|RETURN TO THE OLD PATHS
|Below are several important articles which should be of great interest to all truth seeking Christians. The following information reveals the truth about Greek and Hebrew interlinears and bible lexicons study aids who's definitions are derived from mythological, secular or classical private interpretations of biblical words. These articles are not opinions or speculations, but truths that are well documented; truths that may be difficult for the proud heart of man to accept.
|Below is an excerpt from the article THE MORNING STARS by Gerardus D. Bouw published in the Summer 2001 issue of The Biblical Astronomer.
Return to the old paths
Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. [Jeremiah 6:16]The Lord's appeal, voiced by Jeremiah, has special significance for us today. Our Christian institutions of higher learning have been usurped by the advocates of a new, "better" hermeneutics, new methods, new data, new this, and new that (Acts 17:21). The path that gave the British a worldwide empire, what made them great, was adherence to the King James Bible. Not until the United Kingdom officially rejected its Holy Bible (1881) did the empire start to crumble. By rejecting it, they rejected the word of God, containing the very words of God, and replaced it with the scholarship of man. They rejected the Book that evangelized the world. Ditto the United States which is a falling star, a declining world power, rotting from within because its people, too, has rejected the word of God.
Once there were two vocabularies: a sacred and a secular. There were two streams of literature, a sacred and a secular. When in the sixteenth century men worked on translating the Holy Bible into the common language of men, particularly English, most searched for the meanings of the words used in the original languages in their use in the sacred writings. Thus, the vocabulary was built on a like foundation, but increasingly men looked to secular literature and mythology for the meanings of sacred words, and so they lost their meaning and their foundation.
It was not until the 1750s that the secular overtook the sacred in ruling over the meaning of the "original" words. Plato took precedence over Polycarp: a sodomite took precedence over a saint -- literally. The Bible dictionaries and lexicons were revised, the sacred meanings occulted. In the resulting Babel of words, a new mythology originated. Two myths dominated, neither of which was ever widely held by the bishops of the early churches and never subscribed to by the blood-bought laity of whom the rebel bishops lived in fear. The first myth is that only the "original autographs" were inspired, which means that what we have now, even in the original languages, is not inspired, as it is not the original document. Implicit in that view is the belief that God did not bother to preserve his words in pure form, though some say that the "originals" can be reconstructed by scholarship. Obviously it does not occur to them that without the "original autographs" to compare them to, there is no way to know whether or not the "original" has been restored by scholarship.
The second myth is that no translation is inerrant, or inspired, and so cannot be the words of God. The only group that believed and practiced these myths were the "scholars" at Alexandria [Egypt], the ones who gave us the new, modem hermeneutics.
So, some may wonder, what's wrong with using secular literature to find out the meaning of sacred words, many of which occur only once in Scripture? Consider the modem usage of these words, all found in the Authorized Bible, and compare their secular meanings with the way the words are used in the A. V., and you will see:
alien, allowance, angel, ass, astrologer, babes, bastard, bay, blessed, bondage, gay, grace, grove, justification, mad, meat, mistress, passion, pollution, queen, righteousness, saints, and salvation, just to name a few.
Now imagine if a scholar 1,000 years from now found a King James Bible and turned to 21st century secular writings to find the theological meanings of some of these words. He'd get an extremely perverted view, wouldn't he?
The same has happened with the morning stars [and other words] of the Bible. Rather than looking at the opinions of the saints, the opinions of hell-bound sinners were preferred. Some scholars, notably Westcott and Hort, actually taught that believers, Christians (Acts 11 :26), were more likely to lie than the blaspheming critics of the sacred text. And these men control the minds, and thus the writings and teachings, of the churches around the world this day, the early days of the 21st century. What kind of spirit would lead a man to insist that the same title, the Morning Star, be applied to Satan as well as Christ, even though it is only associated with Christ in Scripture, is not required linguistically, and only based on pagan mythology? The Lord help us remain and regain the old path.
[Note: Why avoid using footnotes and cross references in modern bible versions? Corrupt lexicons and bible versions will often cross reference Isaiah 14:12 with II Peter 1:19 & Revelation 22:16 giving the reader the false impression that Jesus Christ and Lucifer are one in the same. See Lucifer: Angel of Light - Father of Lies.]
