in B are 757,—in D, 1552. The words substituted in B amount to 309,—in D, to 1006. The readings peculiar to B are 138, and affect 215 words;—those peculiar to D, are 1731, and affect 4090 words. Wondrous few of these can have been due to accidental causes. The Text of one or of both codices must needs be depraved. (As for ℵ [Aleph], it is so frequently found in accord with B, that out of consideration for our Readers, we omit the corresponding figures.)"
-John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised: Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review, John Murray, 1883, p. 249, ISBN: 9780790533674

In summary, Burgon found thousands of errors in Aleph (Sinaiticus) and Codex B (Vaticanus), which is why (if you do your own research into this subject) you will find that many people who oppose corrupt modern Bible versions use these two manuscripts as primary examples of the corruption of the Minority Texts. Other Minority Texts did not have as many instances of manipulation and omission, but still contained hundreds, if not thousands, of omissions, substitutions, and transpositions (altering the sequence of words) that defile the original meaning, and that is based on only ONE of 27 books in the New Testament.

For example, Burgon created a small chart to show the results of the analysis of Codex A and C for the book of Luke:

-John W. Burgon, The Revision Revised: Three Articles Reprinted from the Quarterly Review, John Murray, 1883, p. 249, ISBN: 9780790533674

Codex A had 649 words affected, while Codex C had 614, and again, that was only an analysis of the book of Luke, meaning that the rest of the New Testament in the Minority Texts is littered with tens of thousands of corruptions. Because we can reasonably deduce that these codices were not scribed by domesticated lemurs, Burgon rightly pointed out that "wondrous few of these can have been due to accidental causes," meaning that the authors of these documents had a personal grudge against the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and they were purposefully altering the text to fit their own religious narrative.

What some readers might be shocked to learn is that nearly ALL of the new English "versions" of the Bible we have seen over the past 150 years (e.g. New International Version [NIV], Revised Standard Version [RSV], English Standard Version [ESV], New American Standard Version [NASV], New Living Translation [NLT], etc) have come from the Minority Texts, or in other words, most of the Bible versions people use in church buildings today cannot be called "God's Word" because they were altered by men of corrupt minds. This is why, in this book (and in many other books and articles I have written) you will often see me categorize the King James Bible (Majority Text) versus the modern-day corrupt versions (Minority Text).

Burgon also critiqued the works of two men who promoted the Minority Text, Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, because they were working on a project to create a new text for the Church of England that would be used as an official Bible. These two men created what is known as the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, which went on to become the basis for translation of nearly every English Bible version in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.


Westcott was a bishop in the Church of England, and though historians revere him as a Bible scholar, his scholarship is questionable at best because the word 'scholarship' generally just means you are a student of something, but being a student of the Bible does not automatically mean you are a good student. For example, Westcott did not believe in the literal account of the creation in the book of Genesis:
"I have purposely refrained from reading Lux Mundi [a collection of theological essays produced in the late 19th century], but I am quite sure that our Christian faith ought not to be perilled [seriously damaged] on any predetermined view of what the history and character of the documents contained in the O.T. [Old Testament] must be. What we are bound to hold is that the O.T., substantially as we receive it, is the Divine record of the discipline of Israel. This it remains, whatever criticism may determine or leave undetermined as to constituent parts. [i.e. Westcott is saying that the Old Testament has many critics who question its composition.] No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history—I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did—yet they disclose to us a Gospel."
-Brooke F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 2, Macmillan and Company, 1903, p. 68-69

In the same paragraph, Westcott went on to say that "poetry is, I think, a thousand times more true than history," or in other words, contextually, he thought that the first three chapters of Genesis were simply flowery language that meant to impress certain emotions, rather than being a literal account of history in which God told us what He did. This provides us with evidence that Westcott did not believe the account of Scripture, namely, that the Lord God created the earth in six literal 24-hour days (as clearly described in Exodus 20), and furthermore, he asserted (in a near-unbelievably conceited manner) that everyone else in the world (qualifying himself to speak on behalf of all mankind) believed the same as he did.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
-Exodus 20:9-11
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is insanity coming from a so-called "Bible scholar" simply because it is impossible to have poetry in the first place if there is no nature from which to compare and contrast analogies, or in other words, literal interpretation of the nature of creation must first be established before any metaphors can be created from it. Furthermore, there are no analogies or metaphors used in the first three chapters of Genesis, so to imply that it is simply "poetic language," rather than literal, is nonsensical and based on no literary evidence whatsoever.

Westcott also did not believe in heaven as it is taught in Scripture because he believed that "heaven" was just a glorification of our lives on earth. Westcott made the following statement in his retirement speech as a bishop:
"If Tennyson's [19th century British poet] idea of heaven was true, that 'heaven is the ministry of soul to soul,' we may reasonably hope, by patient, resolute, faithful, united endeavour, to find heaven about us here, the glory of our earthly life."
-Brooke F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 2, Macmillan and Company, 1903, p. 394

It is mind-boggling to consider that a man who claimed to be a "Bible scholar" for most of his life would not use quotations from Scripture for a description of heaven, but rather, he referred to a worldly author's personal imagination.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Furthermore, the imaginary idea that Westcott promoted was "to find heaven about us here," which is not a Biblical concept. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches us that we should "glory of our earthly life," nor does heaven exist in such things, and Jesus rebuked that quite thoroughly.

And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
-John 8:23

He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.
-John 12:25

If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
-John 15:19

Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
-1 John 2:15

Westcott was also a worshiper of the false goddess who Catholics call "Mary," which is not the Mary of Scripture (although Catholics attribute her to their goddess), but rather, what they call 'Mary' is actually a moon goddess. Mariolatry is a form of idolatry which is specific to the worship of Mary in the corrupt Catholic Church, and in a letter, Westcott wrote:
"I have been trying to recall my impressions of La Salette. I wish I could see to what forgotten truth Mariolatry bears witness; and how we can practically set forth the teaching of miracles."
-Brooke F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, Macmillan, 1903, p. 251, retrieved May 1, 2024, [https://archive.org/details/LifeAndLettersOfBrookeFossWestcottVol1/page/n283/mode/1up]

La Salette is a French shrine based on a story of two children who allegedly saw a female "heavenly" apparition, and the Catholic Church claimed it was a spiritual visitation from Mary. (They always claim that such encounters are from God, but they never consider or mention that the devil can transform himself to appear as an angel of light. (2Co 11:13-15) In 1851, the local bishop at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, approved public devotion and prayers (i.e. idolatry) to "Our Lady of La Salette," and Westcott shared this same idolatrous devotion.

These are but a few examples to demonstrate Westcott's idolatry and anti-Biblical ideology. Fenton Hort also shared many of Westcott's corrupt beliefs, which is why it was so easy for Westcott and Hort to work together.

Fenton Hort was an Anglican minister and a professor at Cambridge University. He was firmly dedicated to the corrupt principles of the Catholic Church, as we can see from a letter he wrote to Rowland Williams in 1858:
"I have a deeply-rooted agreement with High Churchmen as to the [Catholic] Church, Ministry, Sacraments [i.e. the demonic Eucharist and vampiric doctrine of transubstantiation], and, above all, Creeds, though by no means acquiescing [consenting or concurring] in their unhistorical and unphilosophical treatment of theology, or their fears and antipathies [disgusts] generally. The positive doctrines even of the Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible; and this alone would make my position among you sufficiently false in respect to the great questions which you will be chiefly anxious to discuss."
-Fenton J.A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 400, [University of Michigan]

Hort, as nearly all Catholics, abandoned the doctrines of Christ to adhere to the papal doctrines. Hort had such a disdain for the doctrines of Christ, rather than say that his opposition was incorrect (as would normally be done in reasonable debate), he labeled his opposition "perverted," without properly defining what he meant by that, and even asked Williams "to pardon the (perhaps unavoidably) egotistical tone" of his letter, meaning that Hort knew he was hiding his disdain behind flatteries.

Just like Westcott, Hort questioned God's account of creation in Genesis, and implemented evolutionism into his worldview:
"I do not see why the inconceivableness of a beginning is any argument against any theory of development. The contrary theory is simply a harsh and contradictory attempt to conceive a beginning. That we are in doubt about the early history of organic life arises not from an impotence of conception, but from the mere fact that we were not there to see what, if it were taking place now, we certainly could see... It certainly startles me to find you saying that you have seen no facts which support such a view as Darwin's. But I do see immense difficulties in his theory, some of which might by this time have been removed, if he had understood more clearly the conditions of his problem, and made experiments accordingly. But it seems to me the most probable manner of development, and the reflexions suggested by his book drove me to the conclusion that some kind of development must be supposed."
-Fenton J.A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 430-431, [University of Michigan]

I have no hesitation in declaring that both Fenton Hort and Charles Darwin are fools, and that is because Darwin drew illogical conclusions from ridiculous assumptions. For example, in Darwin's The Origin of Species, he argued for macro-evolutionary (evolution that transforms one kind to another, like a lizard to bird or monkey to man) jumps over time by showing examples of artificial selection, and then assumed (without any basis of reason) that the same process automatically applies to natural selection. (i.e. conflation fallacy)
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In his book, Darwin used horse breeding as an example, which is ludicrous because not only are horses carefully bred through extensive intelligent oversight (which is a profession known as husbandry), but today, horses have generally reached their maximum speed limit. Horse breeders have spent incalculable amounts of money on breeding for the Kentucky Derby, but they have run into a limit on the speed of horses they get from special breeding.

If Darwinian evolution were true, then over the course of the past few thousand years of horse breeding, we should have seen some sort of new evolution in horses begin to take place, and yet, horses still produce horses, and the scientific evidence demonstrates that horses are limited in the types of changes they can produce. (i.e. You will never breed a horse with wings that can fly around the derby track in ten seconds.) This is already an insurmountable obstacle in Darwin's theory, but he makes it worse by claiming that the subtraction of intellect in pre-planned breeding will somehow work the same way with natural breeding in the wild (which it does not), and then, by adding in a mystical ingredient called "millions of years" (which contradicts the Biblical account of the six-day creation God described in Exodus 20:9-11), he thought his whimsical, imaginary process could eventually turn a horse into a magical unicorn that could flatulate rainbows and travel to the stars.

In the Bible, the Lord God said He created man, animals, plants, and insects after their kind, and this is all we have ever seen them do, or in other words, real science backs up what God said:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
-Genesis 1:11

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
-Genesis 1:24

This means that, even though there are variations in different kinds of animals, they are limited by the ability to bring forth after their kind, which means that the Lord God has already explained to us that the religion of evolutionism is a lie of the Devil. Worse still, Hort argues that because "we were not there to see" the creation, therefore we cannot know the process, which demonstrates very clearly that Fenton Hort did not believe on the Christian God of the Bible, and at the very least, he did NOT trust the very Scriptures that he corrupted by translating from the Minority Texts.

For had ye believed Moses [i.e. the first five books of the Bible, Genesis, Exodus, etc], ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
-John 5:46-47

For example, I am certain that Fenton Hort was not there to see the ludicrous evolutionary idea that life originated from a "primordial soup," but he believed it anyway. This demonstrates that, when it came to the Bible, Hort was his own god because he did not approach the Bible from a position of faith in what God had said, but rather, he approached the Bible with skepticism, deciding for himself whether or not he would believe certain parts of it based on his worldly, rudimentary presuppositions, or in other words, he trusted in his own ideas and opinions that he learned from the world, which he supposed to be true before facts were presented.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [useless lies], after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings you learn] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

If that was not bad enough, Hort also believed that every man had to suffer for his own sin in full:
"Nor, as far as I can recollect, have you anywhere written explicitly upon this point; even on the corresponding subject of vicarious righteousness [i.e. Christ's righteousness being the substitute for our lack thereof] I know only of two pages (Kingdom of Christ, 1st edition, vol. i. pp. 32, 33), and they have not been able to make me feel assured that the language of imputation [i.e. Christ's righteousness being imputed to man] is strictly true, however sanctioned by St. Paul's example. The fact is, I do not see how God's justice can be satisfied without every man's suffering in his own person the full penalty for his sins."
-Fenton J.A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 120, [University of Michigan]

Let's make sure we understand what Hort just said, because it is important to note that he DENIED Jesus Christ by this statement. Hort did not believe that Christ's payment of His shed blood on the cross was sufficient to cleanse a man of his sin.

For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
-Romans 4:3-6

Now it was not written for his [Abraham's] sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.
-Romans 4:23-25

We cannot work off the eternal debt of our own sins by suffering punishments for them, not only because eternal debts must be paid eternally, but also because the death of the wicked does not create righteousness. Once righteousness is gone, there is no way it can be reattained by a wicked man doing (what he perceives to be) good works.

Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
-Romans 3:20

Please do not misunderstand because this is not an issue where Hort was led astray because he read someone else's book. The fact is that Hort read the Scriptures, and did NOT believe that Christ's grace was sufficient for the remission (i.e. pardoning/forgiveness) of sins, and so to try to help him, someone handed him a book to help explain it in more detail, but Hort still rejected Christ's grace.

Both Westcott and Hort believed in many more heresies beyond just these few examples, but I will not cover them in great detail because this book is not an exposé of Westcott and Hort. It should be noted that, while doing research into Westcott and Hort, there were many books and websites that misquoted them, quoted them out of context, or claimed they said something which they did not say, and so I would warn Christian readers to be cautious when reading anyone's documentation on their writings because many irresponsible believers have copied and pasted quotes without first checking out the sources, meaning that you should look up the references I have provided to make sure that I am giving you proper quotes in context.

For example, Westcott and Hort have been accused of being part of a demonic organization called the "Ghostlie Guild," and although the Ghostlie Guild did exist (because Westcott wrote the "ghostlie circular," which was a regular letter sent out to all the members of the club), it was simply a group that documented paranormal phenomena and interviewed eyewitnesses. (The group later became known as the "The Society for Psychical Research," and interviewed Satanists such as Madame Blavatsky.) There were many skeptics of the group in the 19th century, which is why it got the nickname the "Cock and Bull Club," a term that came out of a Buckinghamshire inn called "The Cock and Bull," which was infamous for developing tall tales.
-Fenton J.A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1903, p. 117, [University of Toronto], retrieved Aug 30, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/brookefosswestco00westuoft/page/116/mode/2up]

I certainly believe in ghosts because ghosts, by definition, are simply spirits, and we Christians cannot believe nearly any part of Scripture unless we believe that spirits exist. How can one believe in the Holy Ghost if one first believes there is no such thing as a ghost? How can one believe in angels or devils if one does not first believe in spirits?

However, the Bible makes it clear that all spiritual phenomena come from one of two sources, either from the Lord God, or from Satan and his fallen angels; thus, most of the legitimate ghost sightings you hear about are the activity of devils. Please keep in mind that there are a lot of fakes and frauds out there, so be cautious about what you hear. That being said, I would argue that it is quite odd for men who claim to be "Christians" to attempt to investigate and rationalize paranormal activity because the Bible teaches us that these ghosts are devils, and since they are devils, we cannot trust anything they tell us.

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
-John 8:44

Because we know that Westcott and Hort were not Christians (because they repeatedly confessed denial of the doctrines of Scripture), it is no surprise that they were involved in such vain groups that investigated the occult. Here are a few more of Westcott and Hort's heresies: As I will point out later in chapter four, I am not saying a flawless man is required to write out the Scriptures because, if it were, then we would not have a Bible because there are no flawless men that have ever lived, except for Jesus Christ, who is God. However, Westcott and Hort were not faithful to the Scriptures, let alone the Gospel of Christ specifically, and though there are no flawless men, there are FAITHFUL men, and faithful men are the ONLY men who God ever used to deliver His Word and preserve it for the people.

Again, this is just a small sample of Westcott and Hort's antichrist beliefs, and it is not hard to see that they were very Catholic-leaning in their dogma. As prominent figures in the Church of England, they highly esteemed the appearance of "holiness" that Catholicism portrays, and they expected others to esteem them highly for their religiosity and intellect.

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15

Westcott and Hort reveled in their highly esteemed stations, and yoked together with many wicked men who went on to do a lot of nefarious things. For example, Westcott and Hort were both members of a group called "Eranus," which Westcott formed to study papers on politics and social class separations, and another member of that group was Arthur Balfour, who would later become UK Prime Minister in 1902, and was in other secret societies with the Rothschilds, and who helped form the League of Nations (which later became the United Nations), which is an elitist organization that is infamous for backdoor deals, bribes, and socialist/communist ideologies.

Another example would be Frederick Myers and Henry Sidgwick, who performed séances (i.e. necromancy, which is an attempt to communicate with the dead, and is sinful in nature, Deut 18:10-11), and who were in Westcott's "Eranus," "The Society for Psychical Research," and a group called the "Apostles" with Fenton Hort and Arthur Balfour. Because I preach the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ, I would never yoke together with such men (nor would they have anything to do with me), and so I would ask Christians why Westcott and Hort were yoked together with them?

Now that we have a better understanding of these men and their depraved doctrine, I want to return to the main topic of this book by pointing out that Hort, who is used as a reference for the creation of modern Bible versions, did NOT believe that God's Word was infallible:
"I am not able to go as far as you in asserting the absolute infallibility of a canonical writing. [i.e. Hort is referring to the Bible in this context.] I may see a certain fitness and probability in such a view, but I cannot set up an a priori [i.e. knowledge apart from experience] assumption against the (supposed) results of criticism. So perhaps you would say—in terms, at least—but you would deny that the fair results of criticism, making allowance for our imperfect knowledge, prove the existence of any errors. I am as yet prepared neither to deny nor to assert it."
-Fenton J.A. Hort, Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Macmillan, Vol. 1, 1896, p. 422, [University of Michigan]

Westcott had the same belief as Hort, which is why they were close friends. Westcott wrote a letter to Hort and stated:
"I too 'must disclaim setting forth infallibility' in the front of my convictions. All I hold is, that the more I learn, the more I am convinced that fresh doubts come from my own ignorance, and that at present I find the presumption in favour of the absolute truth—I reject the word infallibility—of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly. Of course I feel difficulties which at present I cannot solve, and which I never hope to solve."
-Brooke F. Westcott, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, Macmillan, 1903, p. 207, [University of California, Berkeley]

infallible (adj): not fallible; not capable of erring; entirely exempt from liability to mistake; applied to persons—no man is infallible; to be infallible is the prerogative of God only
(See 'infallibility', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 9, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

This leaves us with only two options concerning the beliefs of Westcott and Hort on the Bible: Either they thought God was fallible, or they thought the Bible was fallible. This creates a serious Biblical contradiction because (as I stated earlier) God and His Word are one:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.
-John 1:1

Some more passionate Christians might jump to the conclusion that Westcott and Hort believed that God was fallible, but after reading some of their writings, I do not believe that either man thought God was fallible. Rather, they thought that the Bible had been corrupted by men, but that created another serious problem.

It is overtly clear that the various prophets of Scripture claimed that the words they wrote came from the Lord God, so if Westcott and Hort believed them, then there is no other choice than for us to conclude that they believed God's Word had not been preserved by God. In other words, they must believe that God allowed His Word to be corrupted by men without any verification process, which also means Westcott and Hort thought that the doctrines of God's Word were open to personal interpretation based on how they felt about it, and if they will take a moment to consider it, some readers might be surprised at how many churchgoers and pastors today believe that same corrupt philosophy.

If you believe that the Bible contains error, then how are you to know which parts of it are in error, and which parts are not in error? If an omniscient (all-knowing) God did not make sure that His Word was preserved perfectly for mankind, then how can we know for sure that ANY of the Bible is true? How do we know that any of the Bible actually contains the words of the Living God? Belief in the doctrines of Scripture is heavily reliant on the presupposition that the Bible is the Word of the Living God, which God has preserved by His guiding hand for thousands of years, but without that belief, you cannot know if anything in the Bible is true, and it is on that philosophy that the modern corrupt Bible versions were created. Hort believed that the Bible contained error (and based on Burgon's analysis of the Minority Codices, a lot of error), but decided to use a few obviously corrupted manuscripts (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, etc, based on his esteem of Catholic legacy in the preservation of corrupt manuscripts) to supposedly make the Bible "better." He believed in the foolish idea that "older means better," instead of adopting the more logical understanding that (in terms of written documents, especially prior to the invention of the printing press) "older means UNUSED."

Keep in mind that Westcott and Hort were born over 200 years after the invention of the iron, moveable-type printing press. (We will learn more about that later.) Therefore, they lived in a time where nearly all their study came from printed books, meaning that they did not use scrolls regularly.

A scroll that is frequently in use will, as I indicated earlier, wear down faster than one that is not in frequent use, and therefore, will have to be copied. In order for a document to be in frequent use, one must first have a need for the information in the document, and therefore, those documents that were in frequent use were being actively studied at the time because they had informative value.

The documents that were actively studied found more use, and therefore, it would have been logical that those who used them would spend money to have scribes copy them for future use. In the case of the church, however, much of the work would have been done by the saints themselves, not trusting to leave that work to the world.

This resulted in thousands of copies of Scripture surviving in various places throughout the world (i.e. the Majority Text, consisting of over 5,000 manuscripts), and those manuscripts are all in perfect agreement with each other, demonstrating that the copying process was done without error, just as the Jews had done when handling God's Word. Any document that was full of errors, omissions, and changes to the text would not have seen much (if any) use by the church, and therefore, they would be placed on a shelf to collect dust (without being copied), which also means that, if they survived hundreds of years, they would seemingly be in a much better condition than the scrolls that saw frequent use, despite the fact that their text was corrupt.

This very simple fact was ignored by Westcott and Hort, who (as we have already seen) had many corrupt, unbiblical religious beliefs, and rejected the infallibility of the Bible. This, in my view, disqualifies them from being teachers of God's Word, let alone scholars or scribes who could be trusted to translate and/or copy the Bible, and yet, these two men, and their fallacious ideology, are the foundation upon which nearly every modern Bible version was created.

Westcott and Hort are most well known for their creation of the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament, and it is highly revered in the circles of so-called "scholarship." For example, the corrupt website Got Questions (owned and operated by false teacher Michael Houdmann) describes Westcott and Hort's work as follows:
"Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. Together, they produced The New Testament in the Original Greek, one of the earliest examples of modern textual criticism. Since its publication in 1881, Westcott and Hort's work has proved to be impressively accurate, though far from perfect. Their approach not only advanced the science of textual criticism, but it added considerable weight to the claim that the Bible had been preserved from tampering and corruption... Unfortunately, Westcott and Hort are still infamous names with respect to the Bible, despite their text not being the basis of any major modern translations."
-Michael Houdmann, "Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible?" Got Questions, retrieved May 1, 2024, [https://www.gotquestions.org/Westcott-and-Hort.html]

Based on what I have read, Westcott and Hort spent 28 years working on their Greek New Testament translation, and I would not argue against the statement that it is "impressively accurate" because it very well may be. I am in no way arguing that Westcott and Hort were uneducated men who did shoddy work; the opposite is true. They were highly educated, meticulous, hard-working scribes. However, the main problem is that what they produced was an impressively accurate translation of CORRUPT manuscripts, which means that Houdmann's statement that Westcott and Hort "added considerable weight to the claim that the Bible had been preserved from tampering and corruption" was either written in willful ignorance, or he is lying because he favors the use of modern-day corrupt versions, nearly all of which were developed based on Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament.

Of course, Houdmann says that Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament was NOT "the basis of any major modern translations," but this is deceptive, specifically because Houdmann did not define what he meant by the word 'modern'. The text of Scripture, in just the New Testament alone, has been around for 2,000 years, and most English Bible versions in existence today were developed over the past 150 years since Westcott and Hort finished their Greek New Testament.

Many Bible versions use a variety of sources to compile their books, and Westcott and Hort have been directly used in the Darby Bible (1890), the Revised Version or English Revised Version (1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Farrar Fenton Bible (1903), the Twentieth Century New Testament (1904), the New International Version (1978, 1984, and 2011 editions), and the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation (1950, 1960, 1984, 2013, and 2018 editions). Not only did Houdmann and Got Questions provide their readers with false information that Westcott and Hort's translation is never used in any modern versions (which is easily proven to be a false statement), they also failed to mention the INDIRECT use.

Just like the authors of dictionaries, most authors of Bible versions rely on the works of someone else to create their new work. For example, the Amplified Bible (1954 and all subsequent editions) contains footnotes on verses that refer back to the Revised Version and the American Standard Version, which were based on Westcott and Hort's Greek New Testament, which means that, despite the fact that the Amplified Bible sometimes refers back to the King James Bible, it is still corrupt because it contains footnote translations from corrupt Bible versions, which were based on Westcott and Hort, which were based on the corrupt Minority Texts that came from the Catholic Church.
(See The Amplified Bible, Zondervan Corporation and Lockman Foundation, 1987, ISBN: 0310951410)

In another example, Kenneth Taylor produced a paraphrase of the Bible, which he called The Living Bible. Putting aside the fact that I would never recommend any Christian study a book of paraphrases (because paraphrasing is someone else's interpretation of what the Scripture says, rather than the Scripture itself), Taylor based his paraphrasing on the 1901 American Standard Version, which was developed from Westcott and Hort's 1881 Greek New Testament, which was based on the corrupt Minority Texts.

Another example would be the English Standard Version, which is widely used by many evangelical pastors, because the translators claim it came from "the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, to ensure the fullest accuracy." However, they go on to say that the "1971 RSV text provid[ed] the starting point for our work," and the 1971 Revised Standard Version was based on the 1885 Revised Version, which was based on Westcott and Hort's 1881 Greek New Testament, which was based on the corrupt Minority Texts.
(See esv.org, "Preface to the English Standard Version," retrieved June 9, 2023, [https://www.esv.org/resources/esv-global-study-bible/preface-to-the-english-standard-version])

This list could go on for a very long time, as many modern versions have relied either directly or indirectly on Westcott and Hort, and it was after Westcott and Hort that we saw a flood of new Bible versions. The reason for this is because the King James Bible was the primary Bible Christians used for over 250 years, and it was spread out around the world to preach the Gospel of Salvation, but after Westcott and Hort, now people could begin to make money selling a new Bible version, which they deceptively asserted was "better" because it was based on older texts.

Because of this, it is now common for those who use modern versions to scoff at the King James Bible. There are many pastors and churchgoers who ridicule the KJB, and in pridefulness of heart, speak with a condescending and patronizing tone against those who study the KJB, and in willful ignorance, refuse to recognize the corruption in what they are reading.

From this point on, I will use the term "modern scoffers" to refer to those who cling to their modern corrupt versions, and those who mock the KJB, as well as those who mock students of the KJB, trying to turn them away from the preserved Word of God.

scoffer (n): one who scoffs; one that mocks, derides, or reproaches in the language of contempt; a scorner
(See 'scoffer', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Sept 14, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Later in this book, I will provide more details about copyrights, because that is an important part of why modern scoffers cling to corrupt versions, but for now, let's switch gears by going further back in time to the origin of the New Testament Scriptures...
 

For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
-2 Corinthians 2:17

It is common knowledge that the New Testament was written by the apostles and disciples of Christ roughly 2,000 years ago. They wrote epistles (i.e. letters) to various people with their testimonies, doctrine, and instructions, which were given to them by the Holy Ghost.

This began in Antioch, Syria, which became the base of operations for the early Christian church. This is also why the Majority Texts are sometimes referred to as the "Syrian Texts" because they are the preservation of the epistles through the work of Christian scribes who operated in Syria, and from there, spread them out around the world.

These preserved manuscripts, in some rare cases, contained most of the Bible, but the majority were a few books, a few chapters, and some even as small as a single verse. As I mentioned earlier, some were preserved on vellum, while others were preserved on papyrus (which is a cheaper type of paper made from the stalks of reeds).

Writing materials in the early days after Christ were not uncommon, but they were also not as easily obtainable as they are today. We can simply stop at just about any general store and pick up paper, pencils, pens, etc, or we can just use computers to type and send anything we want instantly, but in that day, things like papyrus, vellum, and ink took much longer to craft, which means that they were in much shorter supply and much more expensive than we see today.

Because of this, the early Christians copied the New Testament Scriptures with the least amount of space possible. For example, if we were to use English as an example, First John 1:1 would be written like this:
"inthebeginningwasthewordandthewordwaswithgodandthewordwasgod"
At that time, there were no chapter and verse numbers for organization and easy reference like we see them today (i.e. those would be added later), and these manuscripts were written in all lower-case letters (i.e. in Greek, called "uncials" un-see-uhlz) to save even more space, but later manuscripts added capital letters (i.e. in Greek, called "majuscules" muh-juhs-kyools) and spacing between words to make it easier to read. Many of these early copies were scribed in the Greek language, specifically something called "Koine" (koi-nay) Greek, which was the common language that was spoken by many people at that time.

In addition to these manuscripts, other Christians wrote commentaries and debates on the Scriptures in which they quoted from Scripture, and that helps us verify the Bible manuscripts because those who were writing about the Scripture would refer back to the older copies that they had studied at the time. Let's briefly take a look at an example of the 1st John 5:7 controversy to get a better understanding about how this works.

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
-1 John 5:7

In modern corrupt versions of the Bible, there are typical footnotes included on or around 1st John 5:7, which assert that the verse does not exist, or at least, the majority of the verse does not exist in the original text. For example, the New International Version (NIV) says:


"Late manuscripts of the Vulgate 'testify in heaven: the Father, The Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one'. ⁸'And there are three that testify on earth: the' (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)"
-1st John 5:7-8, New International Version, Zondervan, 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by Biblica, Inc^TM; Image from [https://www.blueletterbible.org/niv/1jo/5/7/s_1164007]

This is deceptive because it relies on the Catholic Latin "Vulgate," which was taken from the corrupt Vaticanus manuscript, which contains thousands of errors, alterations, and omissions. The way they deceive readers is by saying that there are no surviving GREEK manuscripts before the fourteenth century, which is not only a false statement, but there are many surviving NON-Greek commentaries which quote from 1st John 5:7.

For example, a man called Tatian the Syrian wrote what is known as a "Diatessaron" (die-uh-TESS-uh-run), or some refer to it as a "harmony of the Gospels," which is essentially a combination of the Gospels that puts together details and timelines of the first four books of the New Testament into a comprehensive commentary, and he wrote it in the Syriac (i.e. an Aramaic) language, not in Greek. Tatian lived from 120-180 A.D., and his work was published in 150 A.D., in which he quotes from 1st John 5:7, which pre-dates Vaticanus by 250 years, and that means that 1st John 5:7 in the King James Bible is accurate to the original Scriptures, while the modern corrupt versions have it wrong.

Another example is Tertullian, who wrote his book Against Praxeas (in Greek) about 80-90 years after the death of John the apostle. (Around 200 A.D., pre-dating Vaticanus by 200 years.) In his doctrine, he quoted the latter part of verse seven in 1st John 5:7 when speaking of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, saying, "these three are one."
(See The Magazine of the Reformed Dutch Church, Vol. 1, Rutgers Press, 1827, p. 146, [New York Public Library]; See also David Martin, The Genuineness of the Text of the First Epistle of Saint John, W. and J. Innys, 1722, p. 26, [Oxford University])

In yet another example, around 250 A.D. (pre-dating Vaticanus by 150 years), Cyprian of Carthage wrote a treatise in Latin, in which he quoted part of 1st John 5:7. In it, Cyprian first refers to the Godhead partially identified by Jesus Christ in John 10:30, and then cross references it to the latter part of verse seven in 1st John 5:


"He who breaks the peace and concord of Christ acts against Christ; he who gathers somewhere outside the Church scatters the Church of Christ. The Lord says: 'I and the Father are one.' And again of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit it is written: 'And these three are one.'"
-Cyprian of Carthage, "The Unity Of The Church By St Cyprian Of Carthage," Catholic University of America, translated by Roy J. Deferrari, Chapter 6, p. 101, retrieved July 19, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/TheUnityOfTheChurchByStCyprianOfCarthage/page/n11/mode/2up]

Of course, the disagreement of the corrupt NIV translators is that the first half of 1st John 5:7 has no record to back it up, however, the question we have to ask ourselves is: How did Cyprian and Tertullian (who had no connection to one another, and lived in different time periods) know to write the exact words in the same order, namely, "these three are one," and how did they know it was contextually referring to the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost? The only way they would both have known and written that is if they read it from the same source in John's epistle.

There are many more examples beyond these few concerning 1st John 5:7, but I think 19th century preacher John Gill summarized it well in his King James Bible commentary on verse seven in the fifth chapter of 1st John:
"As to the old Latin interpreter, it is certain it [1 John 5:7] is to be seen in many Latin manuscripts of an early date, and stands in the Vulgate Latin edition of the London Polyglot Bible: and the Latin translation, which bears the name of Jerom, has it, and who, in an epistle of his to Eustochium, prefixed to his translation of these canonical epistles, complains of the omission of it by unfaithful interpreters. And as to its being wanting in some Greek manuscripts, as the Alexandrian, and others, it need only be said, that it is to be found in many others; it is in an old British copy, and in the Complutensian edition, the compilers of which made use of various copies; and out of sixteen ancient copies of Robert Stephens's, nine of them had it: and as to its not being cited by some of the ancient fathers, this can be no sufficient proof of the spuriousness of it, since it might be in the original copy, though not in the copies used by them, through the carelessness or unfaithfulness of transcribers; or it might be in their copies, and yet not cited by them, they having Scriptures enough without it, to defend the doctrine of the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ: and yet, after all, certain it is, that it is cited by many of them; by Fulgentius z [footnote], in the beginning of the "sixth" century, against the Arians, without any scruple or hesitation; and Jerom, as before observed, has it in his translation made in the latter end of the "fourth" century; and it is cited by Athanasius a about the year 350; and before him by Cyprian b, in the middle, of the "third" century, about the year 250; and is referred to by Tertullian c about, the year 200; and which was within a "hundred" years, or little more, of the writing of the epistle; which may be enough to satisfy anyone of the genuineness of this passage; and besides, there never was any dispute about it till Erasmus left it out in the, first edition of his translation of the New Testament; and yet he himself, upon the credit of the old British copy before mentioned, put it into another edition of his translation."
-John Gill, John Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible, retrieved July 18, 2023, [https://www.biblecomments.org/c/5/john-gills-exposition-of-the-entire-bible/1-john/5/7]

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical of documentation (and I personally believe that skepticism of initial claims is healthy), but when there is a lot of overwhelming evidence in recorded history, why would so many scholars still war against it? It is often because there are selfish and prideful (i.e. sinful) motivations in many people that lead them to give false testimony, which usually comes from a strong desire to have fame and/or fortune, and in other cases, it is a hatred of the truth because God never gave them the gift of His Spirit to love the truth.

