Here is an interesting piece I came across that will shock the socks off the people who hold that the Authorized King James Bible is divinely inspired, perfect and without error.

Here is an interesting piece I came across that will shock the socks off the people who hold that the Authorized King James Bible is divinely inspired, perfect and without error.

Read it then ask yourself the the question, should we believe it or not?

Start quote. "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 ten's of thousands of variant readings?"

By tradition we have been led to believe that the King James Bible is inspired and inerrant. It is not well revealed that even in the first year of the King James Bible, two different printings of the very same King James were not the same.

"Bible Inerrancy people and the King James Only people teach that we have a perfect Greek text or at least imply it. It is called the "Textus Receptus" by the KJV camp which is Latin for "Received Text." 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 printed! It was an advertising pitch as false as most commercials are today. The so-called Textus Receptus began it's debut in 1516. It started as a work which took a self-proclaimed "humanist" Roman Catholic monk only several months to, in his own words "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 Polyglott. 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 4 subsequent editions. In the mid 1500's a man named Stephanus took Erasmus text, and combined it with the Complutensian Text. He produced several editions making changes along the way. The Stephanus text, which the King James translators used differed from the self-proclaimed "Textus Receptus" in 287 places. There are no known Greek manuscripts that agree "inerrantly" with either the Textus Receptus or the Stephanus text. 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 later would condemn Luther and the Reformation. For a full account of this sad chapter of church deception, read The Text of the New Testament by Bruce Metzger. Foundation Press in Anaheim, California also has some valuable information."

"The teaching that the King James translators had a perfect Greek text is denied by the translators themselves. In the original edition of 1611 are marginal notes as follows: Note on Luke 17:36, "This 36th verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." Note on Acts 25:6 where their text reads: "When he had tarried among them more than ten days," they inserted the following marginal note: "or, as some copies read, 'no more than eight or ten days.'" Unfortunately notes such as these as well as much other information contained in the Original KJV have been removed to support the "Inerrancy" fraud. Enough . . . of this sad chapter of Bible translating. If I got into the personal lives of the people involved here, it would make Hollywood jealous. Often "KJV Only" writers use smear tactics to discredit other translations. They freely use character assination as a screen to throw people off from searching things out for themselves. If we got into the personalities of the people involved in this chapter of Bible productions , we wouldn't have to smear. The truth would shock you! But our desire is not to dishonor anyone, our purpose is to set people free of error which is holding them in bondage to false doctrines and keeping them in bondage to men and women who use the Scriptures deceitfully. Let us go on."

"There was a time when Bible writing was strictly in the hands of the church. The end result was the church put the Bible into a "Sacred" language called Latin which common people in latter times could not and were not allowed to read. It was called the Vulgate. The common people could not read the Scriptures in their native tongue of English, German, French, etc.. Getting caught with any portion of the Scriptures in your native language could get one killed by the church! Please believe us. This is true. The Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Russian Orthodox churches did not want Christians or non-Christians reading the Scriptures."
"When the first Common Language Bibles began to appear in the languages of the world, the state and church still had much control over the wording, who could read it, and which translations one could read. An Anglican Protestant was not allowed to read a Lutheran Bible. King James did not want the people of England to read the English Geneva Bible produced by John Calvin and his associates. Church leaders used the notes in the Geneva Bible as Scriptural support to tell the King how to rule. Before James the first was king of England, he was King James the sixth of Scotland. The Presbyterians caused him much trouble and their favorite Bible was the Geneva Bible. King James commissioned the King James Bible because of political reasons, not because of a love of the Creator.

The English were strongly being influenced by the marginal notes in the Geneva Bible which states that the people of a monarchy had the right to overthrow that monarchy if it did not line up with Scripture? King James believed in the "Divine Right of the King." He called the Geneva Bible "seditious." Therefore, he commissioned the King James Bible. He gave the committee 15 rules which they had to abide by while translating his Bible. Several of those selected for the committee resigned because of these stipulations. This list is printed in most well researched Bible translations reference books. We will mention just a couple to show you that this version was not going to be pure nor "inerrant." "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." (Doesn't sound like a "new" translation , does it?) "3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. The word church not be translated Congregation &c." (This was to insure the old Roman Catholic\Anglican rituals, ordinances, and doctrines be not altered. They couldn't change the word baptize into immerse, for example.) "4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith." (In others words, they must abide by the "traditions of the elders." Remember Jesus' words, "You have made the word of God of none effect by your traditions?)"

"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. King James didn't put a penny into the project, but he could make money out of the project since it was his Bible. Not only were the translators not "anointed," but the King's printers weren't anointed either. The early printings had printers errors which were down right embarrassing for a so-called "inerrant" Bible. In one edition they forgot to put the word not in the 7th commandment!"

"The translator's have this to their credit. They noted in the preface to the reader that they only took previous men's work and hoped to make a better one, knowing others would follow them and produce even a better one yet. This preface has been also removed from present day King James Bibles because it does not conform to the fundamentalist's "inerrancy" teachings. That is why the translators preface is no longer printed in current King James Bibles. We have made several tapes dealing with the many misconceptions and untruths proclaimed about the KJV. We mention here, only a few points to clearly show that the teaching of an "inerrant" KJV is a pure myth."

"In 1611 two separate editions of the KJV were printed. They came to be known as the "Great He Bible" and the "Great She Bible" because one printed Ruth 3:15 as "he went" and the other printed "she went." These two original King James Bibles, printed in the first year this Bible was issued, had several thousands differences. 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." We have printed a list of material at the back of this booklet which will give one much information about Bible translating and what pastors don't want their congregation to know about it." End Quote.

Isn't it odd that the Apostle Paul who wrote almost half the New Testament and was given the gospel of grace by Jesus Himself, in declaring the grace gospel to the then known world never used the word "hell"? Read every Bible you can get your hands on and you will not find the word hell mentioned by Paul. Either Paul was very irresponsible. . .or the theology of hell is very irresponsible and mus-understood. If hell is the way we have been taught it Paul, as a bond servant to Christ, who was to make plain the truth, forgot to mention that "hell" was part of the deal.

Popular posts from this blog


The Tithe Deception.

Do Religious Literalists Believe that ALL people have to accept Christ to be Saved?