The significance of Greek and Hebrew terms given in all lexicons leads the searcher off the strait and narrow highway, around and down into dirty puddles dug out of the writings of the profane Greeks, like Aristotle and others. The innocent Christian who ends up in the back streets of Strong𠏋 Concordance Dictionary was given no signpost, warning that the definitions lead back to
孏his is why professors of Holy Scripture ought to imitate its manner of speaking, adhering to its eloquence and logic, more so than any foreign pagan writer...some proof elicited from the declarations of Aristotle, or any other pagan, who remains a stranger to the light of our faith...First, that whether they are explicating Scripture itself or expressing the appropriate meaning which rests beyond the text of Scripture, the interpreters of Holy Scripture should not imitate the aforementioned authors [i.e. Aristotle]...� (Truth, pp. 41, 42).Wycliffe sounds a stern warning to those, who under the guise of teaching, proclaim
The word here actually means...To those who would destroy the authority of the Bible with such statements, he states emphatically
I ask you, what could produce a greater deluge of distrust in the words of the Lord than saying that his words are impossible...while my words, though contrary to theirs, are unimpeachably true...As I said above, these are surely not the words of an expositor, but of a destroyer, not the words of a postillator, but those of one who does away with authority...[W]e should believe that the Holy Spirit gave us the law of Scripture in the form which he wanted the church to observe, one whose authority surpasses every created authority, since efficacy of its meaning is more useful, and the form of its words more venerable, than any foreign meaning or locution [expression] (Truth, pp. 204-205).The profane Greeks and philosophers whose citations lie behind today𠏋 lexicons, 𡞫o not possess the Holy Spirit,� writes Wycliffe. �[T]hese pseudo-prophets who interpret the words of Scripture in a manner other than the Holy Spirit intends...grudgingly recite a meaning which they are in fact scarcely able to defend� (Truth, pp. 231, 233, 232). Ask them, 𦴧rom what source did your reference book garner that definition?� (In Awe Of Thy Word, pp. 765-768)
|Below is an article derived from various sources.
As a young Christian I sometimes wondered why so many different preachers and churches that used the same KJV Holy Bible often disagreed with each other regarding certain bible doctrines and teachings. I soon realized that among other reasons for their disagreements is the fact that most of the pastors and churches that use the KJV Holy Bible don't actually believe it to be the Holy Bible. Most Bible students today, even in conservative churches, believe that the KJV Holy Bible is not totally reliable, and therefore we can alter it using a more accurate English word garnered from a more reliable source as we see fit, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes (Deut. 12:8). All Christians profess to believe that God speaks to them in the Bible. He speaks, and therefore He can make us hear and know His voice. But we fall far too readily into the notion that the book only speaks to us; and we find, when we think so, that our spirit does not hear. Then we go to commentaries; we try one after another; we know not how to ascertain whether this or that commentary may be most safely trusted; we go further and further from the Book which all the time we profess to consider divine, and we despair of its teaching, even whilst we seem to ourselves to be reverencing it. (Bible Readings, Edinburgh, 1864, Preface page VI). Each time we go beyond what the Word of God in the Bible gives us, we go further and further from the scriptures.
Nineteenth century English physicist, Michael Faraday (1791-1867), said, [T]he Christian who is taught of God (by His Word and the Holy Spirit) to trust in the promise of salvation through the work of Jesus Christ.... finds his guide in the Word of God, and commits the keeping of his soul into the hands of God. He looks for no assurance beyond what the Word can give him, and if his mind is troubled by the cares and fears which may assail him, he can go nowhere but in prayer to the throne of grace and to Scripture. (The Life and Letters of Faraday, Vol. 2, 1870, p. 431)
Is it a biblical practice to consult bible lexicons for the purpose of obtaining a more accurate translation of a biblical word or passage? If so, just who gets to choose which word is going to be used? Is it ye, as in Genesis 3: ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil? May we each re-do the pure words of the English Bible, one word at a time? May each of us translate the Greek New Testament into English? God has already given us the answers to these questions in the scriptures. Paul told us to all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. (I Cor. 1:10). Paul went on to say that our spiritual fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat; And did all drink the same spiritual drink (I Cor. 10:3,4). Then Paul said, To write the same things to you, to me indeed is not grievous, but for you it is safe. (Philip. 3:1). Using bible lexicons or three different bible versions which uses three different English words for the same Greek word in the same scripture passage is not only un-safe, it is un-biblical and anti-biblical as well, because of the corrupt sources of the underlying texts for ye have perverted the words of the living God (Jer. 23:36); Her priests have violated my law, and have profaned mine holy things: they have put no difference between the holy and profane (Ezek. 22:26).
Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee? (Prov. 22:20,21).