And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
-2 Thessalonians 2:10

I want to remind readers of a Biblical principle that Solomon taught, which is the concept of the endless cycle of the nature of men, meaning that the sinful things they did in one generation do not change with the next generation. No matter how much technology and society change, they still follow the same sins and adopt the same corrupt philosophies which ultimately lead to evil action.

The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun. Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us.
-Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

So when we look around us today, we can see a lot of people who slander, and commit libel against others, bearing false witness, which means they flat-out lie about what other people say and do, to further their own agenda. It is a strange phenomenon that so many people believe that once you enter into the higher levels of social standing in business, politics, medicine, religion, etc, suddenly, no one ever lies to further their own agenda. Mankind has been lying for thousands of years, and the Bible makes it very clear to us in the New Testament that many lies have been spread against Christians in the early church, especially against the apostles of Christ.

For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.
-Acts 20:29-31

Blessed are ye, when men shall hate you, and when they shall separate you from their company, and shall reproach you, and cast out your name as evil, for the Son of man's sake.
-Luke 6:22

This means that it was very common for those who were not of Christ to try and document things that were happening in order to gain religious and political clout, and they developed what are known as "extra-canonical" books (i.e. they taught doctrine that went outside of the doctrine of Christ, and contradicted things He taught), which may contain some facts in them, but also contain false or misinterpreted information because the authors did not have the Holy Spirit to guide them. (i.e. Only that which is spoken/written by the guidance of the Holy Ghost can be considered Holy Scriptures.) Other people lied and made up fake information and propaganda, sometimes attributing fake authorship (i.e. they would write a document under someone else's name), to turn people away from Jesus Christ, and those types of books are sometimes referred to as "pseudepigrapha" or "spurious writings" because born again Christians in the churches at the time knew they were designed to mislead the church, as well as the general public.

This type of information warfare has been waged against Christ for the past 2,000 years, and nothing has changed in modern times. We Christians are still working tirelessly to preserve the doctrines of Scripture and preach the truth of Salvation in Jesus Christ, and just like the Jews before us, who were militarily outnumbered in their protection of Jerusalem, we Christians are always outnumbered by our adversaries, but also like the Jews before us, by the grace and protection of God, we will prevail in our preservation of His Word, that it will remain sharp, so that we may use that sword in its proper application.

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12

As we learn more about the preservation of the Scriptures, we need to keep in mind that many generations of Christians have sacrificed much, even their very lives, to preserve this documentation for us. My writing this book is just one small thread in the tapestry of history, and I would encourage Christian readers to continue to write and record for future generations, that they may know the truth, and understand the great mercy God has shown us by preserving His Word so we can have free access to it.

During the first few hundred years of the church, much of the persecution of Christians came from the Jews and other competing religious groups who wanted to gain influence over the church. As Jewish persecution picked up steam, so did the political persecution of the saints from entities such as the Roman government. During this time, many copies of the New Testament were destroyed, but despite the peril, and despite no earthly benefit in doing so, Christians persisted in protecting, copying, and spreading the Word of God throughout the world.

And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.
-Matthew 19:29

As time went on (and as I indicated earlier), the New Testament was translated into various languages beyond Greek, including, but not limited to, Latin and Syrian, because the Lord was raising up preachers to take His Word into various countries. After the formation of the Roman Catholic Church in 325 A.D. (which stole the term 'catholic', which generally means 'universal'), the persecution subsided for a short time, and after a couple of generations, much heavier persecution was carried out by the Catholic Church.

The persecution by the Catholic Church extended to many people of varying beliefs, but their original target was born-again Christians because the saints know that we serve a higher authority, and, as Jesus Christ told us in the verse of Matthew I just quoted, suffering and dying in the name of Christ only brings us more reward in heaven, so we cannot be bought or threatened into compliance with corrupt ideology. As Christians were killed in the name of Christ, more saw witness of their faith, and it resulted in new Christians taking their place. Therefore, in order to silence the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and turn people to worship the popes and priests under the false pagan goddess they call "Mary," they had to destroy the books of Christians and any copies of Scripture they could find in the common language.

The Catholic Church's suppression of knowledge, specifically of God's Word, is what brought about the Dark Ages in Europe and surrounding nations, which lasted from about 500 to 1000 A.D. During this time, there were many wars and diseases that spread throughout Europe, and a few historical sources point to the fact that the Catholic Church was the orchestrator of most of the suffering through political intrigue. (i.e. Most historical sources will blame the people or monarchies, but the Catholic Church was in control over them.)

As English became a more common language in Europe, and as the preserved Scriptures were copied into English for the common people to read, more began to depart from the Catholic Church. By the 13th century, the Catholic popes finally had enough and instituted the Office of Inquisition, which began the age of the Catholic Inquisition, that consisted of over 600 years of torture, rape, and murder of many people, quite a few of whom were born-again Christians standing up for their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ against the tyranny of the popes of Rome, and I highly recommend reading Foxe's Book of Martyrs for more details.

I talk about this a bit more in another book I wrote called Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism (which is free to read here at creationliberty.com), and many people do not know that at one point, Catholic popes BANNED the entire Bible, meaning it was forbidden to own a copy or study it on pain of death. (They would say "pain of excommunication," but that was a façade for execution.) This information was discovered not by Christians, but by Catholic librarians and historians after Pope John Paul II began his investigation into the Inquisition's secret files back in 1998:


"The Vatican permitted scrutiny [detailed analysis and criticism] of one of the most notorious periods in Roman Catholic Church history yesterday when it opened the archives of the department once known as the Inquisition... Opened on Thursday alongside the Inquisition archives was the infamous Index of Forbidden Books, which Roman Catholics were forbidden to read or possess on pain of excommunication. [i.e. pain of death after being branded a "heretic"] They showed that even the Bible was once on the blacklist. Translations of the Holy Book ended up on the bonfires along with other 'heretical' works because the Church, whose official language was Latin, was suspicious of allowing the faithful access to sacred texts without ecclesiastical [Catholic] guidance."
-Stabroek News, "Vatican Archives Reveal Bible Was Once Banned Book," Jan 23, 1998, p. 10

The Catholic Church was trying to form a monopoly on the Bible, only allowing the study of Scripture to be done with the guidance of an officially ordained priest or bishop, which is exactly what all corrupt religious cults do. The banning and burning of Bibles by the Catholic Church was done very quickly after the formation of the Office of Inquisition, as early as 1244 A.D., just a few years after it was established, and not only did they ban Bibles, but there was strict punishment for anyone who even dared to read the Bible in English:
"In 1244, their power was further increased by the emperor Frederic the Second, who declared himself the protector and friend of all the inquisitors, and published the cruel edicts, viz. 1. That all heretics who continued obstinate, should be burnt. 2. That all heretics who repented, should be imprisoned for life... The principal accusation against those who are subject to this tribunal is heresy, which comprises all that is spoken, or written, against any of the articles of the creed, or the traditions of the Roman church. The inquisition likewise takes cognizance [notice] of such as are accused of being magicians, and of such who read the bible in the common language,"
-John Foxe, Foxe's Book of Martyrs, Claxton, 1881, p. 78, [University of Virginia]

So far, this chapter has essentially been a montage of about 1500 years of history, wrapped up in a short summary. The details of what transpired, just in the context of Christian suffering for the Word of God, could fill many libraries with books (although, a lot of that information has been lost over time), but now we come to the part where the New Testament is compiled into one book, which is the main point of this chapter.


A Dutch man named Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) is primarily credited as the man responsible for gathering together all the manuscripts that today are known as the Textus Receptus (i.e. received text), which is how we got the Majority Texts that later formed the King James Bible. This was a huge amount of work for one person, and would have taken many years because it would be like trying to put together a 10,000-piece puzzle, while knowing that someone had thrown in thousands of other pieces that did not belong, and he has to sort out what belongs and what does not.

It stands to reason that such a task would be impossible for one who was working on this project during a time where the Catholic Church was arresting and executing anyone who was reading and translating manuscripts of God's Word. However, Erasmus was able to complete this project because he worked from within the Catholic Church.

Erasmus was the son of a Catholic priest, and at the age of 21, he became a monk within the Augustinians, which was a group that, at the time, had the best libraries and resources in the known world. However, Erasmus rejected many of the Catholic practices and traditions, such as their corrupt pagan holidays and vain meatless Fridays, just to name a couple of examples.

Because he was a monk in the Catholic ranks, most encyclopedias and websites label Erasmus as a "Catholic theologian." However, if one simply reads his personal writings, it is clear that Erasmus had no love for, or allegiance to, the Catholic Church, and he was relentless in his rebuke of their hypocritical practices that departed from Christ's simple doctrine of mercy, liberty, and charity.

For example, in his book, The Praise of Folly, Erasmus wrote about Catholic priests, monks, and bishops:
"It is amusing to see how they do everything by rule, almost mathematically. Any slip is sacrilege. [gross religious violation] Each shoe-string must have so many knots and must be of a certain color; the habit precisely trimmed; the girdle [waist cloth] of the proper material and so many straws wide; the cowl [hood] of a prescribed style and size; the hair so many fingers long; and a regulated number of hours for sleep. Anyone can see that this equality is really very unequal in view of the variations in constitution and temperament; and yet on the basis of such nonsense they judge outsiders to be worthless. They even condemn each other, these professors of apostolic charity, making an extraordinary stir if a habit is belted incorrectly or if its color is a shade too dark. Some are so scrupulously [painstakingly] religious that they will dress only in an outer garment of Cilician goat's hair and an inner garment of Milesian wool; others insist on linen on top of wool. The monks of certain orders recoil in horror from money, as if it were poison, but not from wine or women. They take extreme pains, not in order to be like Christ, but to be unlike each other. This explains their great delight in names. Those of one order are pleased to call themselves Cordeliers, and among them, in turn, some are Coletes, some Minors, some Minims, some Crutched. In addition, there are Benedictines, Bernardines, Bridgetines, Augustinians, Williamists, and Jacobines—as if it were not enough to be called Christians."
-Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, Hendricks House, 1959, translation by Leonard F. Dean, p. 102-112, [University of Michigan]

The writings of Erasmus were enjoyable to me because what he experienced and eloquently critiqued 500 years ago is exactly what I have experienced and critiqued today, only in my day, those who do such hypocritical things go far beyond the Catholic Church. If Erasmus could see what such religious superstitions have created in the name of so-called "Christianity" over time, he would be disgusted to see how it is not just orders of Catholic monks, but entire denominations that have developed into mega-corporations with influence and power that mimics the corrupt Catholic bishops.
(Read "Denominations Are Unbiblical" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Erasmus went on to write the following, and though this is a bit lengthy, it is worth the read because, not only is it true, but it will further help to demonstrate my point, namely, that Erasmus might have been a Catholic monk on the outside, but he was not a Catholic on the inside:
"Finally, if the Supreme Pontiffs, who are the vicars of Christ, tried to imitate His life, His poverty, labors, teaching, His cross and contempt for life; if they stopped to consider the meaning of the title Pope, a Father, or the epithet Most Holy, who on earth would be more overwhelmed? Who would purchase that office at the cost of every effort? Who would retain it by the sword, by poison, and by every other way? If wisdom should come to Popes, what comforts it would deprive them of! Did I say wisdom? Even that grain of sense which Christ speaks of would do it. It would deprive them of all wealth, honor, and possessions; all the triumphal progresses, offices, dispensations, tributes, and indulgences; the many horses, mules, and retainers; in short, it would deprive them of all their pleasures. These few words comprehend a multitude of worldly goods. In their place wisdom would bring vigils, fasts, tears, prayers, sermons, studies, sighs, and a thousand similar trials. And think of the hardship on all those copyists and notaries, all those advocates, promoters, secretaries, muleteers [mule-driver], grooms, bankers, and pimps—I was about to add a softer but, perhaps, a naughtier name. In short, all those who bring shame—I mean fame—to the Roman See would have to beg for their bread. This would be terribly inhuman, and even worse, those very princes of the church and true lights of the world would be reduced to a staff and a wallet.
As it is now, they turn over whatever work there is to Peter and Paul, who have ample time for it. The splendor and the pleasure, however, they take care of personally. And so, with my assistance, it comes about that almost no one lives more comfortably or with fewer worries. They think that they satisfy Christ perfectly if they act the part of bishops by means of mysterious and showy finery, blessings and cursings, and the titles of Beatitude, Reverence, and Holiness. To work miracles is primitive, obsolete, and out of date; to teach the people is a drudgery; to interpret the Scriptures is pedantry [an arrogant appearance of education]; to pray is futile and lazy; to shed tears is weak and depressing; to live in poverty is base; to be excelled is shameful, and scarcely worthy of one who will hardly allow the greatest king to kiss his sacred foot; and finally, to die is unpleasant, to die on the cross a disgrace.
The only things left are the weapons and sweet benedictions of which Paul speaks. The popes are sufficiently generous with these. I mean the interdictions, excommunications, re-excommunications, anathematizations, pictured damnations, and the terrible bolt of the papal bull, which by a flicker hurls the souls of men to the depths of hell. Our Christian fathers and vicars of Christ wield the bolt against no one with more zeal than against those who are moved by the devil to nibble at and diminish the patrimony [legacy] of Peter. He said, 'We have forsaken all, and followed Thee'; yet they give the name of patrimony to lands, towns, tributes, taxes, and riches. They fight for these things with fire and sword, inflamed by Christian zeal, and not without shedding Christian blood. They look on themselves as true apostles, defending the bride of Christ, and scattering what they are pleased to call her enemies. As if the church had more deadly enemies than impious [ungodly] popes who by their silence cause Christ to be forgotten, who use His laws to make money, who adulterate His word with forced interpretations, and who crucify Him with their corrupt life!"
-Desiderius Erasmus, The Praise of Folly, Hendricks House, 1959, translation by Leonard F. Dean, p. 102-112, [University of Michigan]

If any reader might say that this quote sounded like the writings of a devout Catholic, then I would say there is a marvelous blindness upon you. Erasmus chose a particular sect of the Catholic Church to join for the express purpose of using their libraries to his advantage, but he had a great disdain for the Catholic hierarchy.

Despite the fact that Martin Luther's departure from the Roman Catholic Church was sparked by the works of Erasmus, it should be noted that Erasmus also had a few critiques against Martin Luther, and that is something which Erasmus and I both share, not only in procedure, but also in doctrine because although Luther was adamantly opposed to some aspects of the Catholic Church, he still participated in and preserved many of the antichrist rituals of Catholicism. (This is why Lutheran church buildings today are, for the most part, mini-Catholic temples.) Whereas Luther was trying to split off from the Catholic Church to reform it (hence the name, "Reformation"), Erasmus thought it better that the Catholic Church abandon its heretical practices, and do right by the Lord Jesus Christ.
(Read "Denominations Are Unbiblical" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This does not mean that I support or put any hopes in the Catholic Church in any way because, obviously, I have written profusely against their vile religious cult, but the point is that I would have no problem with Catholics if they simply threw off their heresies. However, because their heresies are part of their core religion (since Catholicism is pagan in origin), and they have no intention of departing from their vile practices, it means there is no redeeming the Catholic Church, nor will there ever be a "reformation" of the Catholic Church, and therefore, in this author's opinion, people ought to flee as quickly as they can from the Catholic Church, and come to the Lord Jesus Christ for salvation and comfort.

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, flee from idolatry.
-1 Corinthians 10:14

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.
-Matthew 11:28-30

The reason I quoted Erasmus on this point is to counter his critics, of whom he had many who hated him simply because he defended the common man, especially the poor and needy, who are oppressed by the Catholic Church even to this day. I want to offer a note of caution to readers, and advise you that, if you do research on Erasmus, you ought to primarily look to Erasmus's writings directly, rather than read an article about him, because there are many who take his words out of their context to create a false impression of the man, that they might poison the well against him, to safeguard their religious presuppositions (especially about the preservation of God's Word), and turn people away from the truth.

Erasmus lived during a time in Europe where, in most cases, the only available Bible to Europeans was the Catholic Latin version they translated from the corrupt Minority Texts. Erasmus had a great desire to make the Bible available in the common language so the average poor European could read and understand it.

"He said he would like to see the sacred word in the hands 'of the farmer, the tailor, the traveller and the Turk'. Again, [Erasmus said] 'I venture to think that anyone who reads my translation at home will profit thereby'. On his own position in the church, which many contemporaries saw to be ambiguous, he wrote with characteristic balance, 'One bears more easily the evils to which one is accustomed: therefore, I shall bear with the Church until I find a better one..."
-Desiderius Erasmus, "Scripture Bulletin", Catholic Biblical Association of Great Britain, Vol. 3-9, 1971, p. 47

Of course, I could make many arguments as to why simply waiting to "find a better church" is not a good reason to stay in a corrupt one, but I do find myself understanding why he stayed within the Augustinian sect of Catholicism, namely, so he would have access to their extensive libraries. This allowed him to finish the work that the Lord called him to do, which was to complete a translation of Scripture so common people could read it for themselves.

Though Erasmus was only the beginning of a 100-year-long process (which he would not live to see completed), he laid a strong foundation for what would later become the King James Bible. Erasmus gathered all available witnesses (i.e. manuscripts) and went through them one-by-one to piece them together, keeping the ones that matched while rejecting the ones that did not match, and after many years of work, he published his Greek text in 1516.

The work was not done though, and Erasmus continued to refine his work. He later published his second edition in 1519, his third edition in 1522 (which included 1st John 5:7 because evidence of it was so strong), his fourth edition in 1527, and the year before his death, he finished his fifth edition in 1535.

One of the reasons many Catholic critics (and those critics who simp for Mother Rome) hate the work of Erasmus is because he refused to include their Latin translation of the Bible, which is known as "Jerome's Vulgate." In 382, Jerome was commissioned by Pope Damasus I to translate the Bible into Latin. For many centuries, Jerome was primarily used by the Catholic Church, but Erasmus knew that Jerome's work was translated from the corrupt 4th century Vaticanus (Codex B, which had been newly discovered at the time Jerome was commissioned), and Erasmus was so opposed to including Jerome with his work that Erasmus translated his own Latin text (from the Majority Texts, which was the proper method of manuscript verification) and included it with his Greek text in his final edition.

It should also be noted that the Catholic Church not only stole the word 'catholic' from Christians, they also stole the word 'vulgate' (i.e. from the word 'vulgar', which means "common") because prior to the 4th century, there was a Latin Bible translation that is commonly referred to as the "Old Latin Vulgate" (first developed no later than 157 A.D.) that was translated by Christians from the original epistles. The Old Latin Vulgate was commonly used throughout Latin-speaking countries in Europe in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, but when the vile capital-C "Catholic" (i.e. Roman Corporate) Church was created and got involved, they produced their own corrupt version (i.e. Jerome's translation) from unreliable and erroneous sources. (e.g. Vaticanus)

Melancthon Jacobus was a 19th century pastor and professor of Biblical literature in Pennsylvania, who did research into the differences between the Authorized Bible and the Catholic version, and he noted the common usage of the Old Latin Vulgate among Christians because they refused to use the Catholic-approved version:
"The Old Latin versions were used longest by the Western Christians who would not bow to the authority of Rome—e.g., the Donatists [4th-6th centuries]; the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the continent; the Albigenses [12th-13th centuries, France], etc."
-Melancthon W. Jacobus, Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles Compared, Princeton Theological Seminary Library, 1908, p. 200, Note #15; [https://archive.org/details/romancatholicpro00jaco/page/200/mode/2up]

Jerome's Latin translation was rejected by the common people for about 900 years, and the only reason that Jerome's translation gained any footing in the scholarly world was when Latin was no longer the common language. English eventually became the dominant language in Europe, and that was when the Catholic Church thought they could sneak in Jerome's corrupt version by banning the reading of the Bible in English.

To help readers understand the problem with translating from the Vaticanus, and why so many Christians had a big problem with it, I will give a quick example from Matthew 4:17. This will also help demonstrate why Catholic critics despise Erasmus so much:

From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Repent: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.
-Matthew 4:17

The King James Bible translators (who I will discuss more later in this chapter) were in agreement with Erasmus, namely, that the Majority Text clearly says that Jesus taught us to "be penitent" or "repent," which both mean the same thing.

penitent (adj): suffering pain or sorrow of heart on account of sins, crimes or offenses; contrite; sincerely affected by a sense of guilt and resolving on amendment of life
repent (v): to feel pain, sorrow or regret for something done or spoken
(See 'penitent' & 'repent', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 26, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

This is perfectly in line with the Gospel of Salvation in Jesus Christ, in that repentance is a gift from God:

Him [Christ] hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins.
-Acts 5:31

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;
-2 Timothy 2:25

The Lord God gives sorrow of a godly sort to men, unlocking their understanding of their own guilt and depravity, so that it will produce the effects of salvation by grace through faith in Christ:

Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
-2 Corinthians 7:9-10

If the word 'repent' meant "turn from sin" or "change one's mind," it would then become a work, which becomes a works-based doctrine that contradicts Christ's doctrine on salvation. However, because the word 'repent' means "grief" or "grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing," it then becomes directly associated with the gifts of understanding that God grants to men, and cannot be labeled a work of any kind, which correlates perfectly with the Gospel of grace.

That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus. For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:7-9

And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
-Romans 11:6

However, in Jerome's corrupt translation, Matthew 4:17 reads:


"From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
-Jerome's Latin Vulgate, "Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum," retrieved July 26, 2023, [https://vulgate.org/nt/gospel/matthew_4.htm]

The word 'penance' has a VERY important difference in meaning than 'penitent' or 'repentant':

penance (n): the suffering, labor or pain to which a person voluntarily subjects himself, or which is imposed on him by authority as a punishment for his faults, or as an expression of penitence; such as fasting, flagellation, wearing chains, etc.
(See 'penance', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved July 26, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Penance is when someone believes, or issues upon themselves, a certain work of physical suffering as a punishment to make up for his wrongdoing. Sin cannot be paid for by "doing penance" as other Scriptures clearly tell us, which means that Vaticanus (and therefore, Jerome) is doctrinally wrong in its interpretation of Matthew 4:17.

I am NOT arguing that Jerome was deceitfully mistranslating the Bible to serve the purposes of the Catholic Church, rather, I would argue that Jerome ACCURATELY translated the text of Vaticanus. However, the problem is that Vaticanus is a CORRUPT manuscript that was authored by someone who changed the meaning of the text to serve their own purposes, and because the Catholic Church is biased to the faulty doctrine of Vaticanus, the Pope cherry-picked Vaticanus to be the foundation of the Catholic's so-called "Bible," while ignoring the mountains of documented witness evidence against it.

However, this did not work at the time because the great majority of Christians during the 4th century stuck to using the original Latin Vulgate, and generally rejected the Catholic Church's new version, which resulted in Jerome's translation collecting dust on a shelf for almost 1,000 years. As the Latin language began to die out in the 13th century, the violent, murderous Pope Gregory IX (who instituted the Inquisition to kill Christians that stood in opposition to the doctrines of the Catholic Church) revived Jerome's work to make it an "official" Catholic Bible version, and gave it the name "Latin Vulgate" to fool others into thinking it was the preserved Bible.

As is typical with the Catholic Church and every other religious cult, when someone produces a book they cannot reasonably answer and do not like, instead of opening up friendly debate, they ban it, and forbid all their followers from reading it. This is what the Catholic Church has done for many centuries, but most especially in the days of Erasmus, whose words carried a lot of truth that was devastating to the Catholicism, and so in 1559, three years after the death of Erasmus, Pope Paul IV began to put thousands of books on a blacklist called Index Librorum Prohibitorum, and among those were Erasmus' Greek and Latin texts, along with his personal writings, such as those I quoted earlier.

But this did not stop Christians from reading and copying them, which should be no surprise because history teaches us that book bans do not work, and usually produce the opposite effect intended, in other words, more people want to read banned books out of curiosity. In my day, this is known as the "Streisand Effect," which indicates an attempt to cover up or draw attention away from something, but the attempt backfires and only ends up drawing more attention to it; named after American singer/actress Barbara Streisand, who attempted to verbally direct people away from looking at a coastal photograph taken of her residence, which only made it go viral, and garnered global attention to it.

The Word of God in the New Testament has been preserved by Christians throughout the past 2,000 years, but we need to acknowledge that counterfeits have been created by people feigning to be disciples of Christ. The counterfeits, in combination with the Catholic Church destroying many preserved copies, led to Erasmus doing the work of an honest scribe to demonstrate that the Bible had still been preserved by the Lord's guiding hand, despite His enemies attempting to disrupt His communication with His church.

The decade following the death of Erasmus led to many people reading a translation from the compiled Majority Texts, which had been hid from them during the Dark Ages, and that began a rising movement that exposed the false doctrines of the Catholic Church. To counter this, the Pope formed the Council of Trent, which produced the Catholic Catechism, that declared that Roman Catholic tradition was more important than Scripture:
"As a result the [Catholic] Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'"
-Catechism of the Catholic Church, "The Transmission of Divine Revelation," Part 1, Section 1, Chapter 2, Article 2, Canon #82, retrieved May 2, 2024, [https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM]

The reason I said they declared that they held their traditions in higher regard than the doctrines of Scripture is because their traditions are NOT based on Scripture; they are based on pagan lore. Since Catholics idolize their man-made traditions with a reverence equal to that which should only be due to the Holy Scriptures, then it logically follows that they must worship men as divine because that puts their traditions in a category of "holiness," which means they must be equal with God Himself, and not only is that blasphemy, but it means that, in order to maintain the status quo (i.e. the existing condition) of their religious traditions (which oppose Christ), they will throw off the Word of God, either by changing it or reinterpreting it under false pretenses.

Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy [a way of thinking] and vain deceit [useless lies], after the tradition of men, after the rudiments [first teachings you learn] of the world, and not after Christ.
-Colossians 2:8

And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination [a thing of utmost hatred] in the sight of God.
-Luke 16:15

The evidence of this is clearly seen in the Council of Trent because they openly denied the Lord Jesus Christ to justify their tradition, and condemned all those whose faith rests solely on Christ for salvation:
"If any one saith, that justifying [saving] faith is nothing else but confidence [faith] in the divine mercy which remits [pardons] sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence [faith] alone is that whereby we are justified [saved]; let him be anathema. [condemned to damnation]"
-Council of Trent, "On Justification," Session VI, Canon XII, retrieved Mar 28, 2018, [thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm]; See also James Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent, 2003 Reprint, Kessinger Publishing, Canon #12, p. 46, ISBN: 9780766138414

And I quote this verse again for comparison to what we just read from official Catholic decree:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.
-Ephesians 2:8-9

Thus, when faced with Christ or tradition, the Catholic Church chooses tradition, and they condemn any others who choose Christ. The Catholic Church engages in blasphemous heresies on a daily basis, and therefore, they have always warred against Christ's true church, especially when it comes to the preserved Word of God, burning, banning, corrupting, and creating a monopoly on it, all for the sake of protecting their prestige and wealth at the expense of the poor and needy.

As with any cult that finds its existence threatened, its members will fight for its life, and will go to any dark lengths to eliminate those who would, even unintentionally, expose their many sins. As people began to read the Bible for themselves in the common language once again, a growing number turned away from the Catholic Church and condemned it, and though many popes thought they could put out these small fires, there was a raging firestorm in England that, by God's will, was growing too large for them to handle by normal means.

Over the following century, there were many individuals and groups that could be mentioned, to point out their contributions in the spiritual war against the demonic entity known as Catholicism, but it would take many books to go over that history. For now, we should keep in mind that the Majority Texts had been compiled and were being examined by many, which led up to the creation of the King James Bible.


 


James Charles Stuart was born in Edinburgh Castle in 1566, and his mother, Mary, Queen of Scots, baptized him into the Catholic Church. James' father, Henry Darnley, was murdered about 9 months later in 1567, and it was suspected that Mary had a role in his death, so she was forced to surrender the throne, making James the King of Scotland soon after his first birthday.

Though he was baptized into the Catholic Church, after the death of his father, James was raised under Presbyterian teachers, rather than Catholic priests, and this was a major upset to the Papacy. The Popes of Rome had to keep close control over the kings and queens of Europe to maintain their political and religious authority over them, and so for James to have been raised without Catholic institutionalized brainwashing was a threat, which resulted in James growing up under constant threat of assassination by the Jesuits, who are essentially the Catholic version of the Gestapo, a secret police force that carries out horrible crimes against the people for the sake of protecting the organization.

James had many physical disabilities from birth which left him bedridden most of the time, and he often required the help of others to walk. He had limited use of his hands, which required him to have a secretary write for him, and had an enlarged tongue, which made it difficult for him to speak fluently, caused him to drool, and he slurped loudly when drinking.

For these reasons, and because of other diseases he developed over time, his bedroom was also his office, and he spent most of his time there in study:
"Among those justifiably attributed refinements was his reputation as a paragon of learning, crammed with Greek and Latin and other tongues. In spite of his physical disabilities, his mind was first rate. Already at the age of seven he 'was able extempore [with little or no preparation]... to read a chapter of the Bible out of Latin into French and next out of French into English as well as few men could have added anything to his translation.' In due time he became known as the most educated sovereign in Europe."
-Olga S. Opfell, The King James Bible Translators, McFarland, 1982, p. 1, ISBN: 9780899500416


James was fully aware that his appearance was repulsive to others (and it is very likely the artist who painted him took creative liberty to flatter his appearance, as they often do with highly esteemed figures), but he overcame his physical impairments by working hard in his studies, and showing great kindness to those he ruled, as this 19th-century author, who studied the life and writings of King James, notes:
"Hereunto you may add the carriage and disposition of King James: truly I did never know any man of so great an apprehension, of so great love and affection,—a man so truly just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church, and one that had done so much good for the church."
-Godfrey Goodman, The Court of King James the First, Vol. 1, R. Bentley, 1839, p. 91, [University of Michigan]

Henry Wotton wrote the following about King James in 1602:
"In his eyes and in the outward expression of his face, there appears a certain natural goodness verging on modesty. He discusses literary matters, and especially Theology, willingly... Among his good qualities none shines more brightly than the chasteness of his life, which he has preserved without stain down to the present time, contrary to the example of almost all his ancestors, who disturbed the kingdom with the great number of bastards which they left."
-James Henry, quoted by Robert Ashton, James I by His Contemporaries, Hutchinson, 1969, p. 4, ISBN: 9780090896004

Keep in mind, that there is none good, save Jesus Christ:

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
-Romans 3:10-12

Certainly, King James was not Jesus Christ, nor is my intent to elevate this man to any divine degree, but rather, my intent in providing this information is to give the OTHER side of this story. Mainstream church-ianity institutions, specifically those biased toward modern corrupt versions, want to defame James to put a black mark on the KJB, and often do so by quoting from those who hated James because he had many enemies, especially those whom he removed from his court due to their deceit. (We will cover more on that later.)

Roger Wilbraham wrote about King James in 1603:
"The King is of the sharpest wit and invention, ready and pithy speech, an exceeding good memory, of very sweet and pleasant nature. God forbid that his most gracious disposition and heroic mind be not depraved with ill counsel, and that neither the wealth and peace of England make him forget God nor the painted flattery of the Court cause him to forget himself."
-Roger Wilbraham, quoted by George B. Harrison, A Jacobean Journal: Being a Record of Those Things Most Talked of During the Years 1603-1606, Routledge, 1946, p. 46, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.86685/2015.86685.A-Jacobean-Journal-1603-1606_djvu.txt]

James had eight children, but six of them died at a young age. His only remaining children were Elizabeth, who later became the Queen of Bohemia, and his son, Henry, for whom he wrote a short book called Basilikon Doron, which means "The Kingly Gift," hoping that, once his son inherited the throne, he would treat the throne as a gift to his subjects and those he ruled.

James opened with poetry:
Lo here (my son) a mirror view and fair
Which showeth the shadow of a worthy King.
Lo here a Book [i.e. the Bible], a pattern doth you bring
Which ye should press to follow more and more
This trusty friend, the truth will never spare,
But give a good advice unto you here:
How it should be your chief and princely care,
To follow virtue; vice for to forbear.
And in this Book your lesson will ye learn,
For guiding of your people great and small.
Then (as ye ought) give an attentive care,
And think how ye these precepts practice shall.
Your father bids you study here and read
How to become a perfect King indeed.

God gives not Kings the style of God's in vain,
For on His throne His scepter do they sway:
So Kings should fear and serve their God again.
If then ye would enjoy a happy reign,
Observe the statutes of your Heavenly King;
And from His laws make all your laws to spring:
Since His lieutenant here ye should remain.
Reward the just, be steadfast, true and plain:
Repress the proud, maintaining always the right,
Walk always so, as ever in His sight
Who guards the godly, plaguing the profane,
And so ye should in princely virtues shine,
Remembering right your mighty King Divine. -King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n41/mode/2up]

As I read this introduction for the first time, I found myself in full agreement with James, and thought that his writing should be a consideration for all rulers, great and small. James goes on to tell Henry of the care he was taking in his duty to God and man to raise Henry with virtuous principles, so that he could take on the heavy burden of being a king, and warned him that the position was one of onus, not honos, which shows extremely sharp wit on the part of James because 'Honos' was the name of a pagan Roman god personifying honor; alluding to the fact that the princes of Europe aligned themselves with the Papacy to gain the vanities of honor, rather than taking the hard and virtuous road to please the Lord God.

onus (n): a difficult or disagreeable obligation, task, burden, etc.
(See 'onus', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

James taught his son to have great humility, which is the greatest lesson that all rulers should learn. He taught Henry to consider that not only should he judge himself first and foremost, which is our duty as Christians, but he warned that his own sin may have far-reaching consequences due to his position as king:
"A moat in another's eye, is a beam into yours; a blemish in another, is a leprous bile into you; and a venial sin (as the Papists call it) in another, is a great crime unto you. Think not, therefore, that the highness of your dignity diminisheth your faults (much less giveth you a license to sin) but by the contrary, your fault shall be aggravated according to the height of your dignity, any sin that ye commit not being a single sin procuring but the fall of one; but being an exemplary sin, and therefore draweth with it the whole multitude to be guilty of the same."
-King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n51/mode/2up]

James goes on to tell his son that he should be diligent in prayer, and use the Bible as a guide, quoting 2nd Timothy to back up his instruction:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.
-2 Timothy 3:16-17

James warned his son not to lie, unless it be in jest, as in something that would be understood to be facetious or sarcastic:
"And especially, beware to offend your conscience with use of swearing or lying, suppose but in jest; for others are but a vice, and a sin clothed with no delight nor gain, and therefore the more inexcusable even in the sight of men: and lying cometh also much of a vile use, which will banish shame: Therefore beware even to deny the truth, which is a sort of lie, that may best be eschewed [shunned/avoided] by a person of your rank."
-King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n51/mode/2up]

When James said that lying "will banish shame," he means that shame is a good thing for those who do wickedness because it is the feeling that results from a guilty conscience, hopefully leading them to repentance. However, a man who lies frequently will come to rely on lying as an ally, which will remove any shame from his heart, causing others to distrust him, searing his conscience with a hot iron, and resulting in the Lord being angry with him.

Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
-1 Timothy 4:2

James warned Henry of the dangers of prosperity, in that it breeds laziness which leads to destruction, and he warned him to be masculine in his speech and dress; and to avoid effeminate mannerisms, which were far too common in royal courts. (1Co 6:9) James also wrote a treatise called A Counterblaste to Tobacco, warning that smoking tobacco was "dangerous to the lungs," physically offensive to others in various ways (especially to other family members of the household), and that those who chose to smoke were no better than apes, who simply mimic what they see "to their own destruction."
-King James I of England, A Counterblaste to Tobacco, Robert Barker, 1604, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/acounterblastet00englgoog/page/n10/mode/2up]

As much as I would love to quote more from Basilikon Doron, mostly because I believe it is FAR better preaching of the Word of God than any pastor I have heard in my lifetime, it would take up too much space. James was extremely well versed in the Scriptures, and often used them to reinforce his speeches. Thus, I would encourage readers that, if you get a chance, go read Basilikon Doron for yourself to understand who King James I of England was (i.e. a dedicated disciple of Christ), why his staff and the common people loved him, and why pompous rulers and papists (i.e. authorities loyal to the vile Pope of Rome) wanted to kill him.
(See King James I of England, Basilikon Doron, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://www.lorenzburg.org/en/2016/03/19/basilikon-doron-1599-written-by-king-james-i])

James was King James VI of Scotland, but in 1603 (by the guiding hand of God), he was made King James I of England, uniting Scotland, Ireland, and England together. It was during the reign of King James that the term "Great Britain" was first used. He issued many decrees when he took the throne in England, but one of the most important was based on his belief that the Word of God was not to be kept under lock and key by the privileged elite of society, and though he was unsure at first that a perfect English translation could be compiled, he formed a commission to finalize an English translation of the Old and New Testaments for common people to study in their own homes.

At the time, there were few Bible translations in English because only a few had attempted it, and that was primarily due to the fact that the Catholic Church did not want the common people reading the Bible. William Tyndale (a student of Erasmus who produced what is known today as the Tyndale Bible) attempted this, and although he did very well in his translation, he attempted it only from the Greek (without including the preserved Latin copies of the Majority Texts), and because of this, his translation fell short of perfection.

This is not to speak ill of the Christian faith of Tyndale in any way because he was very dedicated to the preservation of the Word of God. He was persecuted for his work, and in 1535, Emperor Charles V burned Tyndale at the stake for his efforts to provide the common people with an English translation of the Bible.
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 8, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n23/mode/2up])

Perhaps less known is Miles Coverdale who, the year of Tyndale's death (1535), produced an English translation based on Tyndale's work, the Vulgate, as well as Martin Luther's and Huldrych Zwingli's translations, and avoided being burned at the stake because he dedicated it to King Henry, which I would argue was a smart political move, yet, also cowardly, since Tyndale was still in prison awaiting execution in 1535 when Coverdale published his work. However, the Coverdale Bible had a number of problems because Coverdale was not a linguist, meaning that he did not know much Hebrew or Greek, requiring him to rely heavily on the works of others, and over time, Coverdale's Bible became known as the "Bugs Bible" because his translation of Psalm 91:5 read, "Thou shalt not nede to be afraid of any bugges by night."
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 9, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n23/mode/2up])

Similar errors were found in John Wycliffe's translation, and in William Whittingham's translation, which is the primary source of the Geneva Bible. Bibles used to be written into very large books that had to be read from a podium because of their weight, but the Geneva Bible gained popularity mostly due to its size (i.e. it was easier to hold in one's hand) rather than its content, and King James knew this too, which is why he did not hold a positive view of the Geneva Bible.
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 1, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n15/mode/2up])

I understand there are some people who, to this day, still fervently advocate on behalf of the Geneva Bible, but I will show examples of those errors later in this book, and often, it is Calvinists who defend it because Whittingham married John Calvin's daughter, which boosted his work into popular view among followers of Calvin and Knox. In that day, the Geneva Bible was more commonly known as the "Breeches Bible" because Genesis 3:7 read, "and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves breeches."
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 9, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n23/mode/2up])

King James gathered a council of those he trusted at the Hampton Royal Court, which included William Barlow, John Overall, Thomas Bilson, Thomas Ravis, Richard Edes, and Lancelot Andrewes, all of whom were well-educated in the Bible and various languages. These men got the word out to non-Catholic bishops (i.e. Christian elders) across the land to familiarize themselves with anyone who was Biblically educated and linguistically skilled, interview them, select only the best of the best, and then send those recommendations back to the Hampton council for review.

These applicants were then reviewed by the King and his Hampton council, and accepted based on their doctrine of faith (i.e. what they taught publicly) and the merits of their work, rather than by prestigious title. Eventually, they settled on 54 men to complete this project, but there were complications that we, who read the King James Bible so freely and commonly today, do not often consider.

The first obstacle was paying the men because they needed to eat, and to provide for their families, but the royal coffers could not sustain this much financial burden for one year, let alone the next seven years it would take to complete the project. This did not include the fact that James wanted MORE than the 54 scholars they sought to hire. (Technically, there were more than 54, since some died during the process, and had to be replaced.) King James wrote to churches throughout England to ask for prebends (i.e. part of the church's income), so he could pay each scholar (at minimum) 20 pounds per year, which, in the year 1600, was roughly 15% more than a standard year's wages, but it seems that James underestimated the eagerness of the churches to see this project completed, and he was sent more charity from them than he was expecting.

I would like to note the goodness of King James as a governing leader in this regard. He did not use the kingdom's money, nor did he unjustly tax the people for this project because not only would such a thing be oppressive and unfair to the people, but it would put the Holy Scriptures under the authority of the British government, which James did not want to have happen since the Word of God judges kings, and so keeping it crowd-funded made it a work of the people, so that the people were free to use it as they needed without permission from any governing entity.

The second obstacle was office space, because the scholars needed room to work, privacy to concentrate, and protection to make sure no evildoers would harm them or their documents. In addition to the financial charity, Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster universities offered the scholars free room and board while they were working on the project, which is why those were the three primary places the men worked.

Another side note is that there were many political oppositions to the Bible project because King James had many enemies, especially since there were those in positions of power who did not like having a Scot on the throne of England. There were also religious oppositions, not only from the Catholic Church, but also from other factions, such as the Puritans, who often scoffed at Catholicism, while practicing their own version of legalism and superstition in hypocrisy; in spite of which King James did his best to remain neutral and unbiased (as a judge and king must often do), while attempting to appease those over whom he ruled.

There were a wide range of men selected for James' Bible translation project, who came from various backgrounds, various stations in life, various interests that motivated them, but there were a few similar traits I found among all of them. They were all highly educated, self-motivated to learn, and worked very hard, and for me, that was a drastic contradiction to the dismissive way I have heard modern so-called "scholars" speak of them.

There were no women among the KJB translators because it is unbiblical to have women in teaching authority over men in spiritual matters of doctrine. (1Ti 2:11-12) There were also no Catholics or Jews because their institutions have proven time and again to be the enemies of Christ and the Bible.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

It is important to understand that applicants were accepted based on these features, and not on their rank, status, or rumors about them. To get an idea of what I mean, let's compare two of the translators, Lancelot Andrewes and Edward Lively.

Lancelot Andrewes was the Dean of Westminster, and famous for his pleasant demeanor as well as his love and dedication to all things written. Andrewes could read, write, and fluently speak 15 languages. Not only did famous 20th century poet Thomas (T.S.) Eliot write an essay about him (called "For Lancelot Andrewes"), but it was well known that Andrewes was close friends with Francis Bacon (who some people believe to have written under the pen name William Shakespeare), and that Bacon would ask Andrewes for advice about his writing.

Andrewes worked his way up from nothing, starting out by attending a free school at Ratcliff, and eventually, when he gave lectures on Scripture, it drew in audiences from other colleges around the country. In fact, when I read excerpts from his preaching, I was surprised to find that I teach very similar doctrine (with nowhere near the poetic elegance of Andrewes), which is not to say that I am in any way comparable to the literary greatness that Andrewes achieved in his lifetime, but rather, I praise God that His wisdom and understanding is given to all those who believe, no matter the station in which they were born, and no matter the time period in which they live.

Whereas Andrewes worked his way to a point that he had no problem with funding, Edward Lively had a much different experience. Lively had a job teaching and translating Hebrew at Trinity College in Cambridge, but the pay was not very much for him for two reasons; the first is that being a scholar in 16th century England was extremely difficult financially, and the second is that Lively had a wife and 13 hungry children.

Lively worked tirelessly to survive, and made many sacrifices for his family. One of the ways he barely managed to make a living for his family was by hack writing, which is when an author is paid to write rushed, cheap thrill books or articles with a short deadline, and though such a thing might have been seen as degrading for one of Lively's education, he was happy to have the money to feed his family another day.

Lively had nearly continuous lawsuits against him for money he owed (borrowing to keep the heads of himself and his family above water), to the point that, at one time, he had his goods repossessed and his cattle taken to pay debts. He was so desperate that he "he sold his precious books to a bishop for three pounds." And yet, because of these hardships, Lively was known to be one of the most patient of scholars.
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 15, retrieved Aug 12, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n29/mode/2up])

When he was offered the job to translate the Old Testament Hebrew in James' Bible committee, his wife and two of his children had died, leaving him solely responsible for 11 children, and so he accepted the position gladly. Because of the patience the Lord had taught him over the years, he humbly and willingly accepted the most mundane tasks, which gave him a good perspective when verifying context in translation.

As we can see, when it came to their station in life, both Lively and Andrewes ended up in very different places, but they both ended up working together on the KJB project. I will not be able to list out the details about every KJB translator in this book because that would take up the space of another book on its own, but I will briefly talk about a couple more just to give readers a general idea about some of the men doing the work.

Another KJB translator was John Overall, who was an orphan by the time he was one year old, and ended up training in a grammar school, earning his room and board by serving his master. He followed his master to Trinity College, worked hard in his studies, and by 1596, he rose to royal chair of divinity at Cambridge.

A few years later, the Queen made Overall the Dean of St. Paul's while he retained his post at Cambridge, which was rapid advancement at that time. He was a poor boy with nothing who, by the age of 40, was being requested by the Queen for special duties and had multiple incomes (which was rare). However, there was a problem with St. Paul's because it was infamously known to be similar to a "party" scene that one might see on a less-than-reputable college campus today, except St. Paul's was also filled with merchants, entertainers, and beggars, and eventually attracted a black market that drew in thieves, ruffians, and harlots.

The corrupted condition of St. Paul's was so commonly known at the time that its profane nature was referenced in Shakespeare's Henry IV, Part II, and Ben Jonson's Every Man in His Humour. Overall made quick work to clean up the mess, and became known for his efforts to turn St. Paul's back into a proper place of learning.

Although Overall was educated in the English language from birth, he had spent so much time in the study of Latin, he told the Queen that "it was troublesome to speak English in a continued oration." King James had broken the committee into several groups, and when Overall was added to the translators, he was put in the Westminster Hebrew group (just 2 miles down the road from St. Paul's), likely to check the Old Testament translations of the Majority Text manuscripts in Latin.
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 32, retrieved Aug 12, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n47/mode/2up])

Another KJB translator was Roger Fenton, who was a fellow at Pembroke Hall in Cambridge, and was (I would say) miraculously favored by elite governors. One of Fenton's main works was called A Treatise on Usurie, in which he said that usury in nature, from seed to fruit, was established by God through His charitable spirit, but the usury of loans had no virtue whatsoever, even if it was claimed to be done for a charitable benefit to the poor and needy.

This would have been upsetting to many in positions of power who used such underhanded methods, and their sore disposition would in turn put pressure on statesmen, but Fenton was still favored by lords and statesmen, and he was described as "painful, pious [spiritually devout], learned and beloved." Speaking the truth boldly in the face of powerful opposition would not be possible without the Lord guiding Fenton, as well as all the men mentioned in this chapter, bringing them all to the place they needed to be to complete the work He set for them.
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 44, retrieved Aug 12, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n59/mode/2up])

These were far from flawless men, but it should be noted that the Bible teachings I have read of these men were good, sound doctrine, and yet, their books and sermons barely ever see the light of day. However, what does see much use to this day is the King James Bible which they diligently completed, and which the Lord planned and spread out by His guiding hand for our benefit.

I have only provided a very brief description of a few of the KJB translators in this chapter because doing any more than this would take far too long. As I said before, as much as I might like to describe them in more detail, it would be better suited to an entirely separate book.

All the translators were separated into six groups; two at Westminster (one for the Old Testament, and another for the New), two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. Scripture translations would have to be analyzed and approved by all groups before it could be finalized.

The following is a list of the primary people who worked on the KJB translation, but all who took part in the project are still unknown, and I will discuss the reasons for that later in this chapter: The following list contains brief details about the translators. For those readers unfamiliar with the terms, a 'fellow' is a privileged member who is specially elected to a position of recognition based on achievements, and a 'rector' is an administrative leader: I needed to include a note here because some argue that William Thorne was never one of the KJB translators. However, one of the original royal documents concerning the KJB project from the London Public Records Office shows Thorne's signature along with the other translators, which means he had authority and involvement in the project.

(Click/Tap Image for Larger View)
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 52, retrieved Aug 16, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n73/mode/2up]) A low percentage of these men had wives because to be a scholar in that day meant that you would live a poor life, which did not leave time or resources to have a wife to bear children, unless a man had multiple incomes, which was rare (and often scoffed at by other jealous scholars). Of those who did marry, there was only one (maybe two) who had reports of having a healthy and happy marriage, but based on the surviving testimonies, most of the few translators who married were plagued with wives who were financially irresponsible and/or adulterous women. Most of the KJB translators lived their lives in sole dedication to study of God's Word and general scholarship, and through those efforts, the Lord provided for us an English translation of the preserved Bible that is still widely used to this day.

The aforementioned translator Miles Smith wrote the preface to the KJB, called "The Translators to the Reader," which used to be included in all printings, but has been removed from most copies today. The two main factors for this, in this author's opinion, are firstly because corporations seek to lower every penny of printing costs to increase profit, and secondly because the things that Smith said in the preface would anger a great number of people, which would then decrease profits.

The reason I argue the latter of the two points is because one of the key passages in Smith's preface to the KJB is his documentation of the squelching of God's Word by the Catholic Church, and at the time I wrote this book (in the early 21st century), a man cannot make his publication profitable without adhering to general universalist principles, or in other words, a man will not gain much financial benefit from his book if he dares to utter a negative word about Catholicism (or other religious entities that favor Catholicism). Therefore, the fact that Smith pointed out the crimes of Catholicism, in that they were solely responsible for keeping the common people from reading and understanding the Holy Scriptures, is automatically a great offense to a wide variety of churchgoers, who, being willingly ignorant of the vile crimes and horrendous sins of the Catholic Church, have more interest in gently petting the pride of their hearts than they have interest in God's rebuke and reproof for the good of mankind.

In the KJB preface, Smith wrote:
"Now the Church of Rome would seem at the length to bear a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: [Sophecles] [quoting the phrase used in the writings of Sophecles in the 5th century B.C.] they must first get a licence [permission] in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor [Pope or Cardinal], that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs [filthy liquid residue], yet soured [gone sour, turned bad] with the leaven [corrupt doctrine; Mat 16:6-12] of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to [Pope] Clement the Eighth [1592-1605] that there should be any Licence granted to have them in the vulgar [common] tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth [to prevent or stop] the grant of [Pope] Pius the Fourth [1559-1565]. [See the observation (set forth by Clemen. his authority) upon the 4. rule of Pius the 4. his making in the index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.] So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertulian speaketh) that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the Licence of their own Bishops and Inquisitors. Yea, so unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people's understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue [that the Catholic hierarchy has] a bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both. Sure [certain] we are, that it is not he that hath good [honest, pure] gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touchstone [black stone used to test the purity of gold], but he that hath the counterfeit; [Tertul. de resur. carnis.] neither is it the true man [honest man with a pure intent] that shunneth the light, but the malefactor [a criminal, one who does ill towards his neighbor], lest his deeds should be reproved [John 3:20]: neither is it the plaindealing [honest and straightforward] Merchant that is unwilling to have the weights [to measure goods and/or money to their proper value; Pro 20:10], or the meteyard [measuring rod] brought in place, but he that useth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation."
-Miles Smith, The Translators to the Reader: Preface to the King James Version 1611, University of Chicago Press, 1935, [University of California]; Retrieved also Aug 15, 2023, [https://thekingsbible.com/Library/Preface]

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.
-John 3:20

Divers weights, and divers measures [those which are false; secretly unbalanced, to scam the buyers/sellers], both of them are alike abomination to the LORD.
-Proverbs 20:10

To summarize, Smith pointed out that popes contradict each other (even when they claim to be speaking "infallibly"), which is common knowledge to those who have studied the history of the Papacy, and that popes and cardinals went to great pains to PREVENT people from studying Scripture (because they know that true study of God's Word will lead them away from Catholicism). For example, the Albigenses were a group of Christians that read the Bible in the common language, and the doctrine of Scripture caused them to depart from the heresies of the Catholic Church, to which the Catholic Church responded by sending out the Crusader soldiers to execute them.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

This is documented in Catholic publications as well, and keep in mind, when the Catholics say "heretics," they are actually speaking about the Christians who (under threat of execution) faithfully used the Word of God to condemn the vile, antichrist heresies of Catholicism, and stood with Jesus Christ alone:
"When the heresy of the Albigenses arose, there was a danger from corrupt translations [i.e. the Bible translated in the common tongue for all to read for themselves], and also from the fact that the heretics tried to make the faithful judge the Church by their own interpretation of the Bible. [i.e Christians taught others to read the Scriptures for themselves and judge righteous judgement; John 7:24] To meet these evils, the councils of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234) forbade the laity to read the vernacular [common language] translations of the Bible. Pius IV required the bishops to refuse lay persons leave to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless their confessors or parish priests judged that such reading was likely to prove beneficial. During this century, Leo XII, Pius VIII, and Pius IX have warned Catholics against the Protestant Bible Societies, which distribute versions (mostly corrupt versions) of the Bible [i.e. what they call "corrupt," but are based on the Majority Texts] with avowed purpose of perverting simple Catholics. It is only surprising that any rational being could have thought it possible for the Holy See to assume any other attitude towards such proceedings. It is right, however, to observe that the [Catholic] Church displays the greatest anxiety that her children should read the Scriptures, if they possess the necessary dispositions."
-William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary: Containing Some Account of the Doctrine, Discipline, Rites, Ceremonies, Councils, and Religious Orders of the Catholic Church, Catholic Publication Society Co., 1884, p. 82, [Harvard University]

This correlates with what we learned in the previous chapter, that the Catholic Church had banned the public from reading the Bible. This was done to try to keep people from leaving the Catholic Church once they found out how many heresies they taught and practiced, and the Office of Inquisition was the blood-soaked arm that enforced the will of the popes.

Christians should be warned that the Office of Inquisition, which is responsible for the rape, torture, and murder of Christians for simply reading the Bible, was never closed; it was only renamed. Catholic sources often lie to the public about that because the practices of the Inquisition are a constant embarrassment to them. The Office of Inquisition was deceptively renamed "The Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith" in 1965, and still operates today:
"By the nineteenth century, most of the gruesome practices had ceased. However, the Office of the Inquisition remained until 1965 when it was reshaped into the Office of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith during the Second Vatican Council."
-Michael Jerryson & Margo Kitts, The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Violence, Oxford University Press, 2015, p. 430, ISBN: 9780190270094; See also Charles Kimball, When Religion Becomes Lethal, John Wiley & Sons, 2011, ISBN: 9781118030561

Smith rightly pointed out that it is those who are honest and have the truth that operate openly in the light for all to see, but those who do evil hide the truth behind closed doors.

And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
-John 3:19-20

Therefore, we can Scripturally and logically conclude the evils of the Catholic Church on that point alone. The Catholic hierarchy, for hundreds of years, labored to keep people from studying the Word of God for themselves, torturing and murdering Christians along the way in a delusional self-perception of "holiness."

The heart of the righteous studieth to answer: but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
-Proverbs 15:28

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
-2 Timothy 2:15

Another man named Richard Bancroft, bishop of London, was trusted and relied upon heavily by King James, and often consulted with Lancelot Andrews. Before beginning the Bible translation project, and with the approval of King James, Bancroft made a list of 15 principles by which the translators should operate:
"1. The ordinary Bible read in church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed and as little altered as the truth, of the original will permit.
2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.
3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. [videlicet; Latin for "namely" or "as follows"] the word "church" not to be translated "congregation." (The Greek word can be translated either way.) [Catholics often called Christian churches "congregations," instead of the church, because they rejected Catholic rule.]
4. When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by most of the ancient fathers.
5. The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all or as little as may be.
6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution [wordy language] be so briefly and fitly expressed in the text.
7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another.
8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together to confer [consult with each other] when they have done, and agree for their parts what shall stand.
9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this point.
10. If any company upon the review of the book so sent doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word thereof with the place, and withal send the reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the end of the work. (Thus in the end they all had to agree enough to let all readings pass.)
11. When any place of special obscurity be doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.
12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of his translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues and having taken pains in that way, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford. (This indicates that many must have aided in the work.)
13. The directors of each company to be the deans of Westminster and Chester for that place, and the King's professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either university.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (Great Bible), Geneva.
15. Besides the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient and grave divines in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned by the vice-chancellor, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translation, as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule above specified. [i.e. the Scriptures quoted by 1st and 2nd century Christian authors]"
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 70-71, retrieved Aug 16, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n91/mode/2up])

To summarize, the Bishops' Bible was commonly used by scholars at the time, but it was known to have its own problems, and so the translators were to stick as close to it as possible, only changing that which was required by the evidence of the manuscripts. They were to keep the names of the authors of Scripture the same, and never translate the word 'church' as "congregation," since it was an offense that the Catholic Church claimed a monopoly over their laity, labeling all groups who were not under Rome's self-proclaimed authority as "congregations" rather than churches.

If there were a wide variety of words that could be used in a particular passage, they would look to the writings of 1st-2nd century Christian authors (i.e. those who likely had read the originals) for Scripture quotations to decide which word should be used. They also did their best to maintain the standard verse and chapter numbers as they had been established over the centuries, and kept away from marginal notes as much as possible, unless it was necessary for the understanding of the text's translation.

Each translator from each group was to translate and amend each chapter individually, then confer together to compare and contrast their results, and come to a consensus on the precise wording. Once a book of the Bible was completed in this manner, the group would send it to the other groups, who would go over it in the same way, sending any objections back to the original group, and if an agreement could not be reached, a meeting with all the translators would be convened to debate the matter and reach a conclusion; in other words, all the translators had to be in agreement with all the verses before there was any final approval.

Furthermore, once any book was completed and agreed upon, it was sent to various other groups of translators at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford, to read over and voice any objections they might have with the text. Earlier, I mentioned that there were a lot more people than just those I listed above who worked on the translation, and this is one of the reasons why that was the case; it is now impossible to document all those scholars who worked on the KJB, but it would be safe to say that many of the prominent scholars in England worked on it together, with the majority (outside of those who were chosen by King James and his council) volunteering their time without extra pay.

Although the handful of English Bibles in common use had problems, there was still much truth and good translation in them, and so the KJB translators compared their work to that of the Bishops' Bible, the Tyndale Bible (which was based on the works of Erasmus), the Coverdale Bible, the Whitchurch Bible (sometimes called the Great Bible), and the Geneva Bible. This was a project that was completed by men who did not agree in all matters of doctrine, as there were religious groups among them that protested one another, and so the fact that the KJB was compiled by these men who were in agreement about the process and finished work, along with the rigorous methods involved, being concluded at (what many would consider to be) the height of English linguistic education in the world, I can say with boldness that there is no version of the bible today that is more complete, more thorough, more accurate, and more divinely guided than the King James Bible, which is why it became, and still is, the best-selling and most-read book of all time.

The two primary directors of the translation committee were Lancelot Andrews and Edward Lively, and along with Richard Bancroft, they made sure that everything was executed according to these principles. Sadly, Edward Lively became gravely ill less than a year into his new job (some testimonies claim that he took on too much work, which hastened his sickness), and died shortly after, leaving behind seven orphans, who ended up surviving and doing well, and according to genealogy documentation, some of his lineage exists in the United States today.
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 74, retrieved Aug 16, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n95/mode/2up])

It was a somewhat common occurrence that some translators died during the seven years of work and had to be replaced. For this reason, along with the fact that other groups helped in the work of the translators (according to Bancroft's principle #12), it is difficult to ascertain a complete list of the men who primarily worked on the KJB, but it is clear that far more worked on the KJB translation than any other bible version in history (pieces of which were handed down from their predecessors; e.g. Erasmus, Tyndale, Coverdale, etc).

During this time, the Jesuits and papists of the Catholic Church never ceased their attempts to thwart the efforts of King James because his presence on the throne of England was a direct threat to their political gains. This led to an assassination and coup attempt that many today have heard about, but sadly, most people today think it was a good thing for the people.

"Remember, Remember, the 5th of November" is the line that is now famous because of a movie called V for Vendetta, which was based on a lesser known comic book series. The fictional story takes place in a futuristic London, where everyone is enslaved to political tyrants and pharmaceutical companies, and although that scenario is more realistic than some may know (at least, at the time I wrote this book), the story also talks about a 17th century man (painted as a "hero" in the story) named Guy Fawkes, who attempted to blow up the House of Lords and the King to rescue the people from the King's oppressive rule.

Although partially true, the fact is that Guy Fawkes was working with Jesuits and papists to overthrow King James, and to kill those loyal to him as well (including those who were working on what would become the KJB), and although the story is a complex web of details, this author summarizes what happened:
"October 26, the Lord Chamberlain, Monteagle, received an unsigned letter begging him to stay away from Parliament on the day it opened. He took the letter to Robert Cecil, who on November 1 showed it to the king at a midnight meeting. The king shrewdly surmised a good deal of what it meant.
Monday, November 4, an agent of the royal party found in a cellar beneath the House of Lords a man, named Guy Fawkes, disguised as a servant, beside piles of faggots [twig bundles], billets [sticks] of wood, and masses of coal. The agent went away. Shortly Monteagle and one other came and talked, but gave no heed to Fawkes, who was still on guard, until they were about to go. He told them he was a servant of Thomas Percy, a well-known papist. Still later, at midnight, soldiers found Fawkes booted and spurred and with a lantern outside the cellar door. He had taken few pains to conceal his actions. They dragged him into an alley, searched him, and found on him a tinderbox and a length of slow match. [a slow-burning cord, which allows time to escape the blast] In a fury now they moved the faggots, billets, and coal, and came upon barrel after barrel of powder, thirty-six barrels in all. Fawkes then confessed that he meant to blow up the House of Lords and the king.
On November 6, Percy, with others, rushed into an Inn at Dunchurch, Warwickshire, with the news that the court was aware of their plan. By the eighth the whole attempt had clearly failed. When Parliament met a week after the stated day, the king, calm, gracious, and splendid, told what had happened and then adjourned the meeting.
At first Fawkes refused to name any except Percy, who, with others, was killed in the course of a chase. In time [i.e. after much torture] he gave the names of all, who would have blown up the House of Lords "at a clap."
Guy Fawkes was baptized at St. Michael le Belfrey, York, April 16, 1570, son of Edward Fawkes, a proctor and advocate in the church courts of York. The father died and the mother married a papist. In 1603 Guy Fawkes went to Madrid to urge that Philip III invade England. Thus he was a confirmed traitor, though egged on and used by more astute plotters.
Some of these men had been involved in the rising of the Earl of Essex. A number were former members of the Church of England. Most of them had some land and wealth. They were all highly disturbed beings, throwbacks, who meant to subvert the state and get rid of King James. Church and state, they were sure, must be at one, with fealty to the Pope.
In Westminster Hall, January 27, 1606, there was a trial after a fashion with no real defense. Sir Edward Coke simply outlined the case and asked some questions. For nearly a year, the plotters had been digging a tunnel from a distance, but had found the wall under the House of Lords nine feet thick. They had then got access to the cellar by renting a building. They had planned to kill the king, seize his children, stir up an open revolt with aid from Spaniards in Flanders, put Princess Elizabeth on the throne, and marry her to a papist. Though all but one, Sir Everard Digby, pleaded not guilty, the court, such as it was, condemned them all to death. That same week they were all hanged, four in St. Paul's churchyard, where John Overall, the translator, could have looked on, and four in the yard of the old palace. Among the latter was Guy Fawkes, tall, brown-haired, and with an auburn beard. He was so weak from torture that guards had to help him up to the scaffold. Percy and three others had been killed before while trying to escape, and one had died in prison.
Three months later came the trial of Henry Garnet, a Jesuit, thought to be head of the Jesuits in England. Brought up a Protestant, he knew of the plot but had shrunk in horror from it, though he left the chosen victims to their fate. The court condemned him also to die.
All this concerned the men at work on the Bible. At Garnet's hanging, May 3, in St. Paul's churchyard, John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's, took time off from his translating to be present. Very gravely and Christianly he and the Dean of Winchester urged upon Garnet "a true and lively faith to God-ward," a free and plain statement to the world of his offense; and if any further treason lay in his knowledge, he was begged to unburden his conscience and show a sorrow and detestation [hatred] of it. Garnet, firm in his beliefs, desired them not to trouble him. So after the men assigned to the gruesome duty had hanged, drawn, and quartered the victim, Dean Overall returned to St. Paul's and his Bible task."
(See Gustavs S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 88, retrieved Aug 16, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n109/mode/2up])

I want to highlight the fact that John Overall and his companion went to one of the men who had attempted to murder him, his friends, and his colleagues. He urged him to come to repentance (i.e. "sorrow") for the remission of his sins, which is precisely what Christ told us to preach, and yet, it is rarely preached from the pulpits of church buildings today.
(Read There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:47

In contrast, I want it to be known that, as I read about King James and the KJB translators, the translation of the Bible itself was certainly ordained by God, of which I have no doubts, but to say that all who were among them did good in the sight of God at all times, would be foolish to say the least. Remember, these are men, not gods, and while I agree with many of the doctrines I saw many of them teach, there are other doctrines and practices that I find to be abhorrent based on my understanding of Scripture.

On one hand, some would teach good things, for example, that the practice of making cross symbols (either by a hand gesture, or by ash or oil on one's forehead) was nothing more than idolatry (and indeed it is), but on the other hand, many of these people were still part of the Church of England that was ruled over by the Royal Family because they all still believed in the "divine right of kings," which is a doctrine that any decisions of a king or queen are automatically the will of God for the people. This is a doctrine which I am in heavy disagreement against, namely, because God warned the Jews that they should NOT have a king. (1Sa 8:6-18) However, because they believed in the divine right of kings, it resulted in them adopting the same Catholic hierarchy of religious authority, which Jesus specifically instructed us NOT to do (Mat 20:25-26), and that led to them honoring pagan Catholic holidays like Christmas.
(Read Christmas: Rejecting Jesus & "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Some of their faults were so grievous that, to my great disappointment, I read that presiding Bishop George Abbot, as well as council member Lancelot Andrewes, condemned to death a man named Bartholomew Legate, who was preaching a false "Seeker" doctrine (a branch of the Mennonites) that Jesus was not God in His divine nature, and that he was simply a man that was given a high station. As much as that is a vile heresy straight from the pit of hell, there is no justification in the commandments of Christ for the church to execute such men, and the only reason they permitted this behavior is because they had a fallacious and unbiblical ideology that the church should be united under a single earthly institution (instead of united in the Spirit of Christ as the Scriptures teach us, 1Co 6:17); a road which ends in the same hellish philosophy which brought rise to the Roman Pontiff.

Again, I need to emphasize that these were only men, and although they claimed to have "Doctorates of Divinity," they were no better than you or I. The Lord uses who He wills for His purposes, and I would remind readers that even King David, who was far superior to the men mentioned in this chapter, committed murder to further his own personal agenda (for which God severely punished him); Paul the apostle of Christ hunted Christians for execution before he started his ministry; Peter the apostle, even as a faithful servant of Christ, denied Our Lord three times. Therefore, if we seek flawless men to bring us perfection in Scripture, we not only rely on the wrong source (i.e. we should trust in the Lord alone), but it would also mean that we would never have the written Word of God at all.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm [one who leans on men for spiritual help], and whose heart departeth from the LORD.
-Jeremiah 17:5

Despite some of their religious misconceptions, and aside from their wrongdoings, they had a dedication to the Lord Jesus Christ and a good Christian work ethic, and with the Lord's guidance, they completed a project that would help free Christians from the shackles of religious pretense and pious overlords who pretended to be something greater than fallen men. Though the corruptions of the Church of England still exist today, Christians who studied the King James Bible would go on to tear down the hierarchy the translators' institutions adopted from Catholicism, and now that we have a finished Bible, we can pray for wisdom and understanding from it, and by God's grace, we can go to His Word whenever we have questions about what we ought to do, how we should live, and the way we should speak.

