Watchman Willie Martin Archive


††††††††† Holy War: FW: The TRUTH of the King James version!

†††† Date:

††††††††† Sat, 27 Oct 2001 19:54:02 ‑0700

††† From:

†††††††† "Andy" <[email protected]>


†††††††† [email protected]

††††† To:

†††††††† "[email protected] 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

‑‑‑‑‑Original Message‑‑‑‑‑

From: Bob Jones [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 19:25

To: Undisclosed‑Recipient:@mx11‑;

Subject: The TRUTH of the King James version!

Importance: High

†††††††††††† 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 Biblesóby 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

reignóand 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

†††††††††††††††††††††† ADVERTISEMENT

For the King of kings!

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

Holy_War‑[email protected]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Reference Materials