The prophet Isaiah said, To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. (Isaiah 8:20). The apostle Paul instructs us to stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle. (II Thess. 2:15). Jesus said to hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. (Rev. 3:11). The Lord said, he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. (Jer. 23:28); and let God be true, but every man a liar (Romans 3:4). Jesus said, The seed is the word of God. (Luke 8:11), and Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word (Mark 4:15). God has never told his people to look outside of his word to find the meaning of his words. The practice of searching bible lexicons and interlinears for the so called true meaning of God's word is unscriptural. Few people today realize the true source of bible dictionaries and interlinears. The men who gave us our Greek/Hebrew dictionaries were, for the most part, un-saved liberals who's views and interpretations of the Bible were tainted by Gnosticism, mythology, mysticism, humanism and secularism. Man-made dictionaries and lexicons attempting to give a more "accurate" meaning of some biblical word or passage will inevitably corrupt the true meaning. This is because those Greek and Hebrew bible lexicon definitions are derived from mythological, secular or classical interpretations of biblical words.
Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces? (Jeremiah 23:29)
The Hebrew scriptures were written in a biblical vocabulary, not a secular vocabulary. The same is true for the inspired Greek New Testament and the preserved English Bible (KJV). Whenever someone has difficulty understanding the King James Bible, it is not because the KJV is an outdated book with archaic words. It is because of the reader's lack of spiritual understanding of biblical English (Isa. 55:8,9; Luke 24:45; Acts 16:14; I Cor. 2:14; I Pet. 2:2). The apostle Paul said that some have not the knowledge of God: I speak this to your shame. (I Cor. 15:34). God knows the English language as well as he knows ancient Koine Greek and Hebrew. The preservation of God's word in the English language is no more difficult than the preservation of his word in the Greek and Hebrew languages. And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.... And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. (Acts 2:1-6).
Note that every man heard them speak in his own language. Bibles were written in several languages (Greek, Syriac, Latin, Gothic, et al) within a few years of the New Testament's creation, as the pure words of the Holy Ghost are not limited to one or two ancient languages. When translating the Bible into English the KJV translators had before them many copies of these ancient Bibles, numerous patristic writings and vast numbers of original language manuscripts. And the word of God increased. But the word of God grew and multiplied. And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region. So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed. (Acts 6:7; 12:24; 13:49; 19:20). To those who charge that inspiration is lost with translation, John Wycliffe says, �...such a charge is a condemnation of the Holy Ghost, who first gave the Scriptures in tongues to the Apostles of Christ, to speak that word in all languages that were ordained under heaven� (John Wycliffe, Wycket (a treatise against the Catholic view of the Eucharist), printed in Nuremberg in 1546, by Coverdale in 1548-1550, and again in Oxford in 1612, as cited in John Eadie, The English Bible: An External and Critical History of the Various English Translations of Scripture, vol. I, London: MacMillan, 1876, p. 81 et al.). There are no Bible verses which indicate that vernacular translations, like the KJV, will be inferior to those of ancient languages. There are no Bible verses that state that Bible study should be done in those ancient languages. If such were a benefit to our understanding, one would think that at least one verse would mention it. There are no Bible examples of Jesus Christ or the apostles correcting the Bible of their day or refusing to communicate to the common man in his own vernacular tongue. Paul's captors chided, "Canst thou speak Greek?" Paul ignored them and continued to speak to the people in their own language (Acts 21:37, 40). (In Awe Of Thy Word, p. 498)
The articles on this page expound on this subject and shows why it is so important to "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read"(Isa. 34:16), and to "set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God"(Dan. 10:12). And "the Spirit of truth ... will guide you into all truth"(John 16:13), "not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth [through Greek/Hebrew dictionaries], but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual"(I Cor. 2:13). "It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man."(Psa. 118:8). "The anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you"(I John 2:27). "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed."(James 1:5,6).
There are definite elements of choice, preference, and uncertainty involved in Greek scholarship, which prevent it from being the absolute authority. The debate as to whether the KJV retains the inspiration of God, or does not, is important because it affects many practical things. The KJV, like all translations, sometimes translates several different Greek words with the same English word (or the same Greek word as several different English words). Although it may be quite straightforward to determine the English equivalent of the Greek word for dog, many other Greek words have many English counterparts. In English one can describe a fat dog, as stout, obese, overweight, heavy, plump, chubby, paunchy, stocky, tubby, overweight, overfed, overstuffed, well-fed, strapping, blubbery, roly-poly, mammoth, king-size, husky, imposing, massive, overgrown, hulking, huge, lumbering, immense, whopping, adipose, burly, portly, pudgy, chunky, dumpy, stubby, thickset, corpulent, and 'big as a house'! Who gets to choose which word is going to be used? Is it "ye," as in Genesis 3? May we each re-do the fixed form of the English Bible? Or if we can not bear the printing co$t or ensuing criticism, may we do it extemporaneously, piece-by-piece? Is the word of God perfect and pure, or is it defiled and less than perfect in any of its word choices? In other words, may each of us translate the Greek Bible into English? (See The Language of the King James Bible, p. 72.) (In Awe Of Thy Word, p. 504)
Unlike the KJV translators, who had the entire original work (vast numbers of original language manuscripts, many citations of the early church fathers, and numerous bible translations in different languages from various lands) which contains the word in question and could read the word in use in its entire context, those who translate the Textus Receptus today from Greek to English have only pagan, classical and secular viewpoints to draw from, and must, therefore, rely on the "corrupt words" of unsaved liberal lexicon writers.