But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
-Matthew 20:25-28

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
-Hebrews 4:12

I think Gustavus Paine said it best because, at the time, some things that were considered "holy," were vanity, and the KJB translators, by the guiding hand of the Lord, laid the foundations for the bride of Christ to free herself from bondage and come to Christ alone:
"They were, we must remember, not writing for themselves. Their qualification for the work was that they could speak with tongues [languages], could converse and say their prayers in the ancient languages. They were writing a Bible to help the people, for those who knew little Latin and less Greek or Hebrew. As churchmen they were in fact working against the rule of the Church [i.e. of England, which gave them title and rank], for reading Scripture would in the long run make men think for themselves and rise in protest. This John Rainolds the Puritan had seen some thirty years before he proposed a new Bible. Among six conclusions which he 'pronounced, expounded and defended in public disputation' at Oxford in 1579 was a statement that 'The Authoritie of the Holy Scriptures is Greater Than the Authoritie of the Church [of England].' In doggerel [non-rhythmic poetic] which began with Moses and the prophets and continued through mention of the Gospels and Epistles, Rainolds concluded:
And these books hath the holy Ghost set sooth for mortal wightes [persons]
That we in counte of faith and light might follow them as lights.
Avant [to the front of an army] all ye, who braine-sicke toyes and fancies vain defend:
Who on humane traditions and Fathers favors depend.
The holy written Word of God doth show the perfect way
Whereby from death to life arise, from curse to bliss we may."
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 170, retrieved Oct 26, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n189/mode/2up])

The KJB was a great demonstration of God's love and mercy on His church. It is with a heavy heart that I have to state the truth, namely, that with the liberty and privilege that God has given our generation through the KJB, blessing us with a great abundance of wisdom and understanding, we have seen countless churchgoers throw the KJB in the trash, willingly tossing aside God's graces, to adopt cheap knock-offs produced by men of corrupt minds.
 

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest [twist, distort], as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
-2 Peter 3:16

There are some churchgoers out there who judge someone's salvation in Christ on whether or not they use the King James Bible, and that is a foolish practice. There are no such indications in Scripture, and if that were true, then how would someone have been saved before the KJB was finished? For that matter, how could someone be saved if they cannot read English?

Salvation in Jesus Christ is through repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of one's sin) and faith in His grace for justification (Mark 1:14-15)—nothing more—and there is enough of that doctrine on the Gospel of Salvation in most existing bible versions for the average reader to understand that message. If a man does not believe that doctrine, then he is certainly not saved, but as a Christian begins to grow in the Lord's education by studying His Word, the use of watered-down, corrupt knock-offs of the Bible can stunt their growth and be harmful to their learning.
(Read Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
-Galatians 5:9

leaven (n): something which corrupts or depraves that with which it is mixed
(See 'leaven', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 26, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

As we learned in the previous chapters, the preserved Word of God in the King James Bible was based on the Majority Text (Textus Receptus or Received Text), which was a collection of thousands of manuscripts in various languages that all agreed with each other. The finished work was also compared with other commonly used bibles used in the 16th century, which were all based on the same Majority Texts. This was done by a council of 54 of the best scholars in all of England (plus replacements for those who died during the process, and also other groups of scholars who analyzed the final product before it was published) who worked for seven years to meticulously translate every word in its proper context.

As we also learned in the previous chapters, the wide variety of bible versions we see today were created based on the Minority Texts, which were all in disagreement with the Majority Texts, and also disagreed with each other. These manuscripts contained thousands (if not, tens of thousands) of errors, selective editing, and omissions, and not only were these modern bible versions built on the foundation of those corrupt manuscripts, but the corrupt versions also rely on each other, which creates a rubber-ruler problem because you cannot use error to correct error.

I would not say that someone sins because they use one of these watered-down versions, but I will argue that they are foolish to be studying from a watered-down version. The Bible tells us that our faith is based on the hearing and understanding of God's Word, therefore, I would also argue that their faith is watered-down.

So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
-Romans 10:17

watered-down (adj): made weaker or less effective
(See 'watered-down', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Let's look at some examples to show how the modern versions are watered-down. The following is a list of abbreviations so you know which versions I am referring to: In each of these examples, I have highlighted the words either omitted or changed in the modern versions versus the King James Bible: In Galatians 4:7, the words "through Christ" are very important because we cannot be an heir of God without going through Jesus Christ alone.

For there is one God, and one mediator between
God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
-1 Timothy 2:5

Some might make the excuse that the concept is still found in other verses, but there are two problems with that, and the first is that the watered-down versions have less ammunition to preach the truth, especially to those Jews who believe that they can be heirs of God without Christ, or to Catholics who think they can use their goddess "Mary" as a mediator. The second problem is the corrupt philosophy, in which a churchgoer or pastor would believe that removing some words from the Bible is "no big deal," when, in fact, it is a very serious matter, and so their excuses demonstrate how careless and lukewarm they are in the handling of 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 which are written in this book.
-Revelation 22:18-19

Paul often preached to the Jews, and that is one of the many reasons Christ is mentioned so much when speaking of the Lord God. If a Jewish person reads from the watered-down versions, they would consider themselves heirs of God, but without Christ, they are not, meaning that the KJB has more verses that rebuke the Jews in their sin and unbelief, while the modern, watered-down versions have less.

This verse provides more evidence of the oneness of God the Father and Christ the Son, but the watered-down versions remove Jesus Christ as the Creator in this passage. As I said earlier, those who defend these corrupt versions will complain that they might be able to find another reference to Christ being the Creator in their version, but once again, this proves the KJB is better (because it has more verses to prove the doctrine), and it exposes the careless, lukewarm attitude of modern version translators concerning the purity of God's Word. At this point, some readers might notice that all these modern versions are almost identical to one another, but different from the KJB, and often, the defenders of these corrupt versions will say that these all agree because they are more accurate. We have to remember that these modern versions are based on the Minority (i.e. corrupt) manuscripts, not the Majority manuscripts which are the preserved Word of God, and that is why all the modern versions echo one another.

Even though there are problems with the 16th century bibles I mentioned in the previous chapter, they were still based on the Majority Texts, and if we look up Colossians 1:14 in those bibles, we will find similarities to the KJB. For example, the Geneva Bible has the words "through his blood" in verse 14:
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, that is, the forgiveness of sins."
-Colossians 1:14, Geneva Bible, retrieved Aug 25, 2023, [https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=col+1%3A14&version=GNV]

The Coverdale Bible also has "through his blood" in verse 14:
"in whom we haue redempcion thorow his bloude, namely, the forgeuenes of synnes."
-Colossians 1:14, Coverdale Bible, retrieved Aug 25, 2023, [https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Coverdale/51/1]

And of course, the Tyndale Bible is the same:
"in whom we have redempcion thurow his bloud that is to saye the forgevenes of sinnes"
-Colossians 1:14, Tyndale Bible, retrieved Aug 25, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/tyn/colossians/1.html]

If you meet churchgoers who believe that the differences between translations is due to one group of scholars being more educated than another group of scholars, it demonstrates their lack of education on the subject of translations, and sadly, there are many so-called "pastors" who have perpetuated that lie. I believe that the scholars behind the modern bible versions are educated men who provide accurate translations of the text they worked on, but they are willingly ignorant that the texts they analyzed were corrupt, and therefore, the modern versions are nothing more than skilled translations of bad texts, which is why Christians ought not to be studying from them. I hope that readers will not be fooled into thinking that the New Living Translation is better on this particular verse because it says "Good News ABOUT Christ," not "the gospel OF Christ." The NLT takes the ownership away from Christ, and just makes it man's word about Him. The word 'gospel' generally means "doctrine," which means that "good news about Christ" is not the same as "the gospel of Christ" because, today, we have hordes of churchgoers who are not ashamed of the "good news about Christ," but they are VERY ashamed of Christ's Gospel (i.e. His doctrine), and most often, they understand little of His Word while shying away from gaining understanding of it because it offends them and makes them uncomfortable.

But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon [quickly] with joy receiveth it; Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
-Matthew 13:20-21
(Read "Jesus Said There Are Many False Converts" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If you were paying close attention, you may have noticed that nearly all the watered-down versions are slightly different in their wording, while the Majority Text bibles are almost identical in their wording. There is another very important reason for this, and that is the greed of filthy lucre (i.e. money) gained through modern copyright protections.

For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.
-Titus 1:10-12

lucre (n): gain in money or goods; profit; usually in an ill sense, or with the sense of something base or unworthy
(See 'lucre', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 26, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Lucre is money, but not just money because the word is often used to refer to money that is obtained by deceptive means. When the KJB says "slow bellies" in this context, it is referring to those who constipate themselves by their overindulgence in food they purchased with all the wealth they received from the poor and needy who they scammed.

In a moment, I will explain some of the deceptive tactics used by the publishers of watered-down versions, but first, let's make sure we understand a little about copyright law. The following quote is an excerpt from a 1991 Supreme Court decision in Feist Publications Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company Inc., issued by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:
"The key to resolving the tension [of copyright dispute] lies in understanding why facts [in this context, information based on actual occurrences] are not copyrightable. The sine qua non [Latin: necessary condition] of copyright is originality. To qualify for copyright protection, a work must be original to the author. See Harper & Row, supra, at 547-549, 105 S.Ct., at 2223-2224. Original, as the term is used in copyright, means only that the work was independently created by the author (as opposed to copied from other works), and that it possesses at least some minimal degree of creativity. 1 M. Nimmer & D. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 2.01[A], [B] (1990) (hereinafter Nimmer). To be sure, the requisite [required] level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, "no matter how crude, humble or obvious" it might be. Id., § 1.08[C][1]. Originality does not signify novelty; a work may be original even though it closely resembles other works so long as the similarity is fortuitous, not the result of copying. To illustrate, assume that two poets, each ignorant of the other, compose identical poems. Neither work is novel, yet both are original and, hence, copyrightable."
-Sandra D. O'Connor, Feist Publications, Inc., Petitioner v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340, Legal Information Institute, retrieved Aug 29, 2023, [https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/499/340]

Due to the nature of creativity (and the limitations thereof when comparing the works of billions of people around the world), the bar is set low for those who are looking to copyright their works, so long as it does not reflect DIRECT copying. Such direct violations of copyright are relatively easy to find because they not only show duplication of content, but also duplication of style and errors, which are often extremely unique to the individual creator. Since the authorship of Scripture is attributed to the Lord God (which He gave to mankind free of charge), the Bible falls under the category of general facts, and the "creative spark" has to come through the changing of some words or phrases (which can contextually change the meaning in some cases).

Other ways publishers secure copyright is by ADDING to the Scripture, which does not mean that they are adding to the words of the verses themselves (although that is done in some cases), but rather, it is the adding of other features. Some watered-down versions change or add punctuation for variety, others include the commentary of a popular, corrupt preacher, or a more recent strategy is to create a "title" to each paragraph marker in Scripture.

For example, there is a paragraph marker between Romans 1:17 and 1:18 in which the following watered-down versions add their unique titles. They claim this helps readers understand the context, but in reality, it is their "creative spark."

NIV: "God's Wrath Against Sinful Humanity"
NASV: "Unbelief and Its Consequences"
NLT: "God's Anger at Sin"
ESV: "God's Wrath on Unrighteousness"
CSV: "The Guilt of the Gentile World"
These are useless additions that serve no purpose except to establish a more legally secure copyright. I predict that there will be much more of this in the future because copyrights only last so many decades before they have to be renewed, and to renew a copyright, there must be some new creative changes, which means there will be an endless amount of additions that will come from the profit-focused, watered-down bible versions.

So one of the ways they add their "creative spark" is to remove Jesus Christ from various verses. The watered-down versions also remove sins from Scripture. The word 'fornication' has a very specific definition:

fornication (n): the incontinence or lewdness of unmarried persons, male or female
lewd (adj): given to the unlawful indulgence of lust; addicted to fornication or adultery
(See 'fornication' & 'lewd', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved June 10, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

There is no logical reason to strip this word out of the Scriptures (or replace it with something less specific), unless we presume that those who edited these Minority Text manuscripts did not like the commandments restricting sexual interaction only to one's spouse. In the Christian Standard Version (CSV), it has a footnote (and the CSV has so many footnotes, you almost have to read footnotes more than Scripture) which says, "Other mss [manuscripts] add sexual immorality."

The word 'fornication' is much clearer and more concise than the phrase "sexual immorality" because "sexual immorality" is not a single word definition, and can be open to personal interpretation. What is "moral" for one person might not be "moral" for another, and what is considered "sex" for one person might not be considered "sex" for another (i.e. moving the goalpost, so they can believe themselves to be innocent of wrongdoing), and the vagueness of this passage leaves readers with the option to create their own standards for what is allowed or not allowed concerning physical interaction with the opposite sex.

The KJB makes it abundantly clear in other passages that fornication (which is also the basis of adultery) is sin:

Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
-1 Corinthians 7:1-2

This is a great verse to define fornication for others, however, the watered-down versions managed to corrupt this passage as well. This verse in each of the watered-down versions does NOT teach that fornication is sin; rather, they simply say that men should have a wife and women should have a husband "because of sexual immoralities" or "because of temptations," meaning that marriage should be done because these things exist, which does not make any sense. Marriage existed BEFORE fornication, and so even though the ASV used the word 'fornications', it is still incorrect philosophically because marriage was not created because of fornication. The phrases in the watered-down versions do not specify that it is wrong to act out on those lusts, even if one is married, but in the KJB, it specifically says that we marry to AVOID fornication altogether, which indicates that it is a thing that should not be done, nor is there any other phrase apart from the word 'fornication' by which someone might attempt to reinterpret it based on their personal lewd preferences. The KJB says that the apostles REJOICED in the church, as well as the church in the apostles:

rejoice (v): to experience joy and gladness in a high degree; to make joyful
(See 'rejoice', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Aug 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

However, in most watered-down versions, it says to be "prideful," which is a sin, and some use the words 'boast' and 'glory', which, in the context of the verse, indicates to have a sense of pride:

pride (v): inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable conceit of one's own superiority in talents, beauty, wealth, accomplishments, rank or elevation in office, which manifests itself in lofty airs, distance, reserve, and often in contempt of others
glory (v): to boast; to be proud of
boast (v): to brag, or vaunt one's self; to make an ostentatious display, in speech, of one's own worth, property, or actions; to glory
(See 'pride', 'glory', and 'boast', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Aug 29, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
-Proverbs 16:18

Though the LORD be high, yet hath he respect unto
the lowly: but the proud he knoweth afar off.
-Psalm 138:6

Pride blinds men to the truth, even if the truth is staring them in the face. This is why a statement like "I'm proud to be an American" is so dangerous because the truth humbles men, while pride blinds them, and prideful Americans are the reason our country got into such a corrupt mess in the first place.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Pride" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Over the years, as I speak with churchgoers, I find them to be extremely prideful in what a pastor has taught them, even when I read Scriptures to them that contradict what their pastor taught. With that understanding, it is no wonder that they act so prideful (without bothering to first do research to find the truth, Pro 15:28) because the watered-down versions they are reading instruct them to be "proud."

As a side note, one of the comical additions to these watered-down versions is from the New Living Translation, which used the word "don't," which is a contraction of 'do' and 'not', but that is an English-specific contraction that is not used in Greek. (Greek has its own contractions called "crasis," but this is not one of them.) The reason this was funny to me is because the NLT publishers, in "A Note to Readers" (i.e. their introduction to their watered-down version), said that their goal was "to create a text that would communicate as clearly and powerfully to today's readers as the original texts," even though people who are still learning English have a harder time reading and understanding contractions; let alone the fact that "don't" is not in the "original texts."
(See New Living Translation, "A Note to Readers," 2004, retrieved Aug 31, 2023, [https://www.bible-researcher.com/nlt2preface.html]) This is an important distinction in the English language because, in this context, the word 'are' is an active present tense, meaning that, by the Lord Jesus Christ, we currently have the washing of regeneration of the Holy Ghost. (Tts 3:5) However, the watered-down versions use 'were', which indicates that it was done in the past, and although that could indicate that it is the same in the present, it leaves open the idea that it may not be the same now as it was then.

Please do not misunderstand my argument on these points because I do not believe that anyone has sat down and read 1st Corinthians 6:11, and then concluded a belief in the false doctrine that one can lose salvation in Christ. However, I do know that corrupt preachers have taught that a Christian can lose his salvation, and once he starts to think that his salvation is not secure in Christ (and he must do works to maintain grace), he can read 1st Corinthians 6:11 from a corrupt version, and the corrupt doctrine will be reinforced in his mind that he can lose his salvation because of the word 'were' that indicates a past event, rather than 'are', which is the present, active state.
(Many churchgoers have been brainwashed by corrupt preachers into believing a heresy that one can lose his salvation in Christ. Rom 8:37-39 They do not understand the doctrine of false converts that Jesus taught many times; Read "Jesus Said There Are Many False Converts" here at creationliberty.com for more details.) Most of the watered-down versions remove the important doctrine that Mary had never known any other man, or in other words, she never had sexual interaction with anyone before she got pregnant. This, of course, means that Jesus was her FIRSTBORN, meaning that she had never given birth to another child, which is an important detail to fulfill the prophecies of the Old Testament, but the watered-down versions remove that detail. The more I have conversations with churchgoers, the more I see them caring very little to change their way of thinking, shape their words, and adjust their actions to be in line with the Word of God. I would love to have more in-depth discussions with them on such topics, but in most cases, I cannot get past initial conversation on simple doctrines because they are brainwashed by tropes from leavened pastors and/or false prophets. It is unsurprising when we consider that the watered-down versions they read from in the leavened church buildings have removed the prophetic commandment that we, the saints of God, are supposed to live our lives in accordance with the Holy Scriptures.

And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.
-Deuteronomy 8:3

It was Jesus Christ who was speaking in verse 47, and therefore, the words "on me" were referring to Christ specifically, so it should start to make sense why there are so many people who think that their general "belief in God" means they are going to heaven, instead of the Biblical doctrine that belief IN CHRIST specifically is the only way to heaven. Of course, some churchgoers will object that they put heavy emphasis on Jesus Christ, but if that is the case, then I would ask them: Why do you use a watered-down bible version that removes that emphasis? All the watered-down versions remove repentance from the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this passage. Again, this is unsurprising to me because repentance is a VITAL part of the Gospel of Salvation in Christ, and most church buildings either do not teach it at all, or they teach it wrong, and if any readers would like to learn more about that, I have a free-to-read book here at creationliberty.com called There is No Saving Grace Without Repentance.

Again, we see contractions (e.g. "don't") coming from both the New Living Translation and the New English Translation. Keep in mind that they do not use contractions to make it easier to understand, but rather, the contractions help them to make their version just different enough to obtain a copyright so they can make more money. This is fascinating to me because, if you read the fifth chapter of John, the first 17 verses are a story about Christ's interaction with a diseased man, and that he was waiting to be healed at the Bethesda pool. At a certain time, God sent an angel to come to the pool and touch the water, and any man who touched the water first would be healed, but the diseased man who Jesus interacted with could not get down to the water in time.

This is a contextual requirement to understand the chapter, and again, I would like to point out how ridiculous the publishers, translators, and editors of these watered-down versions are. They profess to be as close to the original as possible, and to be as easy-to-understand as possible, and yet they completely remove verses that give context for the chapter to be understood clearly. This is the middle of Paul's court trial, in which the Jewish high priest, along with his lawyer, were presenting their false accusations to the governor, and it explains why they did not retain Paul as a prisoner according to Jewish law, while also demonstrating the deceitfulness of their words in comparison to the actual events. (i.e. The Jews were violent against Paul without a cause, and the soldiers arrested Paul to save him from the violent mob and bring him in for questioning.) This is another example of a verse removed which is vital for the context of the chapter, and this should help readers understand that the watered-down versions (which are somewhat accurate translations of the corrupt Minority Texts) do not make the text easier to understand, and disrupts the study of the chapter to cast doubt in one's mind whether or not the Scriptures are true. (Read "Hell is Real And Many People Are Going There" here at creationliberty.com for more details.) (Read "The Beginner's Guide to Christian Rapture" here at creationliberty.com for more details.) There are thousands of examples that could be provided to add to the already damning evidence against the watered-down versions. Hopefully, these few examples will be enough to prove the point and demonstrate to dedicated Christians that, if you want the fulness of the doctrine of God's Word, you should be studying the King James Bible.

As a final note to this chapter, I would like to quote something that was written by Henry Edge, who was a close friend of Satanist Helena "Madame" Blavatsky. Edge was a Theosophist, which is a religion of Satanic occultists, and he wrote a book called Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures.

The word 'esoteric' generally means knowledge that is only known by a small group of people with special interests that is not intended to be shared with the public. As you read this quote, keep in mind what we learned earlier about the Westcott and Hort Greek New Testament released in 1881, along with the Revised Version based on their translation of corrupt manuscripts:
"It is easy to see from the Gospel stories, as also from what we learn about the early Christians from historical sources, that there was a widely-spread idea that Jesus would actually come, and that very soon, in bodily presence and as a conqueror, to overthrow the Roman Empire, destroy the wicked, and set up an earthly kingdom of righteousness... But the Gospel writers do not take all the blame, for they have had translators, who have given matters a further twist in the wrong direction. We need not picture these translators [referring to those who preserved the Word of God in the Majority Texts] as artful villains, for no doubt they were pious and sincere within their lights and believed their own rendering of the Greek test to be adequate. Still, with regard to the particular case about to be mentioned, the learned body of divines and scholars who drew up the 'Revised Version' of 1881 [Westcott and Hort] have not endorsed these earlier translators. [i.e. the Majority Texts] Following the actual Greek text [i.e. the corrupt Minority Texts], they have produced a rendering much more in accord with the view a Theosophist takes of the matter."
-Henry T. Edge, Esoteric Keys to the Christian Scriptures, Point Loma Publications Inc, 1973, p. 38, retrieved Oct 26, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/esoterickeystoch0000henr/page/n41/mode/2up]

It is a wonderous blindness that has fallen on churchgoers, in which they praise the same corrupt versions that Satanic occultists also praise. When Theosophists condemn the KJB, while putting the modern corrupt versions on a pedestal, we know there is a serious problem.
 


Some readers may have noticed that I have not yet mentioned the New King James Version (NKJV), and that is because I wanted to dedicate an entire chapter to explain the problems with it. The Lord Jesus Christ warned us about wolves in sheep's clothing, and that is NOT a warning about wolves specifically because we do not need to be warned about wolves (i.e. we know they are dangerous, and we take precautions against them), but rather, it is a warning about something dangerous that dresses itself up as something seemingly harmless.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
-Matthew 7:15

The NKJV is conceptually the same, meaning that it dresses itself up to be the preserved Word of God, but inwardly, it is an affront against the Gospel of Christ. Many unsuspecting Christians have been fooled into thinking it is simply a modern-day rendition of the King James Bible, and that it is good for study, but in my opinion, it is the most deceptive of all.

Many defenders of the KJB have a hard time understanding that because they think the NIV is the worst of all, but again, it is not the wolf that is the most dangerous because the wolf is not subtle. The NIV is overt in the tens of thousands of alterations it has made, and therefore, it is not subtle in its corruption. The Bible version that would be most dangerous is the one that is dressed up to look like the KJB on the outside.

For example, in Acts, the Lord Jesus Christ is referred to as God's Son, but in the NKJV, it refers to Christ as God's "servant." Just to clarify, a 'son' and a 'servant' are two VERY different things:

son (n): Christ is called the son of God, as being conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit, or in consequence of his relation to the Father
servant (n): a person, male or female, that attends another for the purpose of performing menial offices for him, or who is employed by another for such offices or for other labor, and is subject to his command
(See 'son' & 'servant', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Sept 1, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Christ the Son is not subject to God the Father to perform menial tasks for Him; that is what angels were created to do. God the Father and Christ the Son are ONE.

Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
-John 8:57-58

I and my Father are one.
-John 10:30

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?
-John 14:8-9

Therefore, by calling Jesus Christ the "servant" of God, the NKJV is denying the divinity of Christ. Christ being the Son of God is a position of authority as God, and even though there are other verses where Christ is called the Son in the NKJV, it is missing from some places, and creates a clear contradiction because one cannot hold the authority as the Divine Son of God and be God's "servant" at the same time.

We Christians are both children and servants, but we are not God. Because Jesus is God, the NKJV is calling Jesus a "servant" of Himself, which is nonsensical.

In the KJB, the word 'Godhead' is used in three different places, but in the NKJV, they replaced one of them. In other words, they used the word 'Godhead' correctly in two of the three places, but chose to change it in one verse. While I was looking up these verses in preparation to document them in this book, I started thinking about why they would change it to "Divine Nature" in this passage, when they know full-well that it is "Godhead" in the KJB. They used 'Godhead' in the other two passages, which means they know how that term is supposed to be translated, so why did they change it in one of the verses?

I got to thinking about the meaning of the verse because I have quoted from Acts 17:29 many times in a variety of my teachings, most especially when referring to idolatry because crafting symbolic representations of God is condemned in both the Old and New Testaments. (Exd 20:4) Just when I thought there was no reason to change that word, it then occurred to me that "Godhead" is much different than "Divine Nature" because the Godhead refers to the distinct entities of God (e.g. God the Father, Christ the Son, and the Holy Ghost), while "Divine Nature" could mean many things, like angels, or even the attributes of God, like charity, grace, mercy, etc.
(Read "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Therefore, changing the Godhead into "Divine Nature" in Acts 17:29 detracts from the condemnation of idols, which is something the Catholic Church is known for doing. The NASV is the Catholic-approved version, and I thought I should check out how they changed this verse, and here is how it reads in the NASV:
"Therefore, since we are the descendants of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by human skill and thought."

The Catholic Church has a long history of altering God's Word to cover up idolatry because their religion is packed full of idolatry everywhere you look. In my book, Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism, I demonstrate how the Catholic Church changed the Ten Commandments to exclude idolatry because they use idols all the time. Though churchgoers might have believed the cover story of the NEW King James Version, most of them have no idea that the NKJV authors have abandoned the Received Texts used in the King James Bible and followed the corrupt Minority Texts of the Catholic Church to help them promote their idolatry, and it is so subtle, most churchgoers will absorb the false doctrine without ever noticing the change.

The NKJV also does something strange in Matthew 7: I do not take issue with calling the gate to eternal life "narrow" because the word 'strait' (i.e. it is the same word as 'straight', just spelled differently) generally means "narrow," and in the King James Bible, the Lord Jesus Christ defines 'strait' by using the word 'narrow' in the same manner in the same context. However, the NKJV changes the way to "difficult," rather than strait and narrow, which creates a couple of serious problems.

Of course, the life of a Christian is difficult because of persecution and tribulation from the world, but no one lives a full life on this earth without difficulties. However, the Gospel of Salvation in Christ is repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of wrongdoing) and faith in Christ for the remission (i.e. forgiveness) of sins is NOT difficult; it might be hard for many to do because they love their sin, but it is not a difficult process.

The way to the gate is singular, strait, and narrow because it can only come through repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, which also makes it simple. If only the gate is narrow, and the path to it is not, then that indicates a more universalist philosophy in that people would find their way to the "narrow gate" through various other "difficult" means (perhaps through their own works), rather than having to go down the only narrow path which is through Jesus Christ.

In the previous chapter, we saw that the modern versions change the word 'fornication' into "sexual immorality," which is quite vague and left open to personal interpretation. The NKJV also creates this problem by using the phrase "sexual immorality" in certain passages: In Genesis 22, Abraham's words were a prophecy of Jesus Christ, pointing out that God would provide himself a lamb, indicating that God himself would come to earth to be a sacrifice. However, in the NKJV, it changes the words to "provide for himself," which not only takes away the prophetic reference to Christ, but also indicates that God needs sacrifices for His own sake, even though the sacrifices were always for the sake of men: In Acts 17, when Paul preached on Mars' Hill to the pagans in Athens, he specifically pointed out their superstitions, but the NKJV changes this: Religion, in and of itself, is not necessarily bad; although it depends on what type of religion is being spoken about. Religion can be good, if it is pure religion that is practiced, as the Bible tells us:

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
-James 1:27

However, superstitions are quite a bit different, and many churchgoers today are guilty of living according to them:

superstition (n): excessive exactness or rigor in religious opinions or practice; extreme and unnecessary scruples in the observance of religious rites not commanded, or of points of minor importance; excess or extravagance in religion; the doing of things not required by God, or abstaining from things not forbidden; or the belief of what is absurd, or belief without evidence
(See 'superstition', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Sept 13, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Superstition is not religion itself, and therefore, a condemnation of religious principles (like that of loving God and our neighbor as ourselves, as Christ commanded) would be a direct contradiction to the charitable doctrines of Scripture. Superstitions would go along the lines of forced observation of days and times, the use of the cross symbol to represent Christianity, required abstinence from meats, required money payments to get spiritual benefits, etc.
(Read "Keeping the Sabbath is Not a Christian Requirement," "Tithe is Not a Christian Requirement" and "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

If Paul were to have condemned living religiously, then he would have condemned himself first in Acts 17, but that was not what he did, and the NKJV creates a serious contradiction in that verse. Paul condemned superstitions because he was speaking to the heathen in Athens on Mars' Hill, which was a gathering place for people who worshiped various false gods, and a place where the pagans thought they had to do many rigorous, unnecessary practices in order to "appease" those false gods.

In my opinion, one of the worst offenses of the NKJV is that it condemns Jesus Christ: Some readers might be confused about my accusation because this verse does not mention Jesus Christ at all, but when we understand the definitions of the words, and cross-reference the Scriptures, it condemns Christ. First, let's look at the definitions:

heretic (n): a person under any religion, but particularly the christian, who holds and teaches opinions repugnant to the established faith, or that which is made the standard of orthodoxy. In strictness, among christians, a person who holds and avows religious opinions contrary to the doctrines of Scripture, the only rule of faith and practice

divisive (adj): forming division or distribution; creating division or discord
(See 'heretic' & 'divisive', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 27, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

A heretic is someone who claims to believe on the Word of God, but believes and teaches doctrine and philosophy that oppose God's Word. However, a divisive person is someone who divides one person, place, or thing from another.

Division can be good or bad depending on the context. The church being divided is bad, but a man installing security around the four walls of his home to divide his family away from criminals is good. A nation at civil war, divided against each other, is not good, but a nation that sets up walls and security at its borders, setting up clear division between its land and another country, is good. However, the NKJV says that being 'divisive' in general is automatically evil, and therefore, the NKJV condemns Christ as evil because Christ said that He came to bring division:

Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:
-Luke 12:51

In fact, even the corrupt NKJV says the same, which creates a contradiction:
"Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division."
-Luke 12:51, New King James Version, retrieved Oct 27, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/nkjv/luke/12-51.html]

We are supposed to point out and warn others about those who create divisions that are contradictory to those that Christ taught us, but Christ created division (i.e. sanctification) of His saints. We are supposed to be spiritually divided from the world, and we are supposed to separate ourselves from those who claim to be of Christ while they teach and believe in heresies that war against Christ.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
-Romans 16:17-18

When Jesus preached to the Jews, it caused division, meaning that Jesus was divisive in His doctrine:

There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
-John 10:19

This is why the wording of Scripture is so important because, if treated without care (as has been done in the NKJV), it creates contradictions against Christ. The contradiction in this instance is so egregious, the NKJV accuses Christ of doing evil, when the truth is that there is a good and Biblical division that Christ brought to this world.
(Read "The Biblical Understanding of Sanctification" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

In the preface to the NKJV, the authors state that the King James Bible is a work of utmost precision, which immediately begs the question of why we need a new one if the previous was so accurate and perfect. The NKJV translators go on to say:
"Therefore, while seeking to unveil the excellent form of the traditional English Bible, special care has also been taken in the present edition to preserve the work of precision which is the legacy of the 1611 translators."
-New King James Version Preface, retrieved Sept 7, 2023, [https://www.blueletterbible.org/bibles/preface-to-the-new-king-james-version.cfm]

Despite the fact that they CLAIM to uphold the "precision" of the King James Bible, we just read numerous examples where they did NOT uphold any precision. In fact, their changes created errors, contradictions, and confusion in Scripture; effectively watering down the KJB.

The NKJV authors also argued that they created a version that mimics the King James Bible in "complete equivalence," but in a "readable" language because they believe that the KJB is just too hard to read and understand for most people. So, let's take a look at a comparison between the words of the KJB versus the NKJV, and you can determine for yourself if you think the NKJV is easier to read: After reading these examples, it should be mind-blowing that anyone would claim the NKJV is "easier to read," because it is obviously FAR more difficult to read. Just taking the example of Genesis 18:1, I cannot fathom how the word 'plains' in the KJB is so complicated and difficult to understand, that we need a new bible version to use the words 'terebinth trees' in its place, which I had to go look up on the internet to figure out what it was because I had never heard of the type of Mediterranean tree called "Pistacia terebinthus."

Furthermore, there is a striking inconsistency in the translation process of the NKJV because in Genesis 35, the NKJV translators interpreted 'oak' to be a "terebinth tree," but if you read the entire passage of 1 Samuel 22:6 in the NKJV, it says, "under oaks, poplars, and terebinths," contradicting the interpretation they previously had of oaks in Genesis 35. In other words, they used the word 'oak' and the phrase 'terebinth tree' in the same verse, meaning that there are two different words used for oak and terebinth tree, but NKJV translators took creative license to change it when they felt like it. So the NKJV authors said that an oak is supposed to be a "terebinth tree" (in Gen 35), the plains are supposed to be a plural of "terebinth trees" (in Gen 18), and elms are supposed to just "terebinths" (in 1Sa 22), but they want you to believe their version is "easier to understand."

Do you think these NKJV replacement words will help anyone who is learning the English language to understand the Bible better? Do you think children who read the NKJV will be able to grasp the words more clearly, and find it easier to read?

When I was writing this part of the book, I went into the kitchen to ask my wife if she knew what a 'coney' was (referring to the word the KJB uses in Deut 14:7), and here is how that conversation went:

ME: Do you know what a 'coney' is?
WIFE: Isn't that a type of hare?
ME: What's a hare?
WIFE: It's a rabbit.
ME: Yes, and the KJB in Deut 14:7 uses both 'hare' and 'coney' in the same sentence. The NKJV says "rock hyrax."
WIFE: Huh? What's that supposed to be?
ME: That's supposed to be the simple, easy-to-read bible version you need to gain understanding of Scripture.
WIFE: *scoffs and chuckles*

Even if we just consider the syllables alone, we can see that the NKJV is far more complicated and intended for a much higher reading level than the KJB. A syllable is a single, uninterrupted sound in a word; for example, the word "flow" has one syllable, the word "flowing" has two syllables, and the word "flotation" has three syllables, which shows the increase in difficulty when a word has more syllables.

