Holy War: FW: The TRUTH of the King James version!
Sat, 27 Oct 2001 19:54:02 ‑0700
"Andy" <[email protected]>
"Holy_War@yahoogroups. com" <[email protected]>
This message shows some problems with the KJV Bible and the controversy that many are unaware
of. I think that with the continued dumbing down of the population, that the KJV use will continue to
wane and its use will finally become negligible. Why I like the KJV is that I can use Strong's and
Englishman's Concordance with it and get information extracted. It is much more difficult to do the
same with modern translations. Vaya Con Dios, Andy
From: Bob Jones [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 19:25
Subject: The TRUTH of the King James version!
The TRUTH of the
King James version!
It is important to know that only the King James Version of the
Holy Bible is recognized as Law in American courts.
We are aware of certain Christian churches and ministers that
promote the King James Version of the Bible as the best translation
that a Christian can own. Actually, they have strongly
recommended, or in some cases commanded, their followers to
read and use no other translation. As any true student of the Bible
will know such a vigorous defense of the King James Version of
the Bible is by no means a recent occurrence.
Ever since its release by King James back in 1611, the KJV
translation has come under repeated attack, and, as we shall
shortly see, for good reason. However, because of its
near‑universal acceptance by English‑speaking Protestants, the
KJV has been defended as no other translation, with the possible
exception of the Latin Vulgate.
The point of this article is not to go into the complicated history
of Christian Bible translations, but to center on the KJV with a brief
We were surprised after reading the Tanakh, which is published
by the Jewish Publication Society of Philadelphia. One shocking
observation was discovering
hundreds of footnotes as the following: "Exact meaning of Hebrew
uncertain, syntax of Hebrew unclear, the traditional reading
madhebah is of unknown meaning, grammar of Hebrew unclear,
meaning of first line uncertain" . . . This was very shocking. Those
of us coming from a conservative Christian background are usually
told the Bible is inerrant.
How was it possible for the translators to produce an 'inerrant'
Bible, when the 'guardians of the so called 'inerrant' Hebrew text
did not know the meaning of many words and passages?
Unfortunately, the problem
does not lie with the Jews' lack of understanding of their own
language, but with a false doctrine perpetuated by
fundamentalist for many years. The Doctrine of Biblical
Inerrancy. This doctrine has caused Christian leaders to outright lie
to maintain their position. They have to take plain facts and hide
them from their followers. Because they have locked themselves
into the teaching that the King James Bible is 'the inerrant'
translation of the 'so‑called' original texts, they have locked
themselves into a position where lying, distorting, and name calling
are the only options left to maintain their ground.
They say the 66 books of the present King James Bible are
inerrant, but they don't tell you it lacks 14 entire books which were
in the original King James of 1611. They don't tell you the King
James Bible has been changed many times in the last 350 years
and there have been thousands of corrections! They don't tell you
the King James Bible was never authorized by anyone (other than
King James 1 of England). They don't tell you the original KJV had a
calendar of annual Holy days which all believers were to follow
such as: Purification of the virgin Mary, annunciation of our Lady,
Innocents day, etc. They don't tell you the Greek text used by the
King James translators produced by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic
humanist monk, did not have manuscripts that contained all 27
books of the New
Testament, so he borrowed out of the Latin Catholic Vulgate! No,
they don't tell you these things because that would be the end of
the lie which has kept them in business.
As We browsed through this excellent Old Testament translation
(the Tanakh), we marveled that these scholars were not ashamed
to tell the world they were not perfect
and therefore could not produce an inerrant translation.
Here are some other facts about the King James Bible. In 1851
the American Bible Society compared six different editions of the
King James Bible and discovered over
24,000 variations between the editions of the same Bible
translation! How could there be an inerrant King James Bible when
even the different editions of the King James Bible had tens of
thousands of variant readings?" In noting the removal of 14 books
from the original KJV, We must ask, "Will the plagues of Revelation
be on your head because you are using a KJV missing 14 books?
Let us point out the deceitful argument by KJV supporters that
the translators used the so‑called Textus Receptus. They teach this
text was available to the King James translators which allowed
them to produce an inerrant English translation. Historical records
regarding this 'Textus Receptus' proves their view to be totally
false. First of all the term 'Textus Receptus' first appears in a
second edition of Stephanus Greek text produced by the Elzevire
Brothers in 1633, twenty‑two years after the King James Bible was
Outlining the history of the TR, it took Erasmus, in his own
words, only several months "to throw together rather than edit."
One critic in England called it the 'least carefully
printed book ever published.' Erasmus in trying to be the first to get
a Greek text in print, threw together in a few months what it took
his competitors at Alcala de Henares
University many years to assemble. The University's text came to
be known as the Complutensian Polyglot. Erasmus only had a
handful of very late manuscripts to work from, none of which
contained the complete Greek New Testament, so he filled in the
gaps from the Latin Vulgate. That is why the Textus Receptus has
words that do not agree with any known Greek text. He corrected
his text in four subsequent editions. In the mid 1500's a man named
Stephanus took Erasmus text and combined it with the
Complutensian Text (a Catholic work). . . . The Stephanus text,
which the King James translators used, differed from the
self‑proclaimed 'Textus Receptus' in 287 places.
Erasmus, the originator of the so‑called 'inerrant' Greek text later
to be called the 'Textus Receptus' dedicated his work to Pope Leo
X who would later condemn Luther and the Reformation.
The KJV came to dominate the English‑speaking world's choice
of Bibles—by its supporters using smear tactics to discredit other
translations. They freely use character assassination as a screen to
throw people off from searching things out for themselves.
Of course, the man behind the KJV was King James 1 of
England. This man's influence on the translation has been
negatively noted by numerous scholars, but is, perhaps, almost
completely unknown by most Protestants. For instance, James 1
issued the "translation" committee 15 rules which they had to
follow while "translating." Here are several of these: "Rule 1. The
ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops
Bible, (had) to be followed and as little altered as the Truth of the
will permit." Now that doesn't sound like a 'new' translation, does
it? Rule 4. "When a word hath divers signification's, that to be kept
which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient
(Catholic) Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place,
and the Analogy of the Faith."
Fifteen such rules certainly tied the hands of the KJV translators,
in addition to the fact that they were working from a very faulty and
piece‑meal compilation of the so‑called 'original Greek'. We can
also note that the translators understood that they had need to
translate certain passages that would uphold King James' "Divine
Right of Kings" doctrine, which was the cornerstone of his
reign—and one, by the way, that caused the English Civil War and
the death of his son, King Charles 1.
These examples should be enough to show one that the King
James translators were not 'anointed by God' to produce an
authentically original translation free from political and
denominational bias. They were 'appointed' by James for political
and monetary reasons. When asked to endorse the KJV, Hugh
Broughton, foremost Hebrew
scholar of England at that time said he would rather "be rent to
pieces by wild horses than have had any part in the urging of such
a wretched version of the Bible on the poor people."
Over 350 English translations of the New Testament have been
marketed to date. The most popular and accepted translations are,
of course, those which can be used to support Christendom's
doctrines. Pastors will push those translations which work for them
the most. When a major Bible translation is undertaken by a
publisher or some other institution, the directors are not only
responsible for getting the text translated; they must also make
sure that the resulting work will, over time, pay for the cost of
translation and make a profit. In other words, they are under a
directive to make sure that the completed Bible supports the
majority view of Christendom's doctrines. The market first,
accuracy to original text,
second. The bottom line of present day Bible translating is: It must
So much for those ministers that advocate the great King James
Version of the Holy Bible!
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
For the King of kings!
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.