You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘King James Controversy’ category.

ibelieve02I received the following letter:

Hello Sir,

I found your website and I have a few questions if you have time. (They should be fairly quick response if you have the time)

1.) Are you an “Acts 28er” as in you believe the body Christ started at Acts 28:28?
(yes/no)

2.) Do you believe God preserved His exact words?

3.) Which Hebrew and Greek texts contain the exact words of God? (if answered yes to #2)

4.) Which translation is most reliable to the most reliable manuscripts?

5.) What do you think of this post “M.A.D. Baptist” http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/p/water.html

If you do not have time then that is fine. Just know I have no desire to initiate a debate, I will not respond back accept to “thanks” to ensure that doesn’t happen.

Grace and Peace,

I would be happy to answer your questions as best I can. Read the rest of this entry »

kingjames02I received the following question:

As you know, the name “James” in the Bible is really Jacob in the Greek. It seems like an obvious manipulation of the name by King James, the major translator of the New Testament. Yet I am in a discussion as to whether or not this was actually the fault of King James. What do you say?

While it is interesting that “Iacobos” is changed to “James” in the King James Version, this was not something unique to King James. The name was changed to James or Iames in the Wycliffe Bible (1395), the Tyndale Version (1526), the Bishop’s Bible (1568), and the Geneva Bible (1587). Apparently, though it was Iacobus in the Vulgate, there was a dialect wherein it was pronounced Iacomus. Apparently from here it came into French as Iames, and then into English as the same. Probably the translators knew the connection with Iacomus in Latin, and so distinguished between Iacob and Iacobos in this way. It was still a rather silly choice. It must have been Tyndale’s doing, and no one was brave enough to change it after that. Perhaps Tyndale got it from the fact that the Latin services he was used to hearing pronounced it Iacob and Iacomus.

So no, we cannot blame this one on good old King James. He did have some axes to grind and manipulated some things in the King James Version, but putting his name into it was not one of them. That had been done long before.

jeffersonbibles02I received the following comments:

You made mention of the fact that you preferred the New King James version over the KJV. I would like to take the time to point out a few things the sister Replinger has shown me:

The NKJV Omits Key Christian Words     
               Times Omitted

               “Lord” 66 times
               “God” 51 times
               “heaven” 50 times
               “repent” 44 times
               “blood” 23 times
               “hell” 22 times
               “JEHOVAN” entirely
               “new testament” entirely
               “damnation” entirely
               “devils” entirely

Also, the NKJV ingnored the KJV Greek Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.

The NKJV replaced the trustworthy KJV Hebrew Old Testament (ben Chayyim Masoretic Text) with corrup Biblia Hebraica frp, Stittgart (ben Asher).

I would also point out how the NKJV demotes Jesus Christ:

               NKJV                               KJV
               ——–                         ——-
         Luke 13:8          Sir                Lord

        Matt. 18:26   
         before him,         
   and worshipped him,
           
   saying, Master                             saying, Lord

       Matt. 20:20   
    kneeling down                            worshipping him

       Matt. 26:64   
    right hand of       
       the power                           right hand of power

       Gen. 22:8   
       God will provide
       himself a lamb                      God will provide
                                                                for himself the  
                                                                              lamb

        John 8:35   
          a son                                  the Son

I could go on and on, however I think you should take the time to read Gail Replinger’s New Age Bible Versions, Which Bible Is God’s Word, and The Language of the King James Bible. available through A.V. Publications Corp.Tel./Fax: (540) 251-1734, or visit http://www.avpublications.com

I’m sure you took notice the NKJV’s logo is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity.  Use of number symbols (like this 666) can be traced back to Pythagoras (582 BC.), initiate into the Egyptian mysteries.  The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley (circa 1900) for the Royal Arch (Lucifer) of the 3rd Degree of the York Order of Masonry.

I hope I’ve giving you enough to prick that sharp mind of yours to investigate into Sister Replinger’s work. You will find it very rewarding, I’m sure.

With you in Christ Jesus

Lord may be “omitted” 66 times, but this is rather misleading. The word “Lord” occurs many times in the Scriptures, over 7,900. That would mean that this difference is less than 1%. I think we would need to study a little bit closer than simply “times omitted” in order to see if this is really a mark against the New King James Version. Read the rest of this entry »

I received the following comments:

It was good to hear from you so soon.  I imagine your time is taken from you answering all our questions, but I’m sure it’s rewarding.