So in Titus 1, the NKJV changed the 2-syllable, 4-letter word 'riot' into the 4-syllable, 11-letter word 'dissipation', and also the 3-syllable, 6-letter word 'unruly' into the 6-syllable, 15-letter word 'insubordination', which leaves us to wonder what planet these people live on in which they think this would help make the Bible easier to read. If that were not bad enough, in quite a number of cases (listed above), the NKJV translators use not just higher-syllable words, but multiple words to describe one word in the KJB, which makes it even MORE complex. Of course, one might argue that there are some instances in which the NKJV uses one word in place of two words in the KJB, however, this is typically because the two words used in the KJB are single-syllable words. In the list above, you will see Ruth 4:5, in which KJB uses two single-syllable words "raise up" (with a total of 7 letters) whereas the NKJV uses the more complicated, 4-syllable word 'perpetuate' (with a total of 10 letters).

Again, the reason the authors of the NKJV (as well as all the other watered-down versions) had to go this route with more complicated words and phrases is because they need enough change to get a copyright. The problem they have with the King James Bible is that it uses all the best words and phrases, and new versions have nothing left to choose from except words and phrases that are harder to understand, but different enough to get copyright approval.

The authors of the NKJV also say that they will capitalize words referring to God:
"Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalization the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun [i.e. preceding pronoun that is contextually followed by certain actions, labels, or phrases] is not always clear in the English translation."
-New King James Version Preface, retrieved Sept 7, 2023, [https://www.blueletterbible.org/bibles/preface-to-the-new-king-james-version.cfm]

What they mean is that when a word is used to describe God, like "God is our Rock," they will capitalize the 'R' in "Rock" to indicate a divine pronoun. Whether or not they had good intent on this matter is irrelevant because the results are confusing and contradictory.

Here are some examples from the NKJV, and notice that they do it sometimes, but other times, they do not, which can leave readers confused about the passages. Readers of the NKJV might suspect that a place that is clearly referring to God is not referring to God because the NKJV translators did not capitalize the word like they said they would: This last verse (Mat 16:18) brings up an interesting point I need to cover, and that is because, as we saw earlier, the NKJV leans towards the Catholic NASV in a number of places, which supports Catholic heresies. This verse is no different because the "rock" interpreted in this verse is Jesus Christ, but Catholics make the claim that the foundation of the church is Peter, which is nonsense when we look at the context.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias [Elijah]; and others, Jeremias [Jeremiah], or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
-Matthew 16:13-15

Jesus did not ask these questions looking for understanding, nor to see what Peter would say, because Jesus is God and knows all things, including the hearts of men and the answers they will give to His questions. Jesus is asking these questions because he wants them to confess the truth, having faith that He is the Son of God (i.e. Emmanuel, meaning "God with us," Mat 1:23), and therefore, the context of these verses concerns faith that Jesus is the Son of God.

And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God.
-Matthew 16:16

Despite what many other Jews believed, Peter believed that Christ is God, specifically the Son of God, come to earth in the flesh. Again, the context is about faith that Jesus is the Son of God.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
-Matthew 16:17

It was not by Peter's own intellect that he knew Jesus is the Son of God, but God revealed it to Peter because of his humility and faith. Once again, the context in these verses is about faith that Jesus is the Son of God.

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
-Matthew 16:18

The name 'Peter' means "rock," and because of that, the Catholic Church has hinged its 1700 years of corrupt papal hierarchy on the definition of Peter's name. I understand that it may be hard to believe because it seems so absurd, but this is the Catholic Church's primary reasoning for their ridiculous doctrine. Notice that Christ did NOT say, "upon THEE I will build my church," but rather, He said "upon THIS ROCK I will build my church," and because the context is about faith that Jesus is the Son of God, therefore, upon "this rock" (i.e. faith that Jesus is the Son of God) is the foundation (rock) on which Christ will build His church.

The context is very clear, and this simple doctrine can be backed up by MANY verses:

He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father,
my God, and the rock of my salvation.
-Psalm 89:26

He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.
-Deuteronomy 32:4

But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
-Deuteronomy 32:15

Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful,
and hast forgotten God that formed thee.
-Deuteronomy 32:18

To shew that the LORD is upright: he is my
rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.
-Psalm 92:15

The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and let the
God of my salvation be exalted.
-Psalm 18:46

These are just a few examples, but there are many more found in the Bible. Paul also made this abundantly clear:

And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
-1 Corinthians 10:4

However, the NKJV translators chose to keep a lower-case 'r' in "rock" when it came to such an important verse about Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18. Of course, one might argue that the KJB translators did not capitalize it either, but the KJB translators never said they were going to do that; the NKJV translators said they would do it, and therefore, in their watered-down version, they have indirectly made the statement that Jesus Christ is not the Rock of the church.

I became curious how the NKJV translators could be this far off of the KJB because they stated quite clearly in their preface that they were trying to be in "harmony" with the KJB, and had no intention to create something new:
"In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation."
-New King James Version Preface, retrieved Sept 7, 2023, [https://www.blueletterbible.org/bibles/preface-to-the-new-king-james-version.cfm]

With deceptive statements like this, and the tricky title of the "NEW King James Version," they have fooled many people into thinking that this is just an updated version of the Majority Texts completed in the KJB. However, the "Majority Texts" they claim to rely on in the NKJV are actually FRAUDULENT Majority Texts that were created in the 20th century, or in other words, the Majority Texts that the KJB translators (and their predecessors; e.g. Erasmus, Tyndale, etc) relied on are NOT the Majority Texts used by the NKJV translators.

The NKJV translators primarily used something called the Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament, which only used a maximum of about 400 manuscripts in some places, and a minimum of about 13 manuscripts in other places. They did NOT use the 5200 manuscripts of the Majority Texts. Despite the fact that they did not use the Majority Texts to create their Greek New Testament, Hodges and Farstad called it the "Majority Text" anyway, and so when the NKJV authors compared the KJB to this fake "Majority Text," they found about 1800 places where the KJB did not agree with Hodges and Farstad's "Majority Text," fooling many people into believing that the KJB was not accurate.
(See Zane C. Hodges & Arthur L. Farstad, "The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text (Hodges-Farstad GNT)," retrieved Sept 12, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/HFGNT/H-F%20GNT])

The Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament and the Robinson-Pierpont Greek New Testament are the two primary sources used by the NKJV translators, and both of those texts are quite similar to each other, with only a few hundred differences between them. These are both largely based on the Majority Text critique by Hermann von Soden in 1911, which resulted in a departure from the Majority Texts of the King James Bible over 1800 times.
(See Jack A. Moorman, When the KJV Departs From the "Majority" Text: A New Twist in the Continuing Attack on the Authorized Version, Bible For Today, 1988; retrieved Sept 12, 2023, [https://faithsaves.net/majority-text-moorman])

One of the consulting editors of the Hodges-Farstad Greek New Testament is Wilbur Pickering, who wrote a book called The Identity of the New Testament Text, in which he heavily criticizes Westcott and Hort, which we might view as a step in the right direction. However, though he claims to believe in the preservation of God's Word, he stated in his book that he "deliberately avoided introducing any arguments based upon inspiration and preservation" (i.e. there is no reason to avoid that argument if you have that belief, unless there is money and/or clout to be gained), and in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, he made a much more damning statement, when he responded to a man who reviewed his book:


"Most seriously misleading is the representation that I am calling for a return to the Textus Receptus (TR). In the first paragraph of the review we read:
'True progress can be made, Pickering feels, only when scholarship returns to the "majority" Greek text as (usually) represented by the printed TR. Other recent writers have also called for a return to the TR; one thinks immediately of Edward F. Hills, Zane C. Hodges (who wrote the foreword to Pickering's book), T. H. Brown, D. A. Waite, J. J. Ray and David Otis Fuller.'
While men like Brown, Fuller, and Hills do call for a return to the TR as such, Hodges and I do not. We are advocating what Kurt Aland has called the majority text."
-Wilbur N. Pickering, "'Queen Anne...' And All That: A Response," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June, 1978, p. 165-167, retrieved May 2, 2024, [https://web.archive.org/web/20170701145209/https://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/21/21-2/21-2-pp165-167_JETS.pdf]

Kurt Aland was one of the authors of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament, which was another attempt (like that of Westcott and Hort) to revive the Catholic Minority Texts, indicating that their goals were essentially the same; namely, that they wanted people to stop studying the Textus Receptus in the King James Bible. The point is that these people laid the foundation for the NKJV, and not only did they have no intent to preserve the Word of God, but they also fooled the world into believing that their "Majority Text" is the same as those used by the KJB translators, which could not be further from the truth.

When I was a teenager (i.e. a churchgoer before I was saved), I always carried a KJB that I received as a gift from my grandmother. I was convinced to put it down because a Sunday school teacher in the church building my parents attended gave me a NKJV study bible with commentary by Max Lucado.

Back then, I had no information whatsoever on what was being handed to me, or in other words, I had no idea that the teacher was giving me something that was more difficult to read, was based on corrupt manuscripts, and had commentary from a false teacher. (Max Lucado teaches many false doctrines, yokes together with many other false teachers, and bows the knee to leftist, woke ideology.) I also had no idea what the symbol on the front cover of the book was because, when we are young, we generally accept whatever we see as "normal," unless we are informed otherwise.

The following is a scanned image of the version I was given by my Sunday school teacher, and I have highlighted the "Triquetra" symbol on the front cover:


"The Triquetra — from the Latin term for 'three-cornered' — is an early Church symbol of the Trinity and is often found on many editions of the New King James Version of the Bible."
-Richard Wagner, Christianity For Dummies, John Wiley & Sons, 2004, p. 130, ISBN: 9781118069011

It is a common claim from supposedly "Christian" sources that the Triquetra is a "Christian" symbol, but from a Biblical standpoint, there is no such thing as a "Christian" symbol. Even the cross itself is NOT a symbol of Christianity or of Jesus Christ, but mankind uses it as a symbol anyway because they believe (in vanity) that wearing a cross necklace or putting a cross symbol on their church building is a sufficient replacement for understanding the doctrines of Christ.
(Read "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device. And the times of this ignorance God winked at; [i.e. He briefly closed His eyes to the time when men did not having understanding] but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
-Acts 17:29-30

The Triquetra was never an "early church symbol of the Trinity," but rather, it was borrowed from the very pagan idolatry that Paul was rebuking when he preached that in Athens. The Triquetra was used in witchcraft long before Christ came to this world in the flesh, as the following witch accurately says:
"In Christian Ireland and other areas, the triquetra was used to represent the Holy Trinity, but the symbol itself far predates Christianity. It has been speculated that the triquetra was a Celtic symbol of feminine spirituality, but it has also been found as a symbol of Odin in the Nordic lands."
-Patti Wigington, "Magical Pagan and Wiccan Symbols," Learn Religions, retrieved Oct 27, 2014, [https://www.learnreligions.com/pagan-and-wiccan-symbols-4123036]; Wigington is a third-degree High Priestess of Wicca, and is licensed (501c3) Pagan clergy in Ohio.

The only part I disagree with her is that it is far more than just speculation because, if one studies the parts of the symbol, it is quite easy to discern what it means, and it is FAR from anything godly. There are many other Wiccan authors who go into much deeper detail, and I will cover this briefly so Christian readers can understand how offensive it should be (from Christian perspective) for someone to put pagan symbolism on the cover of what they call a "Bible."

To fully understand the triquetra, we need to understand one of the more popular symbols used by churchgoers today, which is the "Jesus fish" they put on t-shirts and bumper stickers. Here is what a churchgoer would typically say when justifying why they use the "Jesus fish" symbol:
"Christians have used the fish symbol — also known as the ichthys (ixthus, icthus) symbol — since the first century... Jesus Christ told His disciples in Matthew 4:19: 'Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.' As the early Christians followed Christ's command to follow Him and lead others to the Lord, the fish symbol became a natural extension of Christ's command and also a way to recognize and identify others who knew the symbol's meaning."
-Creation Tips, "Christian Fish Symbol Explained," retrieved Mar 5, 2015, [https://web.archive.org/web/20160405053147/http://www.creationtips.com/fish_symbol.html]


As is typical with these types of church-ianity websites, they often make statements, but provide no proper research and/or references to back up their statements. The idea that these symbols were used by Christians is based on nothing but conjecture (i.e. a guess based on no evidence whatsoever), and it is based only on a few obscure drawings of a fish shape in some Greek catacombs.

The following author mentions them being common in Rome (the home of the Catholic Church) as well as Greece:


"[I]n the old Roman catacombs, the fish symbol appears frequently. The Greek word for fish is ichthus and the early Christians saw in the letters of this word a monogram summarizing their faith: 'Iesous CHristos, THeou Uios Soter', but the Christian fish sign was the same as that of the Goddess's yoni or Pearly Gate: two crescent moons forming a vesica piscis. Sometimes the Christ child was portrayed inside the vesica, which was superimposed on Mary's belly and obviously represented her womb, just as in the ancient symbolism of the Goddess."
-Allison Sledge, The Quintessential Jesus of Nazareth, AuthorHouse, 2011, p. 133, ISBN: 9781463474195

I do not want to go into explicit details on this subject because I do not find it appropriate, but I am sure that most readers can discern that the two joining circles represent female genitals. The author mentioned the word "yoni," and in Wicca, that word refers to the vagina:


"A magical pass is a hand gesture that a Witch uses to symbolize and therefore invoke specific spiritual energies... Open the thumbs so that they are at a 90-degree angle with the forefinger. Bring the hands together so that the tips of both thumbs and forefingers touch. The hands should meet in front of the body at the genital area. The opening that the two hands create represent the cosmic yoni, a term that refers to the vulva [female genitalia] of the goddess. It is the personification of the female principle in nature."
-Timothy Roderick, Wicca: A Year and a Day: 366 Days of Spiritual Practice in the Craft of the Wise, Llewellyn Worldwide, 2005, p. 26, ISBN: 9780738706214; Image from the same source; Roderick is a psychologist and experienced witch who founded the EarthDance Collective, a group that promotes feminist witches.


"Witches often depict the Goddess in three stages that represent the three phases of a woman's life: maiden, mother, and crone. Celtic art illustrates this tripart nature as three interlocking pointed loops called vesica piscis, which symbolize the opening to the womb."
-Skye Alexander, The Everything Wicca and Witchcraft Book: Rituals, Spells, and Sacred Objects for Everyday Magick, Everything Books, 2008, p. 35, ISBN: 9781440524196; Alexander is an internationally published author with over thirty books on paganism and witchcraft.

And this was not just a symbol used in paganism, but in Islam as well:
"The sign of the fish in the Age of Pisces has been adopted as the symbol of Jesus and Christianity. In history it has appeared in Islamic references and coins, though after centuries of religious wars between Christians [i.e. Catholics] and Muslims, one can understand it is unwelcome in Arab societies. The fish symbol is actually the vesica piscis, which is an almond shaped oval defined by two arcs and symbolizes the vagina."
-Dorothy L. Abrams, Identity and the Quartered Circle: Studies in Applied Wicca, John Hunt Publishing, 2013, ISBN: 9781780992808

I do not recommend looking up too much on the internet when researching this topic because you will end up finding far more sexually explicit things than you might believe, which is why I limited the imagery provided in this chapter. However, I would have Christians be aware that vaginal and phallic symbols are "hidden" in not-so-subtle places all over the world, even in one of the most iconic structures in Washington D.C.

The following image is an aerial view of the Washington Monument in D.C., showing the vesica piscis (vagina) with the phallic symbol (penis) in the middle. It does not take a degree in biology to figure out what that represents:


There is a lot more that could be noted about this, and I have more information here at creationliberty.com in a teaching called "Christian Symbols Are Not Christian" if you want more details. However, the point I am leading up to is that the triquetra is a triple-vesica piscis:
"Also known as a 'trinity knot,' the triquetra is formed from interlocked vesica piscis, marking the intersection of three circles. It has been found on runestones in Northern Europe and on early Germanic coins. It is similar to the valknut, a symbol associated with Odin... Modern Wicca and neo-pagan groups use the symbol for a variety of concepts and mythological figures."
-Kimberly Daniels, The Demon Dictionary: An Expose on Cultural Practices, Symbols, Myths, and the Luciferian Doctrine, Vol. 2, Charisma Media, 2014, p. 23-24, ISBN: 9781621365563


Just to clarify, the triquetra represents three interlocking vaginas:
"[T]he triquetra [is] an ancient emblem of three interlocked vesica piscis symbols, marking where three circles intersect. The triquetra is a very ancient symbol, associated with Neolithic and early Celtic mother goddesses, most likely an emblem of the intertwined domains of earth, ocean, and sky."
-Jennifer Emick, The Everything Celtic Wisdom Book: Find Inspiration Through Ancient Traditions, Rituals, and Spirituality, Adams Media, 2008, p. 109, ISBN: 9781440521706; Emick is an author for About.com's most popular source on Celtic spiritualism.

The following author, who is a shaman of Kali Maa and Persephone, does a number of visualization exercises and breathing techniques, while using triquetra symbolism and chants to "the ancient trinity" of his witchcraft:
"If your eyes are closed, open them. With your power hand, trace a shining triquetra of light before you, saying: 'By land, by sky, by sea...' Hold your hands out, as if channelling more light into the symbol, and chant: 'By the ancient trinity...' Open your arms to enfold and embrace the triquetra into your body and being, and, as you physically move your hands back to your heart and absorb the power of this conjured light, say, 'All three realms align within me.'"
-Gede Parma, Ecstatic Witchcraft: Magick, Philosophy & Trance in the Shamanic Craft, Llewellyn Worldwide, 2012, p. 37, ISBN: 9780738733777; Parma is a witch, international teacher of new initiates into shamanistic craft, and claims to be a devotee of Kali Maa and Persephone.

As I said, there is a lot more information than what I have provided here, but I hope this will be enough to prove the point. Some have said that it is a flimsy argument against the NKJV to point out the symbolism they used on the cover, especially since a lot of modern printings of it have removed the triquetra, but the fact that the Bible tells us not to do such idolatrous things, and they did it anyway, it shows that the people who worked on the NKJV do not have much understanding of Biblical doctrine.

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
-Exodus 20:4-5

.

So far, we have learned that the KJB translators analyzed far more manuscripts and used far more scholars in their work than any modern-day version. We also learned that the modern versions use the corrupt Minority manuscripts, making them accurate translations of corrupt texts, and that they contain many errors and omissions, which make them confusing and difficult to study.

If that were not bad enough, numerous contradictions are found in the watered-down versions which cannot be solved by a change of grammar. Since the modern versions rely on Westcott and Hort, that means they are going to have the same contradictions in them, which are difficult to discern for newer Christians who have not had a lot of experience studying the Bible.

contradiction (n): an assertion of the contrary to what has been said or affirmed; direct opposition; inconsistency with itself
(See 'contradiction', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Sept 19, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

When it concerns matters of truth, a contradiction to truth is a lie because there cannot be multiple truths. For example, if you were to say that you are reading this book and not reading this book at the same time, one of those statements is objectively false, which makes it a lie.

lie (n): a criminal falsehood; a falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception; an intentional violation of truth
(See 'lie', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Sept 19, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have
put off the old man with his deeds;
-Colossians 3:9

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
-Romans 13:9

In centuries past, the people had incomplete Bibles due to the efforts of the Catholic Church to keep the Word of God out of the hands of the common people, but the KJB project was initiated because Christians were not satisfied with errors and contradictions in common bible translations. It would be a blasphemous thing to say the omniscient (i.e. all-knowing) God contradicts Himself because Scripture tells us that God CANNOT lie; rather, it is only man and devils who lie.

In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot
lie, promised before the world began;
-Titus 1:2

I have no problem with a man who makes an error and chooses to correct it, but in this chapter, I will show contradictions in the watered-down versions, which they claim to be "truth." God is perfect in all His ways, which means His Word will have no contradictions or mistakes, and because God and His Word are one, and because His Word is timeless, therefore, it is important for us Christians to study the non-contradictory King James Bible.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.
-John 1:1

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but
my words shall not pass away.
-Matthew 24:35

  This is a common accusation by modern scoffers, who arrogantly think they have a leg to stand on because they refuse to consider the foundational corruption of their watered-down versions. They believe that their modern versions "correct" the KJB in Acts 12, and we can see an example of this from leavened preacher Mark Long:
"The word 'Easter' is only found in one scripture in the entire King James Bible. Other translations have thankfully corrected this mistake."
-Mark L. Long, Misplaced Loyalty, Xlibris Corporation, 2009, p. 157, ISBN: 9781441589118

Leavened pastor Carl Gallups also wrote:
"Another obvious mistake made by the KJV translators occurs in Acts 12:4. The word 'Easter' is used."
-Carl Gallups, pastor of Hickory Hammock Baptist Church, "Why the King James Version CANNOT be the ONLY TRUE 'inspired version' of God's Word," retrieved Sept 14, 2023, [http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/kjva1.html]

These are just a couple of examples, but there are many more modern scoffers who make similar claims. Let's look at this in more detail, and we will begin by reading Acts 12:4 in the King James Bible:

And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
-Acts 12:4

In chapter four, I mentioned William Tyndale (1494-1536, student of Erasmus) who was executed by Emperor Charles V (in league with the Catholic Church) for his faith and effort to bring the Word of God to the people in the common tongue, and he was one of the predecessors whose labor led up to the work done by the KJB translators. Tyndale was also the man who invented the word 'Passover' because, at the time, there was no single-word English equivalent for the Hebrew celebration.

Tyndale's word made sense because the Passover feast concerns the prophecy of the first coming of Jesus Christ. The Spirit of God "passed over" the houses of the people, both Hebrew and Egyptian, and only those who put the blood of a lamb on their door (symbolic of the blood of Christ on our souls) were spared from having their firstborn killed.

For the LORD will pass through to smite the Egyptians; and when he seeth the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, the LORD will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite you.
-Exodus 12:23

Despite the fact that modern scoffers falsely accuse the KJB of error, it is interesting to note that the Tyndale Bible (obviously translated by William Tyndale) also uses the word 'Easter' in Acts 12:
TYNDALE BIBLE: "And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people."

So the man who invented the word 'Passover' said that Acts 12:4 should be translated "Easter," and the KJB translators (who were the top of the world's leading Christian scholars in that day, who analyzed all the Majority Texts at the time) said it should be "Easter," but the modern scoffers (who prefer the corrupt Minority Texts) say that they are all wrong. So how do we tell who is right or wrong? In my opinion, the best way to determine who is right or wrong about the translation of a word in a certain passage is to look at the context and use correlating Scripture to verify it.

Let's go back to the Old Testament and learn the details surrounding the Passover celebration:

In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the LORD'S passover.
-Leviticus 23:5

In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.
-Exodus 12:18

According to Scripture, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan (which is a Jewish calendar month that coincides with March-April) was the Passover, in which Jews were to kill a lamb and eat it on the celebration day. For a full week after that (15th-21st), they were supposed to eat "unleavened bread," and that week is called the "Days of Unleavened Bread."

Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
-Exodus 12:15

Again, we see in Exodus 12 that the 15th-21st is "the feast of unleavened bread." The Bible clearly makes a distinction between the day of Passover, and the Days of Unleavened Bread, and we also need to understand this context to interpret Paul's teaching to Corinth:

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
-1 Corinthians 5:7-8

Neither I, nor Paul, are teaching that we Christians are to observe the days and times of the Passover feast (Gal 4:9-11), but that the Passover celebration was prophetic, and having been fulfilled in Christ, we (i.e. Christ's church) should purge out wickedness and iniquity from His Church. The shed blood of the Passover lamb was completed by Jesus Christ, and what follows is the dispensation of unleavened bread, meaning that the church under the New Covenant in Christ should live according to His principles of charity, mercy, patience, meekness, and all manner of goodness in sincerity and truth.
(Read "Should Christians Observe Jewish Passover?" at creationliberty.com for details.)

And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the LORD: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
-Leviticus 23:6

So what we have learned from Scripture is that there are eight total days represented for the Passover celebration, the first day being the Passover feast, and the following seven days being the Days of Unleavened Bread. With that proper contextual understanding from Exodus, let's go back and analyze Acts 12 once more, starting in verse one:

Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) [i.e. Passover had already passed.] And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
-Acts 12:1-4

This is more evidence that the King James Bible is the preserved Word of God because, as you can see, the corrupt versions have changed the word and created a contradiction: The NLT authors thought they could trick people into thinking their version was better by saying that it was "during the Passover celebration," but we just learned that the Passover celebration was a total of eight days with two parts (i.e. one day of Passover and seven days of Unleavened Bread). Therefore, in the attempt to cover their tracks, they made the text wrong, and it does not matter how "easy to read" an error might be, it is still an error.

There are some churchgoers that may try to argue that the entire eight-day celebration was Passover instead of just one day, and if you meet someone like that, they likely use a New Living Translation. Simply ask them to prove that to you in Scripture, so you can catch them in their ignorance because the Bible specifically points out that the Passover celebration is separately labeled as one day, and the Days of Unleavened Bread are a week-long event that follow.

And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Israel went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Egyptians.
-Numbers 33:3

And they did eat of the old corn of the land on the morrow after the passover, unleavened cakes, and parched corn in the selfsame day.
-Joshua 5:11

And the NLT in Joshua 5 also affirms this, proving that their version has contradictions:
"While the Israelites were camped at Gilgal on the plains of Jericho, they celebrated Passover on the evening of the fourteenth day of the first month. The very next day they began to eat unleavened bread and roasted grain harvested from the land."
-Joshua 5:10-11, New Living Translation, retrieved Sept 15, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/nlt/joshua/5.html]

If Herod were to wait until after Passover to kill Peter, as the watered-down versions have asserted, then he would have had to wait another full year, but that obviously makes no contextual sense because the Jews wanted Peter executed as soon as possible, and there was political motivation for Herod to fulfill their wishes. However, there was a celebration going on at the same time that was a big pagan party in the Roman Empire, and that was the Easter celebration of the moon goddess giving rebirth to the sun god (which is why Easter is celebrated at the full moon each year, which is also why the date changes every year); therefore, the context is that Herod did not want to interrupt the pagan celebration and sinful fun of the masses (which would have provoked their wrath), so he waited until after Easter was over to appease the Jews.

This is part of the reason why there are so many leavened pastors that support changing "Easter" to "Passover" in this passage; namely because, according to them, Easter is a celebration that is supposedly about the "resurrection of Jesus Christ," but if that were true, then the use of the word 'Easter' in this context would contradict the timeline for Easter to have become a so-called "Christian" celebration. (i.e. It was far too early for that to have happened, and therefore, the KJB contradicts their narrative.) The truth is that Easter was always a pagan celebration, and it was the corrupt Roman Catholic Church that attempted to "Christianize" vile pagan ideologies, which have now been adopted by lackadaisical, lukewarm churchgoers as a so-called "Christian" holiday, when in fact, it is not, and if any readers would like to learn more about that, there is a teaching here at creationliberty.com called "Easter: Christians Celebrating Abomination" where you can get more details.

If we read Acts 12 carefully, we can see that it does not make any sense for Herod to put sixteen soldiers ("four quaternions") to guard one prison cell for an entire year. The only way this makes sense in the context of this passage is if the celebration that was talked about was the Easter celebration of the pagans in the Roman Empire.

If any readers decide to have a discussion with a pastor about this, I will warn you that they will likely attempt to argue that their lexicon/concordance says that the word in Acts 12:4 is "passover" because the Greek word used is pascha, which they will tell you means "passover." Please keep in mind that most pastors do not know any Greek or Hebrew, so when they try to convince you what "the original Greek" or "the original Hebrew" says, in most cases, they do not know what it says either (i.e. they only took an introductory course in Greek/Hebrew in their so-called "Christian" college), and they certainly do not know any Koine Greek (i.e. the ancient version of Greek the epistles were originally written in), but they want you to believe that they know Greek/Hebrew so they can maintain an appearance of prestige and intellect.
(Read "The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances" & "The 'Original Greek' Scam" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Based on my understanding, the word pascha is used in Scripture 29 times, and of those 29, 28 are used to refer to the Passover feast, but only once is the word used for Easter. Although the modern scoffing churchgoers and pastors want to condemn the KJB on that basis, in their willful blindness they missed the fact that there is no Greek-equivalent word for Easter either.

In that day, Rome celebrated their Easter feast around the same time the Jews celebrated their Passover feast, and so when writing down the word for that celebration in Greek, the authors of the epistles had to use something readily available to identify it, so those who read their epistles would know what it was. There was no other available word to use for the celebration at the time, except pascha, because the word 'passover' would not have been invented by Tyndale for another 1500 years.

If you find yourself in such a discussion with a pastor who is adamant in defending his watered-down version, he will likely assert that pascha is NOT the Greek word for "Easter." I would recommend that you ask him: What IS the Greek word for "Easter?"

That will likely stump him because, as I just said, most of them do not know any Greek. The answer is that there is no answer because there is no Greek word for "Easter."

To further demonstrate this point to those of you who want to learn the truth about this matter, and how many websites and books out there lie to people to say that pascha is not used as a word for "Easter," I started thinking that there must be some word that the Greeks use for Easter today. After all, it is a popular celebration around the world, which means there must be some word they use for it. So I went to translate.google.com, which has a translator from English to Greek, and I decided to enter in the title of my teaching, "Easter: Christians Celebrating Abomination," and let it translate the phrase so I could see what they use for the word 'Easter', and this was the result:

(See for yourself via this link: [https://translate.google.com/?sl=en&tl=el&text=Easter%3A%20Christians%20Celebrating%20Abomination&op=translate&hl=en])

Notice the word Πασχα is used for "Easter." Πασχα is Páscha. Despite what a pastor or a concordance tries to get you to believe, when a Greek-speaking person wants to say "Easter," they use the word pascha; thus, the only way to know which definition is being used is by looking at the context of Scripture, which tells us that 'Easter' is the correct interpretation.
(Read "The 'Original Greek' Scam" here at creationliberty.com for more details on why Christians should not rely on Greek grammar dictionaries and lexicons to interpret the Bible for them.)

Some readers might also encounter strange preachers who use the KJB, but teach that the word 'passover' means "Easter," which is simply not true. For example, false preacher Steven Anderson teaches that nonsense, but not only does he make the Bible wrong by teaching this erroneous interpretation, the reason he secretly does this is because he participates in the pagan Easter celebration and thinks it is a so-called "Christian" holiday, or in other words, he lies to his audience so he can justify his effort to slap a "Jesus" sticker onto pagan worship and call it "good."
(Read "Wolves in Costume: Steven L. Anderson" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
-Isaiah 5:20-21

Over the years, I have received a few letters from disgruntled churchgoers who have told me that I should not study the KJB, and instead, I should study the Geneva Bible (GB), which I covered in chapter four. I pointed out that the GB has errors, and this is another example of why I do not use the GB because it also changed 'Easter' to 'Passover' in Acts 12, which means the GB has contradictions:
GENEVA BIBLE: "And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to be kept, intending after the Passover to bring him forth to the people."

What is mind-blowing on this point is that it is often the Puritans/Calvinists that try to defend the GB, and the reason I say that is because, in chapter four, we also learned that John Rainolds was the first man who requested the commission for what would become the KJB, and he was a Puritan/Calvinist. Rainolds, at the time he made the request to King James, had access to the GB, and he rejected it, as did many other Puritans/Calvinists in that day, because they knew it had errors and contradictions, but today, brainwashed Puritans/Calvinists continue to defend that which was originally rejected by the Puritans/Calvinists.   According to the timelines given in Scripture (based on the genealogical records), this planet, as well as the entire universe, was created in six days, roughly 6,000 years ago. However, there are many corrupt religious cults in the world that have adopted the absurd evolutionary dogma of "billions of years," and therefore, they reject the idea that the world (as well as the entire universe) was created by the Lord God (and our Lord Jesus Christ, Col 1:16) in six days.
(Read "Evolutionism: Another New-Age Religion" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
-Exodus 20:11

And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
-Genesis 1:5

This phrase is very significant because the KJB points out "THE" first day, along with the evening and morning. If I was sitting in the passenger seat while you were driving a car in highway traffic, and I said "look at a car," you may be confused because there are many cars, but if I said, "look at THE car," you would look around for a specific car, or even look for me to point one out in particular because you know by my usage of the word THE, which is a definite article, there is a unique object I am pointing out.

Likewise, pointing out THE first day is significant because it indicates a specific day, which is the first of all days. If God were only to say "one day," then the significance is gone, and it could mean any day at any time, being left open to interpret it however one personally pleases.

Though some versions use "the first day," they also put the words 'day' and 'night' in quotation marks, which could indicate God speaking, or it could indicate that it is not a literal "day" or "night," but might be referring to something else. In the watered-down versions, it might be "the first day," but only the first day that it was "called" a day, and not literally the first day of the creation, like when the NLT says it was only "marking" the first day.

They also remove 'the' from the words 'morning' and 'evening', which indicates that the morning and evening of that day are not unique, as they would have to be if they were the first of all mornings and evenings. The Christian Standard Version goes so far as to suggest that it was "an evening" and "a morning: one day," keeping the phrases as vague as possible, so it could be interpreted to be eons of time.

Some readers might believe that this wording does not make much difference, but there are a significant number of churchgoers who believe in something called the "gap theory" or "day-age theory" of creation, in which they think that there were long periods of time (i.e. millions or billions of years) between each "day" of Genesis, because they do not take the word 'day' to mean a 24-hour period of time. Let's go back to Exodus 20 again, and I will demonstrate why the wording is important:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
-Exodus 20:8

This is the covenant God made specifically with the Hebrews in that day. They had strict rules about what they were supposed to do, or rather, not do, on the Sabbath day, which was one day out of the seven-day week.

Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
-Exodus 20:9

How many days were the Jews supposed to work? Six million years? Six billion years? Or six days during the work week?

But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
-Exodus 20:10

So were the Jews supposed to work 6 million years and rest a million? Even a child knows that is nonsensical, and this is obviously referring to the typical work week we still experience today.