The lexicons and grammars of unsaved liberals are at the foundation of all Greek and Hebrew studies today. Current lexicons are either reprints of the works of 19th century liberals or highly plagiarized and slightly edited re-typeset editions. The few study aids that have been written by 'Christians' were compiled using the corrupt lexicons of un-believers. These unsaved men cannot discern spiritual things. 孏he wise men...have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?� (Jer. 8:9). 𨯗 scorner seeketh wisdom, and findeth it not: but knowledge is easy unto him that understandeth� (Prov. 14:6).... Why have we abdicated, to the unsaved, our priestly position as keepers of the holy scriptures? Old Testament Jews sometimes did likewise; yet God preserved his word. �...[T]hey that handle the law knew me not...� Jer. 2:8. 𨯗nd ye have not kept the charge of mine holy things [the Holy Bible]: but ye have set keepers of my charge in my sanctuary for yourselves. Thus saith the Lord GOD; No stranger, uncircumcised in heart...shall enter into my sanctuary, of any stranger that is among the children of Israel� Ezek 44:8, 9. �...[N]one which was unclean in any thing should enter in� 2 Chron. 23:19. The 蘔oly things� could only be handled by the priesthood of believers (e.g. 蘔oly scriptures� Numbers 4:4, 5, et al.). Many people had the same skills as the Old Testament Levitical priesthood, but they were not sons (Levites) and were not washed. Only Aaron𠏋 rod brought forth new life. Even in the New Testament, the church is commanded to 尞ay hands suddenly on no man� (1 Tim. 5:22). A church does not select a deacon by grabbing the first scholar who moves through a university𠏋 revolving door. Deacons are selected only after they are 𢖯roved.� How many have 𢖯roved� the authors of today𠏋 popular reference books? They are engaged in work more serious than feeding widows (1 Tim. 3, Acts 6:1-6). Greek lexicons shroud their dead words in velvet-smooth speculation. 鏠ursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm� (Jer. 17:5). If Christians knew how these rubber crutches were constructed, so much weight would not be placed upon lexicons, constructed as follows:
Before using a lexicon, interlinear, or computer program which pretends to tell its reader what a Greek word means in English, remember that the ancient Greeks wrote no Greek-to-English lexicons themselves. They did not speak English and never told us the precise English synonyms for the Greek word they used. All lexicon definitions are simply one person𠏋 guess as to which English word best matches a Greek word.
What about the Greek and Hebrew interlinears and study aids compiled by Christian men? These men may have inspired Greek and Hebrew words, but the English reference books they use to translate them into so-called "literal," "plain," "everyday" English, are anything but inspired. Since ancient Koine Greek is not the mother tongue of any living person, they must use the books with the "corrupt words" of unsaved liberal lexicon writers to create their interlinears and study aids (Dan. 2:9). (In Awe Of Thy Word, p. 518)
According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. (I Corinthians 3:10,11)
Greek text editors such as 𡌃rasmus, Theodore Beza, and Estienne (Stephanus) drew attention to the difference between biblical and classical Greek [used by lexicons], a primary issue still� (Cambridge History of the Bible, vol.3, p. 522). Erasmus warned of the font from which lexicons are taken and their 𡞫anger of taking words in a sense they may well have in classical Greek, but which is not the sense in which they are used in the New Testament.� ... Erasmus stands in sharp contrast to his contemporary Greek text editors who promote the false notion that 廍cripture remains full of meanings 𢘛hich are not able to be understood in any way other than from the very fount of the original languages� [quae nequeant aliunde quam ex ipso archetypae linguae fonte cognosci]. This quote is taken from the preface of the Catholic Complutensian Polyglot produced by Cardinal Ximenez in 1517; this Catholic 㣃ather� spawned 懀he first� Greek New Testament lexicon, which bred today𠏋 mongrels (In Awe Of Thy Word, Pelikan, p. 110; The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol 3, p. 525).
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!