Now as to your first response:

The KJV is the only “Authorized Version” of God’s Word to us Christians in English language. All others are books distort God’s doctrines and omit His words. I find that our enemy has been confusing God’s words to us Gentiles since Paul first penned them.

I for one do not consider the NKJV nor any of the other versions taken from the Revised Version printed by Westcott & Hort, a Holy Bible!  They omit several words that change the context and doctrines. Don’t take my word for it, read Gail Replinger’s books on the subject.  She has documented proof of what I’m saying to be true.

Oh Brother Nathan don’t you believe that God has the power to get His word to us English speaking people today.  If he can be born of a virgin and create a body like ours, and a world like we live in, He surely can preserve and get His pure \ word to us. Just believe and let God do the rest.

Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. Read the rest of this entry »

KJV02I received the following comments:

Dear Nate, thank you for your response to my email.  I still maintain that the only version in our English language is the KJB.

I still believe you should take the time to read some of the writings of Gail Riplinger.

Psa 119:140 tells me that God’s word is pure, as does Pro 30:5.

I’m I to believe that or are you saying that I must be a Hebrew and Greek Schoolar. Heck, I did good to get out of the 7th grade. So I rely on people who have done their home work on the verious translations. You will find that Sister Riplinger has done just that.  She not only points out the curuption in all of the new versions, but the background of those involved.  You would be surprised to find that those you have put your trust in have backgrounds that any Christian would question.  After you have read one of her books, drop me a line and we can get into some more discussion.  I’m pretty sure you love the Word also.

PS – on that Easter thing you was talking about, I questioned that also until I found that king Harod celabrated that pagan feast called Easter, so the translators properly translated the word.

Also, you will find that only the KJB is not copywritten, all the rest are and you must change at 15% of the words of the original to get your copywrite.

Westcott-Hort was involved in things that you should take the time to look into, as well as you bible study tools authors.

Wait a minute. The King James is the only version? I think you must have mis-spoken here. I have seen and read plenty of others. Read the rest of this entry »

The man who wrote to me that he thought the true Word of God is preserved in the King James Version of the Bible responded to my previous comments with the following letter:

Dear Nate, thank you for your response to my email.  I still maintain that the only version in our English language is the KJB. I still believe you should take the time to read some of the writings of Gail Riplinger. Psa 119:140 tells me that God’s word is pure, as does Pro 30:5.

I’m I to believe that or are you saying that I must be a Hebrew and Greek Schoolar. Heck, I did good to get out of the 7th grade. So I rely on people who have done their home work on the verious translations. You will find that Sister Riplinger has done just that.  She not only points out the curuption in all of the new versions, but the background of those involved.  You would be surprised to find that those you have put your trust in have backgrounds that any Christian would question.  After you have read one of her books, drop me a line and we can get into some more discussion.  I’m pretty sure you love the Word also.

PS – on that Easter thing you was talking about, I questioned that also until I found that king Harod celabrated that pagan feast called Easter, so the translators properly translated the word.

Also, you will find that only the KJB is not copywritten, all the rest are and you must change at 15% of the words of the original to get your copywrite. Westcott-Hort was involved in things that you should take the time to look into, as well as you bible study tools authors.

Wait a minute. The KJB is the only version in English? I think you must have mis-spoken here. I have seen and read plenty of others. Read the rest of this entry »

I received the following comment:

Dear Nate, I would suggest that you read some of the books written by Gail Riplinger. She has spent a great many of her years showing that the only pure Word of God preserved in English is the KJB, or KJV, both are the same. To say that God is unable to keep His Word pure and perservered is saying God is lying to us. I can find no wrong in the KJB. If you can than maybe you need to study to show yourself approved unto God and not follow the traditions of men.

I am afraid that you start this issue off with the wrong idea immediately by talking about “preserving” the Word of God in English. The fact is that the Word of God was never written in English. The Bible was, in fact, written in Hebrew and Greek, with a smattering of Aramaic mixed in. When we are talking about “preservation” of the Word, we can only really discuss it in terms of these languages in which the Word was originally written. In a language in which God never wrote, we cannot discuss preservation, except perhaps as it regards the manuscripts from which our English versions were translated. Read the rest of this entry »