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
-Exodus 20:11

The Lord told the Jews that they were to work six days and rest one day each week because He created the world in six days and rested one day during the creation week. This is not rocket science. It is a contradiction for someone to claim that God used millions or billions of years to create the world, when He clearly said He did it in six days.

Perhaps some readers think the wording will not make much difference, but if you ever do research on those who teach the "gap theory" or "day-age theory," you will be hard pressed to find one who uses the KJB. They tend to prefer the modern, watered-down versions because their wording fits the narrative they want to support their heresies.

For example, Richard Deem is what some people refer to as a "theistic evolutionist," which is a fancy term for a fake Christian who tries to reinterpret the Bible into their own image by mixing evolutionism into the Scripture. He uses the 1995 NASV, which says, "there was evening and there was morning, one day," and that helps him justify his preconceived evolutionary belief:
"I believe in what has been called the "day-age" interpretation of Genesis one - that is, that each "day" is actually a long period of time during which God created life."
-Richard Deem, "Does Genesis One Conflict with Science? Day-Age Interpretation," Evidence For God, retrieved Nov 4, 2014, [https://web.archive.org/web/20220517042621/https://godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html]

This is why it is important to have a Bible that is pure. It would be impossible to ascertain how many people have been deceived by leavened preachers like Deem, and by the watered-down versions he has used to spoon feed them his ideological poison.   As we learned earlier in Titus 1:2, God "cannot lie," and therefore, since Jesus Christ is God (John 10:30), He cannot lie. However, the watered-down versions make Jesus into a liar in John 7, concerning the Jews' feast of tabernacles, when Jesus told His disciples:

Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Galilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
-John 7:8-10

The Jews would have taken Christ and stoned Him to death if given the opportunity, but it was not yet time for Him to die, so He remained behind, telling them that He would not go up "YET." Christ later came to the feast in secret so that no one would recognize Him; however, in the watered-down versions, Jesus lied to His disciples by telling them that He would NOT go up, but He did it anyway. Jesus taught us that our yea should be yea, and our nay should be nay, meaning that if we say we will do something, we should do it, and if we say we will not do something, we should not do it:

But I say unto you, Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: Nor by the earth; for it is his footstool: neither by Jerusalem; for it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
-Matthew 5:33-36

There are many people who make excuses when they give their word and do not keep it. They might say that they did not "promise" to do it, or they did not "swear" they would do it, but these things come of evil, meaning that they are selfish excuses made by men who are liars at heart because they have no concern for the damage and grief they cause others by their lies.
(Read "God Does Not Justify Lies" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

A lying tongue hateth those that are afflicted by it;
and a flattering mouth worketh ruin.
-Proverbs 26:28

Paul preached that his word to Corinth was the same as with the Lord, namely, that he would keep his word, just as he said that the Lord Jesus Christ kept His:

When I therefore was thus minded, did I use lightness? [i.e. Did I not take my word seriously?] or the things that I purpose, do I purpose according to the flesh, that with me there should be yea yea, and nay nay? But as God is true, our word toward you was not yea and nay. For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea.
-2 Corinthians 1:17-19

Therefore, not only do these watered-down versions teach false doctrine that Jesus is a liar, but they also teach people it is acceptable with God to give your word and not keep it. When someone reads these passages, they will think that if Jesus lied about what He was going to do, then it is okay for them to lie about what they will do. With that understanding, it is no wonder I have, over the course of my lifetime, seen so many churchgoers who do not care about keeping their word.

There are many alleged "contradictions" that skeptics claim are in Scripture, but there are no contradictions in Scripture. I will not be addressing those arguments in this book, however, because those arguments can be answered from both the KJB and the watered-down versions.

These are just a few examples to demonstrate the difference between the watered-down versions and the KJB. Although most of the alleged "contradictions" made against Scripture are not contradictions at all, the KJB is the only book that has NO contradictions because it is the perfect and preserved Word of God.



.

As I pointed out in previous chapters, modern scoffers attack the King James Bible on the basis that, according to them, it is "harder to read," which means "harder to understand." This is simply not true, and over the years, as I have listened to people make what they think are compelling arguments, I can see how they manipulate the masses, fooling them into believing something that has no merit to back it up.

The scoffers typically use the language of the KJB as a means to attack it, and they usually begin by making people believe that the words 'thee' and 'thou', and the suffixes 'eth' and 'est', are so difficult to understand, that the average English-speaking person could not process the information. So what the scoffing scholars do is remove the "difficult" words (like 'thee' and 'thou'), and replace them with "you," but unbeknownst to the average person, they just made the text more difficult to read and understand.

Compacting and consolidating words has become a habit that has plagued the United States, and with the invention of things like texting and social media messaging, the average American's education in the application of the English language has fallen drastically over the past 30 years. For example, in modern American English, we use the word "you" to represent all singular and plural pronouns, and without a bit of visual or written descriptive context, it is sometimes impossible to know who is being addressed by just simply saying "you."

The word 'you' is a personal pronoun, which means a word that represents a person. For example, if I write out the sentence "I have written this book about the KJB," the word "I" stands in place of "Christopher Johnson," and I created the following visuals to help understand how English pronouns are used:


Singular personal pronouns refer to one person. Plural personal pronouns refer to a group of people or objects:


Let's look at a passage out of John 3 to learn how these words have been applied in the KJB. A Pharisee named Nicodemus asked Jesus how a man could be born again:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
-John 3:5-8

So in verse seven, Jesus said "Marvel not" (which means "do not be surprised") "that I said unto THEE," and if we check the diagrams I have provided, we can see that 'thee' is a 2nd person singular pronoun, meaning that Jesus is addressing Nicodemus in the first part of the sentence. In the second part of the sentence, Jesus said "YE must be born again," and if we look at the diagrams, we can see that 'ye' is a 2nd person PLURAL pronoun, meaning that Jesus is speaking to a group of people, which would be those who he was teaching this doctrine, and that would be the nation of Israel.


Now let's compare that to the watered-down versions: In most of the watered-down versions, you cannot know for certain who Jesus is speaking to because 'you' could mean just Nicodemus, and if that were the case, one might question if it was only Nicodemus that had to be born again. However, the KJB rightly distinguishes who is being spoken to when Jesus preaches that "ye must be born again;" namely, all those who will be saved in Christ must be born again.

Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently: Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
-1 Peter 1:22-23

Keepeth, goeth, and walketh, or keepest, goest, and walkest; these words are said to be "hard to understand," and yet, we commonly know the words 'keep', 'go', and 'walk', which are not hard to understand at all. The corrupt modern versions may give lip service to the KJB by calling it "beautiful poetry," and claim they removed these "difficult" words for clarity, but the suffixes 'eth' and 'est' have nothing to do with poetry.

The modern scoffers condemn the KJB on this point instead of educating readers that these words give us MORE contextual understanding than the watered-down versions. These suffixes are placed onto verbs (a word indicating an action) because they help point to the noun that is performing the action of the verb.


Using this chart, let's analyze John 3 again. Notice that when the KJB uses the suffix 'est', it is referring to the person being spoken to (i.e. Nicodemus), and when the KJB uses the suffix 'eth', it is referring to a third person, which in the case is the noun "wind."


Of course, the modern scoffers will complain that these details do not matter, and that they convey the information well enough in their watered-down versions, but the problem is that it often requires them to use verbiage (i.e. an excess of words). That verbiage also requires more syllables, which (as we covered in chapter six) makes it harder to read, and therefore, harder to understand.

In 1948, an algorithm was created that is known today as the "Flesch-Kincaid Test," which somewhat helps determine a level of reading difficulty for a given text. Although this test is not a completely accurate examination that can account for things like spelling and context, it does provide a general difficulty score that relatively reflects an average level of reading comprehension that one might expect.

The Flesch-Kincaid method provides a score based on the following formula:

206.835 - 1.015 x ( Total Words / Total Sentences ) - 84.6 x ( Total Syllables / Total Words )
The score will be between 0-100, with 100 being the easiest to read, while 0 is the hardest to read. The conversion rate is designed to place a 70-80 score in a roughly 7th-grade reading level.

One of my personal difficulties with the Flesch-Kincaid method is that it bases the results on a "grade school" reading level, which is nebulous. (i.e. It is not well understood exactly what should or should not be a reading level for a particular grade.) What might be considered a "7th-grade reading level" in an American public school is closer to a 5th-grade reading level for a privately-schooled student, or a 4th-grade reading level for a home-schooled student, and furthermore, reading levels for 7th-grade public educated students in 1948 were substantially higher than they are today, which means that, no matter how you rate the reading levels, it is always subjective.

That being said, let's look at a sample from the first five verses of John 1 to compare the corrupt versions with the KJB. Here are the Flesch-Kincaid results, and remember, the higher the score, the easier it is to read: So what we can see from this is that there is not much difference at all between the versions (including the KJB) in terms of reading difficulty. Though some are a bit higher and some lower than the KJB, it is nothing significant enough to claim that the other versions are "easier to read."

I checked on a number of passages in the book of John, and the results were the same. Sometimes, the KJB scored slightly higher, while in other passages, some of the watered-down versions scored slightly higher, and there are Flesch-Kincaid calculators online where you can test this for yourself if you want to see results from specific verses.
(See Good Calculators, "Flesch Kincaid Calculator," retrieved Sept 22, 2023, [https://goodcalculators.com/flesch-kincaid-calculator/])

This provides some evidence that the modern version translators are lying about their versions being "easier to read" because, based on this analysis, they are roughly the same. However, there was a strikingly large difference when I analyzed other books of the Bible. Some of these versions were substantially lower than the KJB. A few were about the same, but these numbers dropped so low, it took the KJB's 5th-grade reading level in the book of Genesis, and turned it into a 6th-grade reading level.

I wanted to look at more books in the Old Testament to see if the results varied, so I moved on to Exodus. I skipped the first four verses of genealogy (which is difficult reading for all ages, no matter what version is read) and used a sample of verses 5-9, and please remember that the lower the score, the harder it is to read: The KJB maintained the 7th grade level, while the NIV, RSV, ESV, and NET went to the 8th-9th grade levels. The CSV was so bad in this sample, they push readers into the 10-12th grade levels, making their so-called "easier to read" version a high school graduate reading level, compared to the KJB's middle school level. This was very interesting to me because this is the first instance in which I had seen the KJB end up with a significantly lower score than all the versions I analyzed. Because we have learned in previous chapters that the KJB translators had a better understanding of Scripture than the modern scoffers, and because the watered-down versions are based on corrupted manuscripts, I had to investigate the reason for the drastic change in score.

After reading and carefully considering the context of the first five verses in Leviticus, I found that the KJB was not any more complicated than the modern versions, but there is one phrase that seemed to make all the difference in the Flesch-Kincaid score, and that is the phrase "tabernacle of the congregation," which all of the modern versions render as "tent of meeting," which obviously has fewer syllables. As an experiment, I changed the KJB's phrase with the phrase of the modern versions, and the KJB then came out with the same Flesch-Kincaid score, which indicated that the entire reason for the decrease in score was from that phrase alone. If it was just a "tent of meeting," then why did the KJB translators not just write it that way to make things simple?

The reason for this is because the first time the word 'tabernacle' is used in Scripture is in Exodus 25:9, and for the next 15 chapters, God goes on to give specific instructions on how this tabernacle was to be constructed. It is true that the outer structure was a tent, but just because the tabernacle was inside of a tent, does not automatically mean that the tabernacle was the tent itself.

For example, in Exodus 26, the word 'tent' is used separately from the word 'tabernacle':

And the remnant that remaineth of the curtains of the tent, the half curtain that remaineth, shall hang over the backside of the tabernacle.
-Exodus 26:12

It says that the tent would "hang over the backside of the tabernacle," which means one can be in the tent, and NOT be in the tabernacle because the tabernacle was an extremely important structure that was distinct from the rest of the tent. The tabernacle is where the Ark of the Covenant was to be kept, and that is where the Holy Ghost of the Lord would dwell among the people and communicate with the prophets.

If we look at the watered-down versions in Exodus 26, they confirm this as well: As I read and compared the Scriptures of Exodus in both the KJB and the modern versions, I found that ALL of the modern versions used the word 'tabernacle' and 'tent' separately in the last 15 chapters, so that tells us that the translators of the modern-day versions knew they were separate entities. However, when they get to Leviticus 1, suddenly, they change the tabernacle to a "tent," which is incorrect because the tabernacle is where the Lord communicated with the children of Israel.

The KJB is correct in its translation of Leviticus 1 because God spoke to Moses in the TABERNACLE specifically (which is what it was purposed for), NOT the tent that surrounded it. I found the same problem in the first five verses of Numbers as I found in Leviticus; namely, the KJB had a lower score, but the watered-down versions made it wrong by changing the tabernacle to the "tent." Therefore, the watered-down versions have created error in a pathetic attempt to make the Bible "easier to read," and since such a thing would not be tolerated by a teacher in a grade-school classroom, why is it being accepted in the higher ranks of so-called "scholarship?"

That being said, the KJB is not only accurate, but overall, it is also easier to read, as we continue to look at more verses: As we can see in this example from the first five verses of Deuteronomy, the KJB is far easier to read than the watered-down versions; changing the KJB's middle-school reading level to high school and college level of difficulty. So my analysis of the first five verses in each book of the Torah (first five books of the Bible), I have found that the KJB is overall easier to read and understand, and in the instances in which the watered-down versions are easier, they create error.

Please keep in mind that the Flesch-Kincaid score takes syllables of words into account. Despite the fact that words like "goeth" and "walketh" add an extra syllable onto the word (which increases the difficulty score of the KJB overall), even with that handicap, the KJB is STILL easier to read than watered-down versions.

Because English is so commonly used today across the world, most of us do not consider that English is one of the youngest languages in the world. However, its youth is its strength because, being surrounded by various languages that were quite old, it absorbed pieces from all of them.

In the 16th century, the English language was still in the development stages, and though some have claimed that the Lord chose the English language to preserve His Word in the King James Bible, I disagree. I believe the Lord used the King James Bible to create and establish the English language that would be used around the world.

The completion of the KJB and the invention of the iron movable-type printing press came about at roughly the same time in Europe, and so the printing of the KJB was prioritized. As it spread around the world, it established the English language for people in various countries, who had to learn the language to read the Scriptures, and therefore, the modern English we speak has been derived from the King James Bible.

English is a unique language because, as many bilingual people will tell you, it is the easiest language to learn, but the hardest language to master. Because of this, English is adaptable to all levels of education, making it a wonderful language with which to preach the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, and there are many words used by the King James Bible which are still in common use today.

For example, let's suppose you are going on a trip with your family, and they have suitcases of clothes and toiletries, most people would say, "We're leaving, go get your stuff," because the word 'stuff' is a commonly used word to mean "materials" or "goods" or "possessions" or "property" or "belongings." This is what the King James Bible tells us:

Whereas thou hast searched all my stuff, what hast thou found of all thy household stuff? set it here before my brethren and thy brethren, that they may judge betwixt us both.
-Genesis 31:37

The word 'stuff' is common English usage. However, we do not commonly say "go get your materials" or "go get your goods" or "go get your possessions" or "go get your property" or "go get your belongings," and yet, the "easier-to-read" watered-down versions tell us something different: The wording in the modern versions is not at all how we commonly speak or write today.

The reason I pointed this out is because the common argument from the modern scoffers is that the KJB uses "archaic" words, and their watered-down versions are "easier" to read because they remove the archaic words.

archaic (adj): commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage
(See 'archaic', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

For example, the following chart shows some of the archaic words that those who use modern versions have a problem with: For example, we would not typically say "aghast" in our normal speech, but rather, we would say "surprised" or "astonished." Also, we do not typically say "goblet," but rather, we would say "glass" or "mug" or "cup."

Most readers probably have no idea what most of these words mean, or some of you may have never heard of these words before. According to the public statements made by the translators of modern versions, these types of words were what triggered them to create their bible versions, to make things "easier to read."

However, I did not get ANY of these words from the King James Bible, nor will you find any of these words used in the KJB. All of these words came from the watered-down versions that claim to remove archaic words for ease of reading. The following list might be a bit lengthy, but I believe it is necessary to prove an important point, namely, that the modern, watered-down versions use a lot of archaic words. As you read through this list, notice that most of the words are not used in the KJB. Some may want to argue that the word 'annotation' is not archaic, and I would normally agree with them, but the way the NIV uses the word 'annotation' is not the way we use it today, which makes it archaic. In 2nd Chronicles 13, the NIV says:
"The other events of Abijah's reign, what he did and what he said, are written in the annotations of the prophet Iddo."
-2 Chronicles 13:22, New International Version, retrieved Sept 28, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/2-chronicles/13-22.html]

The way we use the word 'annotation' today is like a footnote, which adds a comment of explanation in addition to the text, but that is not what is being referred to in 2nd Chronicles. Iddo was a prophet in Judah who wrote the history of Rehoboam and Abijah, who were the first and second kings of Judah, and therefore, these are not "annotations," but rather, they are historical accounts, or stories, as the KJB more accurately puts it.

The rest of the acts of Abi'jah, his ways and his sayings, are written in the story of the prophet Iddo.
-2 Chronicles 13:22

Perhaps, at one time, an "annotation" meant a story or historical record, but that is certainly not the way we use it today. This means that the NIV, whose translators prided themselves in making an updated, "easier" to read version that does not contain archaic words, does, in fact, contain archaic words, despite the fact that they claim that "archaisms" make the Bible inaccurate:
"As for the traditional pronouns 'thou' and 'thine' in reference to the Deity, the translators judged that to use these archaisms (along with old verb forms such as 'doest,' 'wouldest' and 'hadst') would violate accuracy in translation."
-New International Version, "Preface," 1984, retrieved Sept 28, 2023, [https://www.bible-researcher.com/niv-preface.html]

As we learned earlier, the pronouns used in the KJB had contextual relevance that the NIV translators took out, and yet, they criticize the KJB for being "archaic" in its wording, even though the NIV uses MANY archaic words. Therefore, I have no choice but to conclude that, in a grand display of hypocrisy, the NIV translators have an inaccurate translation according to their own definition. The word 'colonnade' confused me when I saw it in the watered-down versions because I had no clue what it was, even when I read the verses to get the context. Instead of going to a dictionary, I decided to go back to the allegedly "harder to read" KJB:

And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
-John 10:23

The KJB uses the word 'porch', which is what most English speaking people still use today. If any readers are wondering why the watered-down version translators would not just use the simple word 'porch', and instead go with an archaic word like 'colonnade', I would advise you to follow the money because it has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with having an accurate translation, and it has EVERYTHING to do with being diverse enough to secure a legal copyright claim. Again, the modern scoffers might argue that the word 'detachment' is not archaic, but we need to look at the context in which it is used. So let's go back to the NIV again:
"So Judas came to the garden, guiding a detachment of soldiers and some officials from the chief priests and the Pharisees. They were carrying torches, lanterns and weapons."
-John 18:3, New International Version, retrieved Sept 28, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/john/18-3.html]

And in the KJB:

Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons.
-John 18:3

When describing a group of people, we still use the word 'band' today. When talking about a group of musicians, we do not call them a "rock detachment," nor was Steven Spielberg's 2001 military mini-series called "Detachment of Brothers," nor were Robin Hood's thieves called the "detachment of merry men." Therefore, once again, we have the modern versions using archaic words that are not in common usage. The word 'enrollment' is another example where someone might bring an argument that it is not archaic, but in the context it is used in the modern versions, it is archaic. For example, the ESV says:
"The sons of Bela: Ezbon, Uzzi, Uzziel, Jerimoth, and Iri, five, heads of fathers' houses, mighty warriors. And their enrollment by genealogies was 22,034."
-1 Chronicles 7:7, English Standard Version, retrieved Sept 28, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/1-chronicles/7-7.html]

In our modern usage, we would ask someone "How many people are in the house?" We would NOT ask, "What is the enrollment of the house?" If someone inquired about the numbers of an army, we would say "They number about 22,000," but we would NOT say, "The enrollment is 22,000," which means the modern versions are using archaic terms. This also might raise objections by modern scoffers because the word 'exterminate' is in common usage, but not in the way it is used in the watered-down versions. For example, from the New English Translation:
"As for any person who does any work on this particular day, I will exterminate that person from the midst of his people!"
-Leviticus 23:30, New English Translations, retrieved Sept 29, 2023, [https://www.bible.com/bible/107/LEV.23.NET]

The word 'exterminate' in this context means that a man would be "killed," which is not the way we use it today. If someone committed a very serious crime, and was executed by the state, they would not say that they "exterminated" a criminal, nor would law enforcement report that someone had "exterminated" another man in a crime of passion, meaning that the use of that term in this context is archaic. The word 'haunt' is still used today, but it is commonly used as a verb, not as a noun because the noun form is no longer in common use. For example, the English Standard Version says:
"Thorns shall grow over its strongholds, nettles and thistles in its fortresses. It shall be the haunt of jackals, an abode for ostriches."
-Isaiah 34:13, English Standard Version, retrieved Sept 29, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/esv/isaiah/34-13.html]

The noun form of 'haunt' means "a place where one frequently resides," and so when a ghost (i.e. a spirit, or rather, a devil) is said to "haunt" someone (verb form), it means that the spirit is residing within a person with some consistency. In our common usage, we do not say that squirrels "haunt" a tree, nor do we say that rabbits "haunt" a garden, but nearly all of the watered-down versions use this archaic term. Some readers may question if the word 'kingship' is an archaic term, so again, let's read it in context. In these examples, I am switching around versions to provide some variety so readers can get a more general idea of how common this problem is, so let's look at the Revised Standard Version:
"Then Samuel told the people the rights and duties of the kingship; and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before the LORD. Then Samuel sent all the people away, each one to his home."
-1 Samuel 10:25, Revised Standard Version, retrieved Sept 29, 2023, [https://www.biblestudytools.com/rsv/1-samuel/10-25.html]

However, the KJB uses a term we use much more commonly:

Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the LORD. And Samuel sent all the people away, every man to his house.
-1 Samuel 10:25

No one today uses the word 'kingship' when referring to a country, which once again demonstrates that the modern versions use archaic words. I am aware that we commonly use the word 'naïve' (nai-eev), and I often use it myself, so I thought to remove this from my list, but upon consideration, I wanted to keep it in the list, not so much to critique it as an archaic word, but rather, to critique it for not being an English word! It has become an English word over time, but the words we typically use in English are 'simple', 'simpleton', 'foolish', 'idiot' or 'moron'. The word 'naïve' is of French origin, which does not automatically make it wrong to use, but that is why it was originally spelled with a dieresis (i.e. ï, the two dots over the 'I'), so that leaves us with an interesting question: What planet do these modern scoffers live on, in which they would think that a French word would make English easier to read and understand? The word 'offal' is interesting because it sounds like the word 'awful', and that is because it is part of the word's origin. The word 'offal' means "trash," whereas the word 'awful' can apply to trash, but its change in spelling is more Dutch/Germanic, and can apply to anything disgusting or revolting, which can include trash.

Ultimately, the word 'offal' is archaic in spelling and use, and yet, is used by some modern versions that claim to have removed the archaic wording. For example, it is used by the New English Translation, but in the preface to their watered-down version, the translators wrote that "Archaisms have also been avoided," even though they clearly and hypocritically use them when it suits their copyright purposes.
(See New English Translation, "Preface," retrieved Sept 29, 2023, [https://www.bible-researcher.com/net-preface.html]) It should be noted that 'portico' is an Italian word, and even when typing it into Google Translator's automated service, it detects it as "Italian." The word 'portico' means "porch" in English, and 'porch' is the word the KJB uses.


Again, I have to question the translators of these watered-down versions: Why did you believe that using an Italian word would help people read and understand English? If you could submit your answer in plain English, that would be great. We do not say "The grass is verdant," or "Go! It's a verdant light!" - instead, we use the KJB's confusing, archaic word known as 'green'. We do not say, "Let's wade in the wadi," or "I'm going fishing down by the wadi" - instead, we use the KJB's confusing, archaic word known as 'river'.

Of the 126 archaic words that I listed, less than 14% of them were used by the KJB. I can assure you that there are MANY more examples beyond this, but I figured this would be enough to prove the point. If "harder-to-read" is determined by archaic words, then the modern, watered-down versions are harder to read in many passages.

Please do not misunderstand my argument because I do not believe there is any problem with using archaic words. From the day we are born until the day we die, we learn new words and their meanings, and there is no harm in that; rather, that is part of education.

The reason I pointed out the problems with these archaic words is not because I have a problem with them, but rather, the scoffing translators of the modern versions have said they have a problem with archaic words. The purpose of this list is to demonstrate that, by their own standards, their own versions are harder to read, and they are hypocrites who attack the KJB on the basis of archaic words, when their own watered-down versions are packed full of them.

I do not argue that the KJB is always easier to understand in every instance because many verses of the Bible require deep study to understand, no matter what version you hold. However, the modern versions pride themselves on being easier to read, and yet, their selection of words is baffling in many instances.

Let's look at the NASV, which is the Catholic-approved version, and you can see how much more complex it becomes: It is an amazing blindness that has overcome many churchgoers, who think that these modern versions are "easier to read" (while they scoff at those who use the KJB), but they have simply been fooled by so-called "scholars." Churchgoers have chosen to put their faith into men with fancy degrees and prestigious titles in religious institutions, rather than studying to discern the truth.

The heart of the righteous studieth to answer:
but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
-Proverbs 15:28

I would not argue against the fact that there are some difficult passages in the KJB, and it requires time and effort to study the definitions of words, and to learn the context, so the proper meaning can be discerned. As of the writing of this book, I have been saved for 21 years, and I am still learning and correcting myself on the doctrines of Scripture by studying context to understand definitions. It does not matter how many bible versions are made in the future, one will be forced to study in order to understand the verses, but I would advise Christians to study the KJB because it is never a good idea to sacrifice quality for convenience, most especially when it concerns being fed the spiritual doctrine of Christ.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
-Acts 20:28

 

We, who are the children of God in Christ, should not handle the Word of God in any deceitful manner, but should walk honestly and openly:

Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy, we faint not; But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
-2 Corinthians 4:1-2

However, God's Word has been handled deceitfully by many over the past few thousand years, and they continue to do so even with the King James Bible. Yet, we know that the Lord God has preserved His Word for His children, and will protect it, no matter what deceitful things men will say about it.

One of the things that modern scoffers claim about the KJB is that it has had a number of revisions since its release in 1611 because there were errors that had to be corrected. Therefore, they say that because the KJB has been revised and corrected, it justifies them revising their versions as well.

revise (v): to amend or alter; to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update
(See 'revise', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

Modern scoffers have lied about the KJB in this regard because the KJB has NEVER been revised. It has had a few editions that have fixed a few problems concerning printing press errors (not textual error), format, and spelling, and in this chapter, I will cover details on what those changes were, why they were made, and why there is a FAR cry between what was updated in the KJB versus the liberal alterations and omissions in the watered-down versions.

edition (v): one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time
(See 'edition', Random House Dictionary, 2023, [dictionary.com]; See also Collins English Dictionary, 10th Edition, William Collins Sons & Co, 2012)

When the KJB was printed in the early 17th century, it was done on a newly invented version of a movable-type printing press. The original printing press was invented in China around 1040, using porcelain materials, but in 1450, Johannes Gutenberg updated this technology with metal movable-type letters and a more efficient matrix that allowed for a more streamlined, faster process, especially since having only 26 alphabetical letters was preferable to having over 10,000 Chinese characters.

Despite the updates in technology, the process of printing was still slow, expensive, and difficult because each letter had to be set in the page matrix by hand, inverted. The letters had to be inverted so that when it was pressed onto the page, it would come out the correct way when read. For example, the letter 'b' would be inverted to look like the letter 'd', but when superimposed on the page with ink, it would read as a 'b'. Because of that, it was common to see some printing press errors, most especially in books that had hundreds of pages.

(See "How Books Are Handmade At The Last Printing Press Of Its Kind In The US | Still Standing," Insider Business, Feb 10, 2021, retrieved Oct 4, 2023, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1xKcRrn_i4])

When the 1611 KJB was finalized and sent to the Royal Printer, it took a lot of time to get the first copy printed, and once it was done, many copies were made. I am certain the printing team made the best effort they could, and some of the translators were involved in checking the inverted type before it was superimposed on paper, but in the end, roughly 400 printing press errors were later discovered.

In my opinion, I find this to be extraordinary work, considering the fact that the KJB has over 780,000 words, which would have taken millions of letters to form. To have only 400 printing press errors would mean that the margin of error was only 0.05%, or in other words, 99.95% accurate, which is impressive.

It took a number of years to find these printing press errors, and 18 years later, in 1629, two of the original KJB translators, Samuel Ward and John Bois (aforementioned in chapter four) went to Cambridge and worked on an edition to the KJB that fixed the printing press errors. (This is known as the 1629 edition.) However, not all of the errors had been spotted and fixed at that time, and nine years later, in 1638, Cambridge produced another edition, and that fixed about 72% of the 400 printing press errors.

By this time, the KJB was the primary bible used by the common people, and those who debated the errors of other bibles only helped solidify the use of the KJB to settle those debates:
"In 1629 the Bible was again revised, but only in small ways, and once more in minor respects in 1638. The last issue of the Geneva Bible was in 1644. By then the King James version was ahead of all others, and now the strife over forms and doctrine helped it on."
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 163, retrieved Aug 10, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n181/mode/2up])

Another change that was made was the font, which was changed from Blackletter (sometimes called Gothic script) to Roman. The following example is Blackletter versus Roman font, and you can clearly see the difference:


Keep in mind that the above example was a Blackletter/Gothic font that I downloaded from a free site, and it was edited by its designer to be easier to read. The original Blackletter/Gothic font looked more like this:


Notice that the word 'blessed' looks like 'bleffed', and that is the effect of the old Germanic font style. The word 'fish' looks like 'fifh', 'sea' looks like 'fea', 'joy' looks like 'ioy', 'upon' looks like 'bpon', and 'over' looks like 'ouer'.

In fact, we still have remnants of that last example in our language today. The Blackletter/Gothic 'v' looks like a 'u' in Roman, and the Blackletter/Gothic 'u' looks like a 'v' in Roman, which is why we call the letter 'w' a "double-u" and not a "double-v," because it was named during a time period when the Blackletter/Gothic font was commonly used.

The reason the 1611 KJB was printed in Blackletter/Gothic was because the font type was Germanic, and Germany was the place where the metal, moveable-type printing press was created, so that type of font was traditionally used. However, by 1612 (just a year after the first KJB was published), the first Roman-font KJB was printed, and after a few years, all printed KJBs were printed in the Roman style for ease of reading.

The 1638 edition would remain for over a century before a new edition would be printed, correcting some more of the printing press errors, but also making thousands of changes in the form of spelling. Before anyone panics that the spelling of words was changed, remember that the Lord God did not promise us that every jot and tittle (i.e. markings of letters in the Hebrew alphabet) would be preserved, but rather, the words themselves are preserved for us.

Though the King James Bible established the common use of the English language for us, one thing it did not do was establish the spelling, which developed into simpler forms over time, and those simpler forms were not very well established until the 18th century. For example, the letter 'e' was often found at the end of various words, meaning that 'fear' would be spelled 'feare', 'dark' would be spelled 'darke', and 'me' would be spelled 'mee'.

There were instances of double-voweled words, so the word 'moved' would be spelled 'mooued'. Also, there were double-consonant words, so the word 'ran' would be spelled 'ranne', and if you combine the double-letter spellings with the added 'e', you would see the word 'stars' spelled 'starres'.

Of course, those who were used to that type of spelling in that day may have found no difficulty in reading the text, but not everyone spelled those words the same way (depending on the region and other languages that existed in that country) because English is a melting pot of languages. Over time, people gravitated towards simpler forms of spelling that were widely used, and as that became more well-established, an edition of the KJB with updated spelling was useful, if not necessary.

With that understanding, it is important to note that NONE of those spelling changes altered the text in any way; it was only an update to simplify forms of spelling, and we can still read an original 1611 KJB in the same way we read it today, albeit slower, because it would take us longer to read and comprehend. However, if we look at the watered-down versions, there is a huge difference in approach because they change entire words and phrases at their discretion.

For example, the 2011 update to the NIV removed over 32,000 words and added over 34,000 words from their 1984 version. That is over 60,000 changes in 25 years, whereas the KJB had 400 changes in 150 years. Keep in mind that copyrights are not limitless, meaning that there is a time frame on a copyright of only a few decades at most, and in order to secure a copyright of the same book, one must demonstrate enough changes to the book that justify the copyright's renewal.
(See "NIV2011/NIV2010 Changes," retrieved Oct 10, 2023, [https://biblewebapp.com/niv2011-changes/])

Although the KJB had some textual changes, unlike the watered-down versions, they were NOT textual corrections. Again, these textual changes were ONLY printing press errors, and not all of the printing press errors were fixed by 1638; some did not get corrected until the mid-18th century.

The following is a list of some examples of these printing press corrections: This short list contains 2.5% of all the changes made to the KJB in over 400 years (72% of which were done in the first 30 years after the 1611 release), and shamefully, modern scoffers have attempted to use this as an excuse that they are free to make as many changes as they like, even going so far as to omit (i.e. remove) verses from Scripture. The vast majority of printing press corrections in the KJB were very minor, and had almost no effect on the context of the doctrine, while the modern versions have (in a grand display of hypocrisy) heavily affected the context and meaning of the doctrine, and yet, they have the audacity to claim their corrupt versions are superior to the KJB.

This is one of the reasons why I included an entire chapter exposing the New King James Version, namely, because of its claim to be an "updated" form of the King James Bible. What most readers do not know is that the NKJV (without including spelling changes) made about 60,000 alterations to the KJB, when the KJB only had about 400 changes over the first few hundred years, and now that we know (from chapter six) that the NKJV was translated from a false "Majority Text," it is no wonder that modern scoffers would rather spread false information about the KJB than to tell the public the truth about what they have done.

So readers can get an idea of how egregious the changes were, let's look at just a few of the NKJV's alterations in Ecclesiastes: In Ecc 2:21, the KJB uses the word 'equity', which is a trait of godliness, in that one treats others with fairness and seeks justice to be done for those honest men who are oppressed. However, the NKJV's word 'skill' changes that doctrine into "proficiency of training," shifting the context from moral principle to physical strength and dexterity, which completely ruins the doctrine.

We see this again in Ecc 4:4, where the "right work" described in the KJB is concerning the works based on moral principles of good versus evil. However, the NKJV changes this into trained physical abilities, rather than moral aptitude.

In the context of Ecc 3:11, the KJB's use of the word 'world' meant the knowledge of nature, as God had created it. However, the use of the NKJV's word 'eternity' implies that God gave men the knowledge of that which is in eternity, but we have not been given such spiritual knowledge in the same manner that we have been given physical knowledge of the world, which makes that passage incorrect.

Even in Ecc 12:9, we can note a striking difference in meaning because the word 'heed' means to listen and observe, which Solomon not only did himself, but it is also used in the sense that he taught others to listen and observe with wisdom. However, the NKJV's word 'ponder' only means to think, which does not include the important contextual detail of seeking out proper reasoning and knowledge, which is emphasized in the doctrine:

And moreover, because the preacher was wise, he still taught the people knowledge; yea, he gave good heed, and sought out, and set in order many proverbs. The preacher sought to find out acceptable words: and that which was written was upright, even words of truth.
-Ecclesiastes 12:9-10

These are but a few examples among tens of thousands through just one of the watered-down versions. At this point, there are so many corrupt versions in the world, I would argue that no man could find all the details of their errors and contradictions in the span of a single lifetime.

I believe Richard Bancroft (who created the rules for the translation of the KJB) said it best:
"If every man's humor might be followed, there would be no end to translating."
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 1, retrieved Oct 31, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n15/mode/2up])

The reason I quoted him saying this is because the work of translating religious text (whether the Holy Bible, or some other corrupt religious document) gives one religious and (in my opinion) political clout. The translators of corrupt versions want the prestige and authority such a work gives them over others, as well as the paycheck that comes with a copyright. Furthermore, some want power over the Scriptures, to change it to their liking, which is why, for example, the queers came up with the Queen James Bible to change the Word of God in order to justify their fornication and sodomy.
(See The Queen James Bible, retrieve Oct 31, 2023, [https://queenjamesbible.com/]; These wicked people claim that James Stewart was a homosexual, but that is not true, and I will cover more on that in chapter eleven.)

This is why we only answer fools according to their folly:

Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him. Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
-Proverbs 26:4-5

fool (n): a wicked or depraved person; one who acts contrary to sound wisdom in his moral deportment; one who follows his own inclinations, who prefers trifling and temporary pleasures to the service of God and eternal happiness
(See 'fool', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 31, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

There are times to answer a fool, and times not to answer a fool so we do not waste our time by entering into endless bickering like such fools want us Christians to do, but rather, when (or if) the time comes that we must answer a fool, we do it only in a way that might benefit the fool, or to benefit those who that fool might corrupt with his foolish ideologies. After everything we have learned so far in this book, it should be clear that when a man is holding a corrupt, watered-down version in his hands, while he scoffs at the King James Bible, you know you are either dealing with an ignorant man who needs help to understand, or you are dealing with a fool who will not hear anything beyond his corrupt heart's desire.

There have been many times I have had these types of arguments raised against me, not by people looking for answers, but by those who simply hate the KJB. Any Christian reading this book will undoubtedly run into them as well, and one of the ways such fools may try to get you to turn away from the KJB is by pointing out that the KJB used to have the apocryphal books in it, but I want to arm Christians with proper knowledge and understanding so you know how to answer a fool when the time comes...



.

According to etymologists (the study of word origins), the word 'apocrypha' is made up of two words; apo meaning "off, away" and crypt meaning "to hide." An apocryphal document is one that is undetermined in authorship and/or authenticity, or in other words, no one knows for certain who wrote it, or where it came from, and therefore, it cannot be trusted to be perfect and holy.
(See 'apocrypha', Online Etymology Dictionary, retrieved Oct 11, 2023, [https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=apocrypha])

The original 1611 printing of the King James Bible contained a series of 15 books generally known as the Apocrypha:

apocrypha (n): books whose authors are not known; whose authenticity, as inspired writings, is not admitted, and which are therefore not considered a part of the sacred canon of the scripture; when the Jews published their sacred books, they called them canonical and divine; such as they did not publish, were called apocrypha
(See 'apocrypha', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 11, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

The Catholic Church is the propagator of the Apocrypha for many reasons, but the primary reason they rely on these unverified, untrustworthy, uninspired books is because they contain heretical doctrines foundational to corrupt Catholic rituals. The Word of God does not teach practices such as praying for the dead, nor does it teach the existence of a place called "purgatory," but those doctrines are found in the Apocrypha.

Though the Catholic Church has added on to the Apocrypha over the centuries, the following is a list of all the names of the Apocryphal books in the 1611 KJB: If you pick up a Catholic bible version and open it to the book of Nehemiah, you will find that the book of Tobit is the next book listed, followed by the book of Judith. The following image is taken from catholic.org, where they have their corrupt Catholic version of the Bible, which includes their Apocryphal books:

(See "Books of the Bible," Catholic Online, retrieved Oct 11, 2023, [https://www.catholic.org/bible/books_bible.php])

Some modern scoffers argue that because the original 1611 KJB had the Apocrypha in it, therefore, it is a corrupt version that was made by closet Catholics in disguise. This is a fallacious argument that is based on faulty information.

The papists of the Catholic Church were outraged that the KJB translators took the Apocryphal books out of the Old Testament, lumped them together, and put them in between the Old and New Testaments. The KJB translators did not believe that the Apocrypha was part of Holy Scripture, and they gave a number of reasons for that.

Before we get to those reasons, I want to note that one of the English bibles that preceded the KJB also took out the Apocrypha and put them between the Old and New Testaments, and that was the 1535 Coverdale Bible we learned about in chapter four. (All Apocryphal books except Baruch were lumped together in the 1535 edition, but in the 1537 edition, Coverdale took Baruch out of the Old Testament as well.) In his preface to the lumped-together Apocrypha, Coverdale wrote a note to readers that he only included them because he was unable to disprove them entirely false, but also warned that the Apocryphal books are not "to be of like reputation with the other Scripture," and that the "books and treatise, which among the fathers of old, are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in the Canon of the Hebrews."
(See Miles Coverdale, Coverdale Bible, 1535, p. 373-374, retrieved Oct 11, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/CoverdaleBible1535_838/page/n373/mode/2up])

The 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible followed Coverdale's example by removing the Apocrypha and placing it in between the Old and New Testaments, and the Geneva Bible also rejected any divine inspiration from it. This set the precedent for why the Apocryphal books were removed from the Old Testament in the KJB, and why they were placed separately from the Old and New Testaments, especially when we consider rule #14 of the KJB translators that we learned about in chapter four:
"14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's (Great Bible), Geneva."
(See Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men, Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1834, p. 70-71, retrieved Aug 16, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/learnedmen009479mbp/page/n91/mode/2up])

These other bibles were used as a partial foundation for the KJB, and thus, if they placed the Apocrypha in it, but separate from it, the KJB translators did so for similar reasons because those were the rules they agreed to. Author Alexander McClure provides a summary of the reasons the KJB translators gave for why they did not include the Apocrypha as part of the Holy Scriptures:
"1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous [incredible, or less-than-credible] statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates [teaches or implies] doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
For these and other reasons, the Apocryphal books, which are all in Greek, except one which is extant only in Latin, are valuable only as ancient documents, illustrative of the manners, language, opinions and history of the East."
-Alexander W. McClure, The Translators Revived: A Biographical Memoir of the Authors of the English Version of the Holy Bible, C. Scribner, 1853, p. 185-186, ISBN: 9781974120512; retrieved Oct 12, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/translatorsrevi00clugoog/page/n190/mode/2up]

The KJB translators worked rigorously on the Apocrypha as they did the Old and New Testaments, and came to these important conclusions during the process. However, the Bishops' Bible had the Apocrypha in it, and they had already set an agreed-upon rule that they would adhere to the Bishops' Bible without much change if possible, so they extracted the Apocryphal books and put them in between the Testaments for potential historical reasons, not for reasons of divine inspiration or doctrine.

Let's go over these reasons in more detail: All of the Apocryphal books are allegedly written by unnamed Old Testament scholars because legitimacy would rely on the original author having lived at the same time as the alleged events, and claimed to document the words and activities of Old Testament prophets. Therefore, if these documents were legitimate, there should be surviving Hebrew manuscripts of the Apocrypha, but none of those books were ever found in Hebrew, which defies proper timelines and cultural reasoning.

Is it possible that the original books of the Apocrypha were written in Hebrew? Yes, that is possible. However, there is no existing documentation that proves a Hebrew origin (i.e. the oldest manuscripts for the Apocrypha are found in Greek and Latin), which means that, at the very least, the Apocrypha is suspicious because it lacks any verifiable authenticity. For example, how do we know that Isaiah was a prophet of God? Not only do we have verifiable prophecies from the book of Isaiah, and not only do we have doctrinal statements that are in perfect correlation to the other 65 books of the Bible, but we also have clear declarations that he claimed to be inspired by God:

Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the LORD hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.
-Isaiah 1:2

To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the LORD: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats.
-Isaiah 1:11

Isaiah declares divine inspiration by saying, "Thus saith the Lord." The Apocrypha contains NO declaration of divine inspiration. McClure's summary of the KJB translators' reasons specifically states that it was the "Jewish Church," or in other words, the Jews who had been given repentance and faith in Christ did not recognize the Apocrypha as canon. The word 'canon' means the laws, rules, or doctrine of religion or governing council. After the formation of the Catholic Church in the 4th century, the corrupt Romish cult adopted the Apocrypha as canon, but Christians never accepted the Apocryphal books as canon for the first four centuries after Christ, they are not referred to by the apostles in the New Testament Scriptures, the early Jewish Christians did not accept them as canon, and still today, Christians do not accept them as canon.

Furthermore, the Levites (who were tasked with the preservation of the Law and Prophets) did not accept the Apocrypha as part of the prophets of Scripture. I would advise readers to be cautious on this point because I have read numerous Catholic writings online that claim that the Jews accepted the Apocrypha as canon, but that is verifiably false. If they had, they would have kept it in the Temple in the Hebrew language, but they did not, and so the Apocryphal books are not accepted as canonical doctrine by the Jews.

Chabad.org is a small library of information on Jewish culture and ethics, and author Yehuda Shurpin, a Jewish Rabbi, pointed out that because there are doctrines and practices in the Apocrypha that are in opposition to Scripture, in some places of the Talmud (i.e. Jewish commentaries), there are parts of the Apocrypha which Jews are prohibited from reading. Shurpin notes that, although there may be some historical significance preserved in the eyewitness accounts of the Apocryphal books, he adds that "these books are not Divinely inspired," and because of that, "there is no assurance that their contents are fully accurate."
(See Yehuda Shurpin, "What Is the Jewish Approach to the Apocrypha?" Chabad.org, retrieved Oct 12, 2023, [https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3671027/jewish/What-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm])

Of course, I do not believe that anything should be prohibited from reading, even if it is heresy, because the prohibition of it only covers the corrupt history and vile nature of those who oppose the truth, and it is the wicked popes and cardinals of the Catholic Church who, for centuries, censored and banned the reading of books; even the Bible itself. I would not say that Christians should be prohibited from reading the Talmud either, however, they should keep in mind that, like the Apocrypha, the Talmud is not Holy Scripture, and it contains many errors and foolish ideologies that oppose the doctrines of Christ (Hamashiach), who is the very God that the Jews claim to worship, who is the fulfillment of the very law they claim to uphold, and who is the very Messiah they slew in their hatred, pride, and willful ignorance.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
-Leviticus 19:18

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
-Matthew 22:37-40

Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.
-John 8:56-59

That being said, Shurpin also pointed out that the Apocrypha is antithetical to the Old Testament Scriptures:
"Some of these books [in the Apocrypha] contain stories or ideas that contradict Scripture and/or Jewish thought. This category includes works such as the Story of Susanna (which, among other things, gives an erroneous portrayal of Jewish law, such as the laws of false witnesses), as well as the books of Enoch and Jubilees (in that they portray the dynamics between angels, God and men in a way that is contrary to Judaism), as well as various other works."
-Yehuda Shurpin, "What Is the Jewish Approach to the Apocrypha?" Chabad.org, retrieved Oct 12, 2023, [https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/3671027/jewish/What-Is-the-Jewish-Approach-to-the-Apocrypha.htm]

In short, the Apocrypha contradicts the Old Testament and Jewish doctrine. The Jews are aware of the Apocrypha, they have studied it, and they have concluded it should not be taken seriously for doctrine or practice. As I pointed out earlier in this book, some of the questionable verses of Scripture in the Bible (to which there was a debate on whether or not they should be included) were verified by early Christian preachers (i.e. 100-200 A.D.) quoting them in their teachings. Those same Christian preachers did NOT quote from the Apocryphal books, and therefore, we have no evidence that the early Christians accepted the Apocrypha as canon. The Bible has been proven time and again to match historical records and archeological findings, but in the Apocrypha, there are less-than-credible statements that defy logical, non-miraculous reasoning and historical context. For example, as stated by McClure, Antiochus IV Epiphanes (a Greek king) was killed in three different ways in the books of 1st and 2nd Maccabees.

When researching these passages, I noticed that, according to historical accounts, Antiochus lived and reigned from 215 B.C. to 164 B.C., but Maccabees dated the first account of Antiochus' death 15 years later in 149:
"So king Antiochus died there in the hundred forty and ninth year."
-1 Maccabees 6:16, retrieved Oct 13, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1-Maccabees-6-16/]

Catholic scoffers will object that there were multiple kings named Antiochus, and I understand that point, but if we keep track of the dates Antiochus IV reigned, we can see that this is talking about the same man. In 1st Maccabees 6, Antiochus is said to have "fell sick for grief" because of his military losses, and knew he was dying, so he gave his friend Philip his entire kingdom and died.

However, in chapter ten of 2nd Maccabees, verse 10 notes that the year was "in the hundred fourscore and eighth," meaning that it was 188 B.C., which was during the reign of Antiochus IV, 24 years before the historical record of his death. It goes on and says that he was to marry a woman in the "temple of Nanea," but the Nanean priests laid a trap for him and his men inside the temple:
"And opening a privy door of the roof, they threw stones like thunderbolts, and struck down the captain, hewed them in pieces, smote off their heads and cast them to those that were without."
-2 Maccabees 1:16, retrieved Oct 13, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Maccabees-1-16/]

So we have one account that claims Antiochus died in his bed in grief in 149 B.C., and a second account where he died from an ambush in 188 B.C. A third account of Antiochus' death was in 2 Maccabees 9:5, in which God "smote him with an incurable and invisible plague" to cause him "a pain of the bowels that was remediless," and eventually, "he fell down from his chariot" and died "so that the worms rose up out of the body."
(See 2 Maccabees 9, retrieved Oct 13, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/2-Maccabees-Chapter-9/])

There are certain instances in the Bible where people claim that there are contradictions in some of the accounts, but there are no contradictions because those accounts are two eyewitnesses speaking of the same event with different details added; however, the problem with Maccabees is that all of it was allegedly written by the same person, Judas Maccabees. Furthermore, they were claimed to take place in different locations because the first two accounts were said to take place in Persia, while the last account was said to take place on the road to Jerusalem, and all of them took place at different times during the reign of Antiochus IV.

There are other odd statements, such as the claim that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Assyria, rather than the king of Babylon. The following quote is from the book of Judith:
"Then Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians sent unto all that dwelt in Persia, and to all that dwelt westward, and to those that dwelt in Cilicia, and Damascus, and Libanus, and Antilibanus, and to all that dwelt upon the sea coast,"
-Judith 1:7, retrieved Oct 13, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Judith-1-7/]

This contradicts not only the Holy Scriptures, especially the book of Daniel, but it also contradicts another book of the Apocrypha, Letter of Jeremiah, which says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Babylon:
"Because of the sins which ye have committed before God, ye shall be led away captives into Babylon by Nabuchodonosor king of the Babylonians."
-Letter of Jeremiah 1:2, retrieved Oct 13, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Letter-of-Jeremiah-1-2/]

These are but a few examples of many that could be mentioned, however, if you decide to study this subject for yourself, I would highly recommend sticking with the Apocrypha version that was translated by the KJB translators. As I investigated the Apocrypha, I found a number of contradictions that could only be found in watered-down versions, or in other words, even with the fallacies and contradictions of the Apocrypha, the KJB is still the superior reading of it. I consider McClure's points 6 and 7 to be one and the same, since "immoral practices" that go unrebuked and "doctrines at variance with the Bible" are (for all intents and purposes) one and the same. The Apocryphal books read like historical accounts rather than divinely inspired Scripture, and the reason I emphasize this is because, even though the Bible provides historical documentation of events, rebuke and punishment of sin are included with those historical accounts, whereas the Apocryphal books do not rebuke the sinful deeds of those who did wrong.

For example, the Lord has made it very clear that He hates witchcraft of any kind:

And he caused his children to pass through the fire [burning babies alive on sacrificial altars] in the valley of the son of Hinnom: also he observed times, and used enchantments, and used witchcraft, and dealt with a familiar spirit, and with wizards: he wrought much evil in the sight of the LORD, to provoke him to anger.
-2 Chronicles 33:6

The following is from the book of Tobit:
"So the young man did as the angel commanded him; and when they had roasted the fish, they did eat it: then they both went on their way, till they drew near to Ecbatane. Then the young man said to the angel, Brother Azarias, to what use is the heart and the liver and the gal of the fish? And he said unto him, Touching the heart and the liver, if a devil or an evil spirit trouble any, we must make a smoke thereof before the man or the woman, and the party shall be no more vexed."
-Tobit 6:5-7, retrieved Oct 11, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Tobit-6-5_6-7/]

Using the smoke of fish organs to ward off evil spirits (i.e. devils) is witchcraft based on pagan superstition. This Apocryphal book claims that an angel of God taught men to use witchcraft, which is completely opposed to the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, unless this was a fallen angel (i.e. a devil in disguise), which is not the case according to the context of the chapter.

In the Holy Scriptures, we are taught that the blood of Jesus Christ is the only thing that can cleanse a man of all his sin:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
-1 John 1:7

Once again, let's look at the book of Tobit:
"For alms doth deliver from death, and shall purge away all sin. Those that exercise alms and righteousness shall be filled with life:"
-Tobit 12:9, retrieved Oct 12, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Tobit-12-9/]

This book of the Apocrypha teaches the works-based heresy that giving alms cleanses a man of sin. It should be no wonder why the Catholic Church is desperate to keep this as part of their Scriptures, since Catholicism teaches the antichrist practice of indulgences, which is a vile heresy of financial tribute for the cleansing of sin.
(Read Corruptions of Christianity: Catholicism here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

The Apocrypha has survived and is somewhat commonly known today for two primary reasons. One is the historical/cultural value one can glean from the books, and the other is because the many corrupt, antichrist rituals of the Catholic Church cannot be justified by the Holy Scriptures, which requires them to rely on unsubstantiated documents filled with heresy and wrought with error.

The following is King James' opinion on the Apocrypha:
"As for the Scriptures; no man doubteth I will believe them; But even for the Apocrypha; I hold them in the same account that the Ancients did: They are still printed and bound with our Bibles, and publicly read in our Churches: I reverence them as the writings of holy and good men: but since they are not found in the Canon, we account them to be secundae lectionis [Latin: second lesson], or ordinis [Latin: second order] (which is Bellarmine's own distinction) [I believe this is referring to Robert Bellarmine, or Roberto Bellarmino, a 16th century Italian Jesuit scholar; which I suspect James used as a reference to show that even life-long dedicated papists did not always consider the Apocrypha to be canon] and therefore not sufficient whereupon alone to ground any article of Faith, expect it be confirmed by some other place of Canonical Scripture; Concluding this point with Ruffinus (who is no Novelist, I hope) That the Apocryphal books were by the Fathers permitted to be read; not for confirmation of Doctrine, but only for instruction of the people."
-James I of England, The Political Works of James I, Harvard University Press, 1918, p. 123, [Harvard University]

I would mostly agree with James, though somewhat disagree, and my disagreement is that, if any doctrinal instruction in the Apocrypha was to first be verified by the Holy Scriptures, then why not just use the Holy Scriptures? There is certainly some wisdom to be gained from the Apocrypha, but it is worldly wisdom, not the wisdom of God.

Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
-1 Corinthians 2:12-14

Again, I am not arguing that there is no historical or cultural value to be gleaned from the Apocryphal books, nor am I teaching that it is wrong for Christians to read them if they want. However, just like the writings of Josephus (a 1st century historian), the Apocryphal books cannot be fully trusted because they are filled with error, and they are not divinely inspired, which means that they should not be used as an addition or replacement to the Holy Scriptures.

Thus, for the time period in which the KJB translators completed their work, and knowing the various people of a wide range of beliefs who would study the KJB, I believe they made a sound decision to sanctify the Holy Scriptures from the Apocryphal books. The Apocrypha would have been removed altogether if the decision had been left up to the Puritans alone, but it was Richard Bancroft who created the rules for translation of the KJB, and those rules insisted that the Apocrypha remain in it, although edited for placement, and in addition, the KJB translators added the word "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page of it, so the reader would know that what they were reading was unsubstantiated.

(Original Printing of the 1611 King James Bible, retrieved Oct 13, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/1611TheAuthorizedKingJamesBible/page/n1149/mode/2up])

I also believe that it was a sound decision by Christians to later REMOVE those Apocryphal books from the KJB completely. When evangelists traveled around the world to preach from the KJB the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures, this helped ensure that those who are unlearned would not erroneously attribute the Apocryphal books to God's Holy Word, nor would they adopt false doctrines and corrupt practices from them.

King James also understood the problems with the Apocrypha, omitted them in his study of Scripture, and warned his son about them:
"Would you know the life and death of Christ? Look [to] the Evangelists. Would ye be more particularly trained up in His school? Meditate upon the Epistles of the Apostles; and would ye be acquainted with the practices of that doctrine in the persons of the Primitive Church? Cast up the Apostles Acts. As to the Apocrypha books, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) and indeed some of them are as like the ditement [dictation] of the Spirit of God, as an egg is to an oyster. [i.e. James meant that they are not even close to the same thing.]"
-King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, p. 12-13 retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n59/mode/2up]

However, there are some people who will not listen to the words of King James because of the many false rumors that were spread about him...



.

Around the same time I authored this book, there was a government coup in American politics and media that spread many false rumors and allegations about 45th President of the United States, Donald J. Trump. By the mid-20s, the majority of Americans knew that these were lies, but some believed that Trump was guilty of many sedicious crimes and conspiracies. I hope readers will consider that this is a modern example of a timeless scenario, namely, that when a governing leader is established who does good and punishes evildoers, wicked men will surround him on every side to destroy his reputation and eliminate him because they cannot do their evil deeds while he is in authority over them, and this is also what happened to King James I of England.

I am not one of those people who has any kind of obsession with defending the character of King James. I will leave that to those who knew him. Even if King James was a horrible man and a traitor to Christ, his only involvement in the creation of the KJB was to put royal approval on it, and use his political influence to raise money for it, so it would not burden the taxpayers.

However, the arrogance of modern scoffers has become so great, they think that spreading false information about King James to make him look bad, will somehow tarnish the credibility of the KJB. Not only is that laughably fallacious, but their attacks against King James are so vicious and false, I thought it prudent to add a short chapter to briefly address the subject, simply so Christians can increase their discernment, and be vigilant against those who would try to deceive them.

I will address some of the false accusations made against James in a moment, but first, let's take a look at some testimony from those who knew him. English author, diplomat, and politician Sir Henry Wotton said the following about James Stewart:


"There appears a certain natural goodness verging on modesty... among his good qualities none shines more brightly than the chasteness of his life, which he has preserved without stain down to the present time, contrary to the example of almost all his ancestors, who disturbed the kingdom with the great number of bastards which they left."
-Henry Wotton, quoted by Stephen A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England: Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 39, ISBN: 9780965677738

Of course, James was a king from the time he was only a year old, so perhaps this statement was just political grandstanding from a man who wanted to gain the favor of the British crown. However, Wotton's testimony is that James was an upstanding king, who sought to do good for the people, and keep himself unspotted from the world, unlike his inbred ancestors who reveled in their sin.

Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.
-James 1:27

Dean of Westminster Godfrey Goodman (1582-1656) was well-known for his lavish charity to the poor. He said:


"Here unto you may add the carriage and disposition of King James; truly I did never know any man of so great an appreciation, of so great love and affection. A man so truly just, so free from all cruelty and pride, such a lover of the church, and one who had done so much good for the church."
-Godfrey Goodman, quoted by Stephen A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England: Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 26, ISBN: 9780965677738

This is coming from men who often experienced the pridefulness and cruelty of those in positions of royal authority. The people in the early 17th century were very familiar with oppressive kings and queens, and because of this, great fear came upon them when false rumors of his death had spread, as Robert Chambers, who thoroughly studied the life of James Stewart, noted:
"One fact seems abundantly certain—that James, with all his puerilities [childlike; boyish in thought or expression] of character, and all his exalted notions of the royal prerogative [exclusive right or privilege] was nevertheless very much beloved by his people. This was testified in a very remarkable manner, on the 23rd of March 1606, when a report arose in the city that he was assassinated at Okingham in Kent, while hunting, the instrument used being a poisoned knife, and the assassin a Papist. The effect of such a rumour on the public mind, excited as it had been by the recent plot, is described in very strong language by Arthur Wilson:
'The Court at Whitehall, the Parliament and City, took the alarm, mustering up their old fears, every man standing at gaze, as if some new prodigy [in this context, something monstrous] had seized them. Such a terror had this late monstrous intended mischief imprinted in the hearts of the people, that they took fire from every little train of rumour, and were ready to grapple with their own destruction before it came. In the midst of this agony, there came assurance of the King's safety, which he was enforced to divulge by proclamation, to re-establish the people.'
When James came to town [the] next day, he was received by the inhabitants with transports of joy, and a welcome which might be termed enthusiastic. Quite touched by their expressions of affection, he told them, in his usual kindly manner, that a better king they might perhaps have got by his death, if it had taken place; but he was sure they never could have got one who loved them better, or had their interests more sincerely at heart."
-Robert Chambers, The Life of King James the First, 1830, p. 123-124, retrieved Oct 18, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/dli.ministry.03882/page/123/mode/2up]

Despite the fact that historians have found that the common people and those who were close to James Stewart viewed him as a loving and caring king, those who have reason to hate him speak differently about him. For example, there was a man by the name of Anthony Weldon who, for a time, was a part of James' royal court, and displayed reasonable loyalty to the throne, but due to Weldon's hatred of the Scots, he too haphazardly wrote and spoke anti-Scottish sentiments, which obviously angered King James, who was a Scot.

Unsurprisingly, Weldon was eventually kicked out of James' court, and it should be noted that England has never been a nation allowing free speech, which means that, by his royal privilege, King James could have had Weldon publicly executed for his comments because his words put reproach and shame onto the crown. Instead, James dismissed Weldon discreetly, so he would not suffer public embarrassment, and even gave him a pension to live on, but Weldon had lost the lavish lifestyle he loved so much, so along with Francis Osbourne and Edward Peyton, two other men kicked out of James' court, Weldon sought revenge.

As a side note, one of the reasons these men hated James so much was because James had no respect to their person as nobles, and instead had respect to wisdom, loyalty, honesty, intellect, and hard work. Therefore, James often elevated exceptional commoners to nobility, and in reaction to one of these instances, Francis Osbourne commented:
"Robert Carr from a poor page, and to the dishonor of our ancient nobility, raised him to as high a title as most Earls of England."
-Francis Osbourne, quoted by Stephen A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England: Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 4, ISBN: 9780965677738

Although these men retained much hatred for James, they did not dare speak a negative word against him while he lived, and even after he died, they were afraid to speak up against him for fear of the common people because they adored him, even after his death. James died in 1625, and 25 years after his death in 1650, Weldon finally built up the courage to publish libel against King James in the form of homosexual/queer accusations.

In summary, King James ousted Anthony Weldon from court, which was carried out by James' close friend George Villiers, and James raised up commoner Robert Carr to noble status. Uncoincidentally, Weldon then accused Carr and Villiers of being in a sodomite relationship with James:
"The Earl of Somerset [Robert Carr] never parted from him with more seeming affection than at this time, when he knew Somerset should never see him more; and had you seen that seeming affection (as the author himself did) you would rather have believed he was in his rising than setting. The Earl when he kissed his hand, the King hung about his neck slabbering [moisture falling from the mouth] his cheeks, saying 'For God's sake when shall I see thee again?'... then lolled about his neck, then 'For God's sake give thy Lady this kiss for me' in the same manner at the stair's head, at the middle of the stairs, and at the stair's foot."
-Anthony Weldon, quoted in The History of England Under the House of Stuart, Including the Commonwealth, Baldwin, 1840, p. 92, [Montserrat Abbey Library]

Of course, such reports were not found among James' friends, staff, church, or any other political or business dealings. They only seem to be coming from a select few disgruntled ex-employees who wanted revenge, and so their testimonies should be read with a healthy skepticism, as the following author reasonably points out:
"Anthony Weldon's charge is that these gestures were a formality and a sham, that James had no intention of fulfilling what they indicated. For the social historian that is curiously helpful, for it detaches the gestures being described from what we might or might not make of James's relationship with Robert Carr and leaves them floating free as public signs with an understood meaning. What then was that meaning?
In one respect at least the picture Anthony Weldon gives needs a hefty discount, for this is the account of a man with a grudge. By the time Anthony Weldon came to prepare the manuscript from which this account was probably drawn by its editor he was no longer the courtier we see here. He had lost his post and was a bitter man. We therefore need to make some allowance for his malice. To slabber Robert Carr's cheeks was certainly to kiss him and to hang about his neck was to embrace him, but the colourful language in which these are described is Anthony Weldon's own."
-Tim Hitchcock & Michelle Cohen, English Masculinities, 1660-1800, Routledge, 2014, p. 66-67, ISBN: 9781317882503

Indeed, "a hefty discount" of Weldon's account should be applied not only because of his deep-seated hatred, but also on the grounds that he wrote his account 35 years after the event he described. I would challenge readers to try recalling something as mundane as two friends giving each other a hug 35 years ago, and you should be able to see how difficult it is to remember any vivid details, such as those which Weldon seems to have recounted from an allegedly flawless memory.

It should also be noted that this account was pulled out of Weldon's memoirs. He did not allow the publishing of his memoirs until after his own death, meaning that he was too cowardly to make these accusations (which likely, he knew were false) until he could escape public outrage; although, he has not escaped the Lord's judgment.


Despite these problems, Moody Monthly, a supposedly "Christian" publication, which stated they exist to "equip people with the truth of God's Word to be maturing followers of Christ who are making disciples around the world," published a couple of articles accusing James Stewart of homosexuality based on Weldon's false accusations. One called "The Real King James," by Karen Ann Wojohn, and another called "The Bible That Bears His Name," by Leslie Keylock. Some websites I researched have stated that Moody publications was contacted multiple times by various organizations and asked to provide some evidence of their queer accusations against King James, or else retract those articles, but unsurprisingly, Moody Monthly never responded.

I find it interesting that Moody Monthly funded the production of not one, but two faulty articles based on lazy research by a couple of female busybodies, in order to cast doubt on the King James Bible. However, when NIV translator Virginia Mollenkott was discovered to be a lesbian, even during the time she worked on the NIV, Moody Monthly remained silent, and as far as I know, they have never published any articles about that.
(Read "The NIV Promotes Homosexuality/Sodomy" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

To further address these false charges, it is well-known by those who study the writings of King James that he hated effeminate conduct in men. This is in line with the Word of God, namely, that not just the queer, but men who act feminine in their speech and attire, will not inherit the kingdom of God:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
-1 Corinthians 6:9

effeminate (adj): men having the qualities of the female sex; soft or delicate to an unmanly degree; womanish
(See 'effeminate', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 18, 2023 [webstersdictionary1828.com])

James instructed his eldest son, Henry, in the following way:
"And shortly, in your Clothes keep a proportion, as well with the seasons of the year, as of your age: in the fashions of them being careless, using them according to the common form of the time, whiles richlier [wealthy attire], whiles meanlier [humble, low social status] cloth, as occasion serveth, without keeping any precise rule therein; for if your mind be found occupied upon them, it will be thought idle... But especially eschew [i.e. hate] to be effeminate in your clothes, in perfuming, preining, or such like. And fail never in time of wars to be galliardest [clothing that portrays strength and liveliness] and bravest, both in clothes and countenance. And make not a fool of yourself in disguising or wearing long your hair or nails, which are but excrements of Nature [i.e. that which is discharged from the body] and betray such misusers of them, to be either of a vindictive, or a vain light nature; especially, make no vowes in such vain and outward things as concern either meat or clothes."
-King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, p. 132-133, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n181/mode/2up]

James rightly pointed out that those who obsess over hair, nails, eyelashes, etc, are, by their nature, vain and vindictive, meaning that they do not handle weightier matters with the seriousness they ought (while considering useless issues to be of great importance), and they are spiteful people who desire to hurt those who do not recognize the elevated status they portray by their lavish extensions. Furthermore, James clearly rebuked effeminate mannerisms of any kind, showing his great displeasure for the queers who acted in such a manner, and I would remind readers that sodomites/homosexuals do not make such bold moral statements.

James also wrote the following to his son:
"But as this severe justice of yours upon all offenses would be but for a time (as I have already said), so is there some horrible crimes that ye are bound in Conscience never to forgive: such as Witchcraft, wilfull murder, Incest, (especially within the degrees of consanguinity [relationship by blood]) Sodomy, poisoning, and false coin: as for treason against your own person or authority, (when the fault concerneth your self) I remit to your own choice to punish or pardon therein as your heart serveth you, and according to the circumstances of the turn and the quality of the committer."
-King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, p. 37-38, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n85/mode/2up]

James advised discretion and heavy consideration when punishing any crime that was committed against the throne of England; to show mercy if it was called for, depending on the circumstance. However, James clearly condemned, without mercy, acts of witchcraft, premeditated murder, incest (i.e. sexual intercourse between closely related family members, which means he condemned the incestual marriage of royalty in various countries, including his own), sodomy (i.e. homosexuality), assassination by poison, and merchant scammers and/or governments that inflate currency with fake money.

Did King James execute witches? Yes. Did he execute homosexuals? Yes. James was not playing a game of thrones; he took his position of power very seriously because he knew it was granted to him by the will of God to do good to the people, and getting rid of those who committed these egregious sins made the kingdom more peaceful and prosperous.

James Stewart spent fifteen days in prayer before entering into marriage with Anne of Denmark because he took marriage with the utmost seriousness:
"But the principal blessing that you can get of good company will stand, in your Marrying of a godly and virtuous wife; For she must be nearer unto you than any other company, being flesh of your flesh and bone of your bone (as God himself said to Adam). And because I know not but God may call me before ye be ready for Marriage, I will shortly set down to you here my advise therein.
First of all consider, that Marriage is the greatest earthly felicity or misery, that can come to a man, according as it pleaseth God to bless or curse the same: since without the blessing of God then ye cannot look for a happy success in marriage, ye must be careful both in your preparation for it, in the choice usage of your wife to procure the same: By your preparation I mean that ye must keep your body clean and unpolluted, while ye give it to your Wife whom to only it belongeth: For how can ye justly crave to be joined with a pure Virgin, if your body be polluted? Why should the one half be clean, and the other defiled? And suppose I know, Fornication is thought but a venial [easily pardoned] sin by the most part of the world, yet remember well what I said to you in my first book... count every sin and breach of God's law, not according as the vain world esteemeth of it, but as God the judge and maker of the law accounteth of the same."
-King James I of England, Basilikon Doron: His Majesty's Instructions to His Dearest Son, Henry the Prince, Edinburgh, 1599, p. 86-88, published Wertheimer, Lea & Co., 1887, Cornell University Library, retrieved Aug 8, 2023, [https://archive.org/details/cu31924097402626/page/n135/mode/2up]

Ask yourself: Does that sound like the writing of a sodomite/homosexual? Quite the opposite is true.

Other accusations come from cherry-picked segments of James' writings, like this example from a book by a sodomite author who quoted James:
"I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my George."
-Robert Aldrich & Garry Wotherspoon, Who's Who in Gay and Lesbian History: From Antiquity to the Mid-Twentieth Century, Routledge, 2005, p. 226-227, ISBN: 9781134722150

As of 2023 (when I wrote this book), we live in a sex-crazed, adulterous, fornicating, homosexual-endorsing, pedophile-promoting society, and thus, everything they read is interpreted through those glasses, so horribly to the point that many people make sexual innuendos out of everything they see and hear. Everything in media, movies, music, news, magazines, and on the internet is about sex, so when someone perverted reads something pure from the mouths of men who had a close, pure friendship, they will twist it to infer sexual desire from it, demonstrating the depravity in the hearts of mankind.

A man cannot express his love (favor) for another man without being considered a homosexual in today's perverted American society, and I pray for God's mercy on our nation. Here is another example of a cherry-picked excerpt, in which the Duke of Buckingham was writing to James Stewart:
"I naturally so love your person, and adore all your other parts, which are more than ever one man had,"
-Isaac Kimber & Edward Kimber, The London Magazine: Gentleman's Monthly Intelligencer, R. Baldwin, Vol. 31, 1762, p. 667

Thus, the queer folk of this nation try to get people to think there was sexual intercourse happening between James and the Duke of Buckingham, which is ludicrous. Even if we analyze just the sentence by itself, the context is obviously describing the parts of his personality or character, but those who have a hate-filled agenda could not care less. Those who are pushing the propaganda do not tell you that this was a common phrase between people during that era, and even Anthony Weldon, who accused James of homosexuality, used it:
"Sir Anthony Weldon in describing Sir Thomas Overbury '... a man of excellent parts'... Sir Anthony Weldon in describing a lady's character: 'The honorable esteem I have ever had of you and your brave parts'... Sir Walter Scott's notation of Sir James Ephington '...a man of excellent parts...'"
-Stephen A. Coston & Richard D. Neumeier, King James, the VI of Scotland & the I of England: Unjustly Accused?, KonigsWort, 1996, p. 4, ISBN: 9780965677738

In chapter nine, I briefly mention the Queen James Bible produced by queers who revel in their sin, and on their website, they accuse James of being "bisexual" and having many queer relationships: "Commonly known to biographers but often surprising to most others, King James I was a well-known bisexual. Though he did marry a woman, his many gay relationships were so well known that amongst some of his friends and court, he was known as "Queen James." It is in his great debt and honor that we name the Queen James Bible so."
-The Queen James Bible, retrieve Oct 31, 2023, [https://queenjamesbible.com/]

Only twisted perverts (who hypocritically preach that they are the "loving" ones) make these kinds of false accusations, and it is because most of them hate the Christian God of the Bible, so by association, they automatically hate anyone who has anything to do with the Word of God preserved in the KJB. The sinners of this world love to use the false accusation of sodomy against James because they think that belittles the KJB, and so they consider themselves justified to alter the Holy Word of God (just like all the other corrupt translators of modern versions) so their sin would not be rebuked.

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.
-2 Timothy 4:1-5

It is not just the queers, but also many other churchgoers do the same, throwing out false accusations that James was a Freemason. As I talked about in my free-to-read book, Freemasonry: A Luciferian Beacon, Freemasons are part of a devilish cult that must (upon their initiation) swear oaths that deny Christ. Much of this controversy has come from a Masonic website, which is typically good at documenting famous Freemasons, but in the case of King James, they messed up royally by claiming the following:
"On the west wall of the lodge hall used by Lodge Scoon and Perth No. 3 in Perth, Scotland can be found a mural depicting James VI kneeling at their altar at his initiation. The oldest existing record of the Lodge, called 'The Mutual Agreement' of 24 December, 1658, records that James was 'entered Freemason and Fellowcraft of the Lodge of Scoon' on 15 April, 1601."
-Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, "James VI of Scotland," retrieved Jan 4, 2017, [freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/james_vi.html]

As I stated at the beginning of this chapter, even if King James was a Freemason, it would not have any effect on the purity of the KJB because James only approved the commission and raised money for it. Again, they falsely accuse King James because they think it will somehow help them destroy the credibility of the KJB, which is childish and fallacious.

In a YouTube video entitled "Breaking: King James Bible 1611 is Masonic!!" the information from the Grand Lodge website (which I just quoted) was shown as evidence that King James was a Freemason, but what was really interesting was that the author of the video cut out the fine print at the bottom of the page. The average viewer, drawn in by the dramatic music and video presentation, will not catch that sleight-of-hand, but if you go to the website and read the fine print which was censored by the video author, it says:
"Note that the Contract or Mutual Agreement is the only record of this initiation, that this history was commissioned by the lodge to establish its claims of precedence, and there is no primary source documentation."
-Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, "James VI of Scotland," retrieved Jan 4, 2017, [freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/james_vi.html]; See also Grace Bride, "Breaking: King James Bible 1611 is Masonic!!" Nov 24, 2014, retrieved Jan 4, 2017, [youtube.com/watch?v=k_p6fbi32dQ]

In case you did not understand what that means, the author is saying that the Masonic Lodge declared that King James was a Freemason according to THEIR own records, or in other words, the guy they commissioned to do the job said so. However, there is NO source documentation to back up their claim, and so the website owner listed King James as a Freemason only because someone in the Masonic cult listed him as a member at some point, not because they have any documentation to prove it.

I find it a bit odd that a King, head of one of the most powerful nations in the world at that time, would not have any existing documentation somewhere that would even slightly indicate his involvement in the Freemasons. Freemasons can often be identified by their writings because they have a Freemasonic philosophy, and their beliefs come out automatically in their words, but not only is there nothing in the writing of King James that remotely indicates his involvement with the Masons, there is also "no primary source documentation" to support the ludicrous idea.

If you search the links in the references I have provided, you can find a contextual overview of the Contract or Mutual Agreement of 1658 concerning King James VI of Scotland & I of England:


Once again, if we simply read to the bottom, we find that Edward Macbean, who is a Junior Warden Mason and researcher who studied the claims of the Freemasons' document from 1658, said that there is NOTHING to back up the claim:
"Edward Macbean claims that the initiation of James VI, King of Scotland, is apocryphal, and it must be noted that there is no primary source documentation."
-Grand Lodge of British Columbia and Yukon, "James VI of Scotland," retrieved Jan 4, 2017, [freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/james_vi/james_vi.html]

In the previous chapter, we learned what the word 'apocryphal' means, so readers should understand that the document they are relying on to say that King James was a Freemason has no authority or credibility. Here's a quotation directly from Edward Macbean's book:
"The minute is signed by the new master, warden, and thirty-eight members... this certificate, however, does not vouch for the historical accuracy of its contents, and we may remark that the reception of the Scottish King is generally considered apocryphal."
-Edward Macbean, Ars Quatuor Coronatorum: Being the Transactions of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076, London, Vol. 7, W.J. Parre H, Limited, 1894, p. 105, [University of Michigan]

However, the Grand Lodge website decided to list King James as a Freemason, even though they had no evidence for it, and it is likely this was done to benefit the Freemasons. Just listing his name might convince some Christians to convert to Freemasonry, which would help increase membership numbers and decrease the number of people exposing Freemasonry for the Luciferian cult that it is.

Another common attack on the King James Bible is the use of what some people call "Masonic Handshakes" used in the genealogy charts that were artistically drawn and added to the 1611 printing. I have done my best to highlight them so readers can get an idea of what scoffers are complaining about.


My first question was: What is the supporting evidence that these are Masonic handshakes? The problem with this argument is that it is all based on the premise that King James was a Mason, and that King James had anything to do with the information produced in the King James Bible, both of which are false.

Is any handshake automatically Masonic? Should we believe that anyone who joins hands with another is automatically a Freemason? Author Leonard Huber wrote a book called Clasped Hands: Symbolism in New Orleans Cemeteries, in which he pursued research into the "handshake" symbol that is commonly found on 19th century tombstones found in New Orleans.

"In most all representations of a man and woman holding hands, the woman's hands are always to the left with the man's hands to the right. This symbol means "holy-matrimony-of union."
-Leonard V. Huber, Clasped Hands: Symbolism in New Orleans Cemeteries, University of Southwestern Louisiana, 1982, back cover, ISBN: 9780940984042

The truth is that the handshakes are not "Masonic handshakes," but rather, they are a representation that the two people listed were married, which you can verify by simply checking out the names in the chart and cross-referencing them to the Scriptures. Believe it or not, there is actually a group that studies gravestones, called The Association for Gravestone Studies, and one researcher in this group pointed out:
"Hands are found on many gravestones... Handshakes may be farewells to earthly existence or may be clasped hands of a couple to be reunited in death as they were in life, their devotion to each other not destroyed by death."
-Jesse L. Farber, "Symbolism on Gravestones," The Association for Gravestone Studies, retrieved Jan 4, 2017, [gravestonestudies.org/conference/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82&Itemid=506#faqnoanchor]

For those of you who are interested in this subject and want to see it for yourself, you may have to get out a magnifying glass to get a closer look at the genealogy chart I provided from the 1611 KJB. If you look carefully at the cuffs of each hand, you will notice that they are not wearing the same type of clothing, and this is because one hand represents the male (with the cufflink), while the other hand represents the female (with a cuff that would typically be found on an older style of dress).

Because this represents male and female, it is impossible that these handshakes are Masonic because women are not allowed to be in Masonic fraternities. Some may argue that there are female groups in Freemasonry, such as the Order of the Eastern Star, but that group did not exist until the mid-1800s, and it does not refute the fact that women are not allowed to be a part of the primary fraternity that learns the secret handshakes of Freemasonry.

A blogger who researches southern gravestones shows a larger example of this tradition carved directly into the rock:


"If you look a little more closely, you will notice the sleeve attached to one hand is feminine, and the sleeve attached to the other hand is masculine. These hands, carved in this way, symbolize holy matrimony."
-Stephanie Lincecum, "Clasped Hands: The Devil is in the Details," Aug 8, 2009, retrieved Jan 4, 2017, [blog.southerngraves.net/2009/08/clasped-hands-devil-is-in-details.html]

The following image is also from the genealogy chart published in the 1611 King James Bible, showing a so-called "Masonic handshake" between Adam and Eve. Should we conclude that Adam and Even were Freemasons? This is how ridiculous this argument can get if taken seriously.


None of these facts will matter to those who hate the KJB, and most of them will continue to repeat these false accusations because their hearts are filled with the filth of sin. In fact, the main reason why such false accusations get spread far and wide is due to the sin of laziness in churchgoers, by which they refuse to put in the work it takes to research topics like this, and instead quickly buy in to the evil of sensational stories that will increase their popularity with audiences of simple-minded folks who also do not study.

The heart of the righteous studieth to answer:
but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things.
-Proverbs 15:28

I am sure there are more false accusations against King James out there, and there will likely be more to come in the future. It does not matter. I only added this chapter for Christians to gain understanding and grow in discernment, so you will not be fooled into being a follower of King James, but rather, that you will follow the Lord God and His preserved Word in the KJB, using it to rebuke the wickedness in the hearts of men to bring them to repentance for the remission of sins in Christ.

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. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.
-Luke 24:44-47

.

As many of you may have already noticed, the King James Bible has italicized (or [bracketed]) words, and those words were highlighted by the KJB translators so everyone would know what words they added to the text. If you read the text without the added words, it is still understandable, but it is easier to understand when you read it with the added words, and I am thankful that the KJB translators included those highlights to the text for the purpose of full transparency, so we know exactly which words they added.

It should be noted that the translators of the modern, watered-down versions do not make any note of which words or phrases they added to the text. The addition of words is often necessary when translating from one language to another, but the modern scoffers do not include that information with their corrupt versions, which means you will probably never know how much creative license they took during the editing process so they could secure their copyright.

Many years ago, I believed and taught that the added words to the KJB were not inspired. However, over the years, I have changed my position on that, and today, I believe that the added words ARE inspired, or in other words, I believe those words added by the KJB translators belong in the text as the inspired Word of God, and before anyone jumps to condemn me on my belief, please hear me out.

One thing we need to remember is that God does not have to operate according to the rules that we feeble men have created. He is not bound by our laws, and our understanding is nothing in comparison to His, and because of that, we need to keep in mind that a man can be blessed with the inspiration of God and not realize it.

For example, was John the Baptist actually Elijah the Prophet, who was foretold to come back to this world to precede the coming of Jesus Christ? Yes, John the Baptist was Elijah, and Jesus Himself said so:

And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead. And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come? And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias [Elijah] truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them. Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
-Matthew 7:9-13

And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
-Matthew 11:12-14

The angel who spoke to Zacharias also verified that the son who was in the womb of Elizabeth (Zacharias' wife) would come with the spirit and power God gave to Elijah:

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.
-Luke 1:17

However, when the Jews asked John the Baptist if he was Elijah, he said he was not:

And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the Christ. And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No.
-John 1:19-21

Did Jesus lie? No, of course not. Did the angel lie? No, of course not. Did John lie? No, of course not. John did not know who he was because God did not reveal that to Him, but Jesus said who he was, and that leaves us the with a choice of whether or not we trust Christ to what He said.

This shows us that a man can be inspired of God to do a particular work, and not know that he is inspired of God to do that work. It is God who decides these things, not us, and so it is important to remember that He has no limitations by which He must operate according to the rules of men.

I do not pressure any reader to agree with my belief on this point, I am only stating that I personally believe the added words to the KJB are inspired. However, the modern scoffers will argue that translations are not inspiration; rather, they believe that only the originals are inspired, but this is not what the Bible teaches us.

For example, if someone told me that translations cannot be inspired Scripture, then I would ask them to take a closer look at Ezra:

And in the days of Artaxerxes wrote Bishlam, Mithredath, Tabeel, and the rest of their companions, unto Artaxerxes king of Persia; and the writing of the letter was written in the Syrian tongue, and interpreted in the Syrian tongue. Rehum the chancellor and Shimshai the scribe wrote a letter against Jerusalem to Artaxerxes the king in this sort: Then wrote Rehum the chancellor, and Shimshai the scribe, and the rest of their companions; the Dinaites, the Apharsathchites, the Tarpelites, the Apharsites, the Archevites, the Babylonians, the Susanchites, the Dehavites, and the Elamites, And the rest of the nations whom the great and noble Asnappar brought over, and set in the cities of Samaria, and the rest that are on this side the river, and at such a time.
-Ezra 4:7-10

I freely confess that I often have a hard time reading these types of passages because they are generally boring to me and difficult to understand. However, we ought to keep in mind that there are hidden reasons we may never fully understand about why God included these verses in Scripture, and that studying them is important for those unknown reasons.

This passage is fascinating when concerning the topic of inspiration because we must ask ourselves: Was the book of Ezra written by the inspiration of God? I believe Ezra is part of the Holy Scriptures delivered to us by the Lord. The Levites also believed this passage was Holy Scripture, which is why they preserved it as such. However, the Scripture clearly says that this letter was originally written in the Syrian language to Artaxerxes, the king of Persia, and in verse nine, the letter is recited for us.

If the letter was originally written in Syrian, how was it preserved in the Hebrew language? Someone translated that letter into Hebrew, and it is considered, word-for-word, to be the perfect and preserved Word of God, which demonstrates to us that God can (and has) preserved His Word with a translation, and even inspired His Word with a translation.

This also indicates that, no matter how much knowledge the Lord may give you about the Bible, you still have to take it on faith. There are a lot of things about Scripture that can be verified to be true based on scientific, genealogical, or archeological data, but none of that information will ever prove the entire Bible.

You must believe the Scriptures on faith, and you must believe that the KJB is the preserved word of God on FAITH. Faith in the King James Bible ends all question and debate on matters of translation and preservation, but the modern scoffers want those questions and debates to continue forever because, if they do not continue, then the modern scoffers are out of a job, and they will have no one left to give them the prestige and respect of person they so desire.

Yea, they are greedy dogs which can never have enough, and they are shepherds that cannot understand: they all look to their own way, every one for his gain, from his quarter.
-Isaiah 56:11

Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess.
-Matthew 23:25

But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin,
and are convinced of the law as transgressors.
-James 2:8
(Read "Respecting Persons is Sin" here at creationliberty.com for more details.)

Many years ago, I was invited to a John Birch Society meeting in Ohio to do a presentation exposing atheistic/evolutionist philosophy and the globalist philosophy of ruling elites, and how they are interlinked. I understand that the JBS has its own corruptions, but I was asked to do it by a friend of a close friend of mine, so I did it.

In my presentation, I included a Power Point slide that had many corrupt world leaders, and one of those leaders was the Catholic Pope, which sparked outrage in some of the members of the audience. Afterwards, during Q&A, I took some verbal attacks from disgruntled Catholics, and before I was able to respond, the JBS meeting's leader ended the meeting abruptly, not allowing me to respond even when I requested it.

A few days later, I was contacted by the friend of my friend, and asked to come to lunch, and when I showed up, he ambushed me with two other people, one of which was the JBS meeting leader, whose name was Mike Tomaso. Tomaso died some years ago, but I will never forget his hatred of me after we had a brief discussion during that lunch meeting about the KJB; he tried to hide it as best he could during the lunch meeting, but in an email conversation, his fangs came out.

Tomaso wanted me to throw away my KJB and pick up the NASV, which is the Catholic-approved version. So I decided to send him an email that included the testimony of Frank Logsdon, who wrote the preface to the NASV, and was one of the consulting members of the NASV translation committee, because he wrote a letter to Cecil Carter of Prince George, British Columbia on June 9, 1977, in which he renounced the NASV, and realized the judgment he would face before the Lord God for changing the Bible.

As you read this letter, note that "Mr. Lockman" is referring to Dewey Lockman of The Lockman Foundation, who funded the production of the NASV, after he was encouraged by Logsdon to do so:
"I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord... We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong, terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it? When questions began to reach me, at first I was quite offended... I used to laugh with the others... However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the New American Standard Version. I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. The deletions are absolutely frightening... there are so many... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all this?
Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times... I don't want anything to do with it. The finest leaders that we have today haven't gone into it [contextually, he is referring to the NASV's use of the corrupted Minority Texts] just as I hadn't gone into it; that's how easily one can be deceived. I'm going to talk to him [i.e. George Sweeting, president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things.
You can say the Authorized Version (KJV) is absolutely correct. How correct? 100% correct. I believe the Spirit of God led the translators of the Authorized Version. [i.e. The King James Bible] If you must stand against everyone else, stand!"
-Frank Logsdon, quoted by Lindsay Cole, Letters from God, Author House, 2014, p. xxi-xxii, ISBN: 9781491874363

Always remember that through repentance (i.e. godly sorrow of sins) and faith in Christ, the Lord will forgive men of their sins, even if they have done something as horrible as change His Word. However, to the point I am making, Tomaso's response to me was somewhat expected considering his arrogant attitude in previous conversations I had with him:
"Do you think that I am going to answer all of this rambling? I will not. You prove yourself unworthy of it. I truly aspire to the humility that we are called to... When you are in Ohio, DO NOT attend any JBS or LHC event. [LHC was Tomaso's local organization] You will be rejected at the door. DO NOT communicate with me again. Any communication from you will be deleted or destroyed."
-Mike Tomaso, member of the John Birch Society, in a letter to Chris Johnson, May 19, 2010

There is more to the exchange than just this final letter he sent to me, but it is too lengthy for this book, and it would get us far off the topic at hand. God knows I spoke no hateful words towards him to provoke this response, but he did not like the fact that I included Scripture and references in my letters to him, while he only sent me his opinions. Just in his final letter alone, he accused me of being "hateful," "arrogant," "divisive," "sectarian," "cold," a "legalist," "self-righteous," and many other things, simply for showing him a quotation that contradicted the modern version he used and worshiped.

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
-2 Thessalonians 3:6-7

Of course, after reading carefully many of the things he said and believed, I do not believe he was brethren at all, and unless he came to repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow) of his sin before he died, I believe he is in hell today. (Mat 7:21-23) However, through these interactions, the Lord began to show me the attitude that often surrounds those who take pride in corrupt bible versions, and I have encountered many of them since then.

Readers should note that it is often argued by modern scoffers that Logsdon was not a co-founder of the NASV, but he did a feasibility study on the NASV project, meaning that he did an analysis to lay the foundations of the project, what they would need, who they would need to hire, and he conducted the interviews for the staff. Under any other circumstance, Logsdon would have been listed as a founder, but after he wrote that letter, saying he wanted nothing to do with it, he was no longer listed as one of the founders (even though he was one) because that would make the NASV and the Lockman Foundation look bad, and certainly hurt their profits.

There are countless shallow and frail attacks against the King James Bible that I have not addressed in this book, and if we spent all our time answering every one of them, we would never have time for anything else. It would be endless debate with scoffers who will never be convinced, no matter how many facts they are given (because they want to be the judges over the Word of God, and they do NOT want a perfect Bible that judges them), and those vain controversies take away from our time in study to understand the Gospel of Christ and teach it properly to those who want to hear it.

While I was writing this book, I had a woman on social media contact me and, in an accusatory manner, say, "I bet you're one of those people who worships the KJB," and I responded, "You bet I do, because I worship God's Word."

worship (v): to pay divine honors to; to reverence with supreme respect and veneration
(See 'worship', American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828, retrieved Oct 19, 2023, [webstersdictionary1828.com])

Based on previous posts I had seen from her, I already knew she followed false prophets, while still claiming she was a so-called "Christian," so I simply gave her the Gospel of repentance for the remission of sins and departed because she would not hear it. My point is that I worship the KJB, not for James or the translators, but for the preserved Word of God which I believe by FAITH because that is what pleases God, and I take the matter seriously because God takes it seriously.

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
-Hebrews 11:6

You will notice a pattern with modern scoffers that they typically do not have (and therefore, will not confess) the same faith in their watered-down versions. If they do not have that faith in the Word of God, then what is it that they believe? Since they do not have the original manuscripts (which they worship), then how can they know for sure that ANY of the Bible is true? Am I condemned because I can show them what I have faith in (i.e. the KJB), but they cannot show me what they have faith in (i.e. the originals)?

The modern scoffers will NEVER stop debating in strife and contention, I will NEVER have all the answers to all of their scoffing questions, the Lord will NEVER answer all of my questions about the King James Bible, and He will NEVER answer all of your questions either. He wants us to trust Him for those things we do not understand, so I am trusting Him to His Word, that He has preserved it for our good, even if I do not have all the answers.

Let me give you an example: A couple of years before I wrote this book, I had a man named Daniel send me an email telling me that some of the changes made to the King James Bible after 1611 were wrong, and that we should only rely on the original 1611 KJB.

He gave me an example that, at first, had me very concerned that my KJB might be incorrect. He quoted from Ruth 3:

Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.
-Ruth 3:15

He said the original 1611 KJB said 'he' instead of 'she':


"Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie."
-Ruth 3:15, Original 1611 King James Bible, King James Bible Online, retrieved Nov 1, 2023, [https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Ruth_3_1611/]

His argument was that the word 'he' belongs in the text, and the word 'she' is incorrect. Before I explain anything about this verse, I want to ask readers a question: Would you have faith that the KJB is the preserved Word of God WITHOUT an answer to this verse?

If you say 'no', then you will falter at every question and accusation coming from millions of scoffers around the world. If the KJB you hold in your hand is not the preserved Word of God, then what exactly are you basing your faith on? You must maintain faith in God and His preserved Word, even when you do not have an answer because, without that faith, it is impossible to please God.

The answer to this verse is that BOTH are correct (which is why I believe it took so long for this printing press error to be discovered), but the word 'she' gives us a better idea of what happened. Both Boaz AND Ruth went TOGETHER into the city because Boaz had made her promises of marriage based on her demonstration of faith and loyalty earlier in chapter three.

In chapter four, we have information that confirms that Boaz went into the city, but the word 'she' in Ruth 3:15 tells us that Ruth went with him, which makes sense to the context because he went to negotiate on her behalf:

Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
-Ruth 4:1

This is why I will not do any debates with people on this subject; it is simply a waste of my time. I do not mind discussing the KJB with someone who wants to talk about it, but I am not going to get into detailed back-and-forth debates with other people about it. There is a lot more I have found beyond what I have written about in this book, and I have studied this matter thoroughly enough to satisfy me, according to my own faith, and I stand confident that I have the truth in Christ from the KJB. The reason I published this book was not to prove my opposition wrong, but to be charitable to my Christian brethren, to make sure they know why I study the KJB, to give them easy access to this compiled information, and why I believe they should study it as well.

For, lo, the wicked bend their bow, they make ready their arrow upon the string, that they may privily shoot at the upright in heart. If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?
-Psalm 11:2-3

I should reiterate that I am not someone who believes that the bible version you read has an effect on your salvation because it does not. The Bible teaches us that men are saved by being brought to conviction of their sin through the hearing of the law (Gal 3:23-25), by which they recognize their corrupt spirit, which should (God willing) result in repentance (i.e. grief and godly sorrow of their wrongdoing, 2Co 7:9-10, with a contrite spirit, Psa 34:18) for the remission (i.e. pardon/forgiveness) of sins, and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ to be saved by His grace (Eph 2:8-9), and therefore, I believe that most Bible versions have the law in them by which a man can be humbled to receive the gifts of repentance and faith from the Lord. (2Ti 2:25, Heb 12:2)

However, that being said, when a Christian studies the Word of God, to read the words of the Holy Ghost, and to learn the depths of doctrine that was taught by Christ and His disciples, it is imperative that we have a pure Bible. Sadly, there are a surprising number of people in the world who choose a bible version based on which one justifies their thoughts and actions, and because some bible versions corrupt the Word of God so much that they alter the doctrine, we need to keep in mind that any impurities in the Word of God will stunt the growth of a Christian, and as I said earlier in this book, a watered-down version will produce a watered-down faith.

So then faith cometh by hearing,
and hearing by the word of God.
-Romans 10:17

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
-2 Corinthians 10:3-5

For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
-Hebrews 4:12-13

However, modern scoffers would have you continually doubt what the Word of God says, and that is proven by the fact that they, very often, encourage people to read multiple versions all at the same time, which they believe makes them very forward-thinking and educated. This is a fallacy of thinking because, as we learned in this book, the watered-down versions are based on corrupt manuscripts that have changed the Word of God, and so by studying them all together, even if you include the KJB among them, you will be learning from the corruptions of the bad manuscripts.

A question I have heard many times is, "What about people who don't speak English? Which bible should they use?" My answer: The King James Bible. One might argue that it would force them to learn English, and that is correct; they should learn English.

I can already hear the accusations that modern scoffers will make against me for daring to tell people to learn English if they want to read the perfect and preserved Word of God. However, I would ask them: "Where did God promise to preserve His Word in every language?"

The answer is that He did not promise that; He only told us that He would provide and preserve His Word for us. We need to be careful not to put emphasis on alleged promises that God never made.

In the day when the Levites copied and preserved the Old Testament, what would someone have to do if they wanted to study God's Word? They would either have to learn Hebrew, or they would have to have it read to them by someone who could read Hebrew, and the modern scoffers are oddly quiet, refusing to condemn God and the Jews for it.

When the apostles wrote their letters to the churches, they wrote them in Greek, and so what would someone have to do if they wanted to study the New Testament Scriptures? They would either have to learn Greek, or they would have to have it read to them by someone who could read Greek, and the modern scoffers are oddly quiet, refusing to condemn Christ and His apostles for it.

However, when it comes to the Bible in English, why does this concept of learning the language suddenly become abhorrent to modern scoffers? As I stated earlier, English is one of the easiest languages in the world to learn, and so it is easier now than it has ever been to learn the language established by God in His Word, preserved for us in the King James Bible.

You will find that the great majority of modern scoffers do not believe that we have a perfect and preserved Bible in English (which is why they create so many versions), and they often say that, in order to gain a full understanding of the Bible, we have to go back to the "original Greek" and "original Hebrew." That argument becomes awkward when you consider that they just made the same argument I made, only they are removing it by one language; in other words, they are saying that the only way you can study the perfect and preserved Word of God is by learning a much more complicated language (i.e. Hebrew) and a dead language (i.e. ancient Koine Greek), but they will turn around and accuse me of idiocy and evil for the horrible crime of suggesting that people learn English (i.e. a MUCH easier language to learn) to study Scripture.

As I pointed out earlier, the KJB established the English language, creating a foundation upon which the language has flourished. Therefore, even if someone translates the KJB into another language, it will be inferior to the KJB.

I am in no way arguing that it is wrong or pointless to translate the KJB into another language because, after all, those who do not speak English need to hear the Scriptures, and if they do not know English, they cannot hear them unless there is a translator. However, if they want the purity of God's Word without flaw, they need to learn English to read and study it for themselves in the KJB, and the Lord has made it somewhat convenient for those in foreign lands to do, since many schools in other nations require their citizens to learn basic English, some of their universities require English courses to graduate, and some companies require their staff to know some English in order to be hired.

Christians need to understand that, if you grew up reading, writing, and speaking English, then you have a greater responsibility to uphold, preserve, study, and teach the Word of God to others who do not have such privilege. It is a great blessing to have the Word of God preserved in our language, but that also means we have a duty to bring it to others around the world, and it is my hope to accomplish that (God willing, at least somewhat) even in this book.

It is amazing to me how often modern scoffers put so much emphasis on "the originals" because, as we learned in chapter two, there are some entire chapters of Scripture that tell us that the originals of that chapter were destroyed, and yet, we still have it. However, if a modern scoffer wants to put that much importance on the originals, they would have to believe that the originals are perfect, and my question for them is this: How did you prove the originals were perfect?

If they will be honest, and avoid red herring excuses to justify themselves, they have no choice but to admit that they have not proved the originals were perfect. Thus, both the modern scoffers and the KJB users must have faith-based presuppositions in their respective positions. The difference between modern scoffers and myself is that they believe the originals are perfect without having them in front of them to prove it, and I believe the KJB is perfect while having it in front of me to prove it, so which side do you think is more reasonable and based on more grounded faith?

As much as I would love to add more details on subject matter surrounding the KJB, I cannot make this book much longer, or I will have to create separate volumes. I have to end it at some point. However, if any readers want to learn more, I would recommend a few other teachings I have available for free at creationlibery.com.

The Dangers of Using Lexicons and Concordances I created this teaching to help Christians understand that the lexicons and concordances that are typically used by modern so-called "scholarship" (e.g. Strong, Vine, Thayer, etc) have the same problem that watered-down bible versions have, namely, that they are based on corrupt Minority Text manuscripts. I also provide quotations from the creators of these lexicons and concordances, demonstrating that their faith was not in Christ's Gospel of repentance for the remission of sins by grace through faith.

The 'Original Greek' Scam This article will help Christians understand that when pastors refer to the "original Greek," they are often scamming them into thinking they know Greek, when they do not, and scamming them into thinking that they are learning some special meaning of the Scriptures, when they are not. There is also a test you can take to demonstrate that you can interpret the meaning of Scripture on your own, by the context, better than someone who relies on (and, in many cases, deceives others by their use of) lexicons and concordances.

Does the Greek Septuagint Exist? This article explains the problems, both cultural and historical, with the so-called "LXX" or "Greek Septuagint." There is no proper manuscript evidence for the existence of the Septuagint, but it is referred to by pastors all over the world for deceptive reasons, which I cover in more detail in that article.

NOTE: I would ask that readers not write to me asking where to purchase a copy of the KJB, or which publisher I would recommend that you use. That goes beyond the scope of my ministry. These are things that I cannot constantly keep up-to-date with, and you should research that information for yourself.

As I end this book, I would like to offer my gratitude to any of you who have taken the time to read this book in its entirety because I know that few will. I would know nothing without the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I give Him thanks for His mercy not only in opening my eyes to the truth of His Word, but also giving you the patience and understanding to read this book.

I hope that all of you who read this will be richly blessed with wisdom and understanding from the Lord as you study the King James Bible, and that you might be willing to share this book with others who might benefit from it as well. I also hope that, after reading this book, you can move forward with a firm foundation of faith established in the KJB, knowing that God and His faithful saints have preserved His Word for us, and that you can be confident you hold it in your hand.

If you learned anything from this, I would also encourage you to read another short book I wrote concerning the Gospel of Salvation called Why Millions of Believers on Jesus Are Going to Hell, which I wrote based on the doctrine that Jesus taught in His Sermon on the Mount:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.
-Matthew 7:21-23

Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
-Matthew 7:13-14