We would be wise to pay closer attention to the lives and beliefs of those who wrote our bible dictionaries and interlinears. For example, James Strong, author of the Strong's Concordance, was a liberal who was on the corrupt American Standard Version committee (1909(01?). The chairman of the ASV translation, arch-liberal Phillip Schaff, is quoted saying that he selected only committee members who denied the inspiration of the scriptures (David Schaff, The Life of Schaff, NY: Scribner's Sons 1897, pp. 439, 351, 357, 434-435). Strong's Greek and Hebrew definitions are simply his own collation of his corrupt ASV readings, with the RSV and KJV readings. The modern versions often use the ASV word. Therefore, Strong's definitions = ASV = NIV, TNIV, NKJV, ESV, HCSB, and NASB. Such wolves were recognized in a note in the Matthew's Bible of 1549. It said, The open enemy is most ugly in sight, But the wolf in the lamb's skin doeth all the spite... (Dore, 2nd ed., p.124).
weep sore, and run down with tears, because the LORD㷧 flock is carried away captive. (Jer. 13:17)
|Below is an excerpt from Which Bible Is God's Word? by G.A. Riplinger.
They are not New Agers, by any stretch of the imagination. Even Mary and Joseph went a day's journey without Jesus and did not know they were proceeding without his presence. We certainly would not call them New Agers....
Each person in the body of Christ has a function. Many of these men have been doing evangelistic, pastoral, or administrative work, allowing no time to read and research extensively, or sit, as I did, for twelve hours a day for years on end, collating new versions, critical editions, and manuscripts. I would hope that they would see me as a helper to them and not an antagonist.
Jesus said in Revelation 3:19, "As many as I love, I rebuke." Most of the churches in Revelation got both a commendation and a rebuke. Are we any better than they? "Judgment must begin at the house of God" (I Pet. 4: 17). Peter himself was wrong twice. Acts 5:15 says Peter was so spiritual that when his shadow passed over people, they were healed; he even raised the dead. Acts 11:24 says Barnabas was "a good man, and full of the Holy Ghost and of faith." This sounds like some of the men you have just listed for me. But it says in Galatians 2:14 that both Barnabas and Peter were wrong: "They walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel." Paul had to rebuke them, and they took that rebuke.
When Peter said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus said unto him, "Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 16:16-17). Six verses later Jesus turned to Peter and said, "Get thee behind me, Satan." So the Holy Ghost can reveal something to someone, and then five sentences later Satan can use them for something else. It was no shame for Peter to be wrong, but it would have been a shame if he had refused to "grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ" (2 Pet. 3:18).
All of the best men in the Bible were deceived at one time or another. Joshua was a great man of faith. He and Caleb were the only two of their generation whom God allowed to go into the promised land. Yet he was deceived by the Gibeonites and "dry and mouldy" bread (Josh. 9:5). I suspect that many of these good men, who like Joshua, are being deceived by the "dry and mouldy" bread of these new versions.
|Below is an article derived from various sources.
If you have heard of the Illuminati Order and you thought it was some kind of mythological conspiracy theory, here are the archives from George Washington himself, which prove not only their existence, but that they were intensively active in the United States of America. George Washington was also certain that some of the illuminati had infiltrated some of the American Lodges of Freemasonry.TO G. W. SNYDER.It is an undeniable fact that conspiracies exist. It is also an under appreciated fact that most people have been conditioned to pay little or no attention to conspiracies. Misinformation is often circulated in the media and elsewhere for the purpose of leading people away from the truth. This was in the past and still is today one of the main functions of the Catholic Jesuit organization. It is no coincident that high level Jesuits are also high ranking Freemasons. The following information reveals some of the methods employed to deceive. Morals and Dogma is an official Masonic book written by occultist Albert Pike. Pages 104 and 105 of this Satanic occult book states:
Mount Vernon, 24 October, 1798.
I have your favor of the 17th instant before me, and my only motive for troubling you with the receipt of this letter is, to explain and correct a mistake, which I perceive the hurry in which I am obliged often to write letters has led you into.
It was not my intention to doubt, that the doctrines of the Illuminati and the principles of Jacobinism had not spread in the United States, On the contrary, no one is more fully satisfied of this fact than I am.
The idea that I meant to convey was, that I did not believe that the lodges of freemasons in this country had, as societies, endeavoured to propagate the diabolical tenets of the former, or pernicious principles of the latter, if they are susceptible of separation. That individuals of them may have done it, or that the founder, or instrument employed to found the Democratic Societies in the United States, may have had these objects, and actually had a separation of the people from their government in view, is too evident to be questioned. (The Writings Of George Washington, Vol. XI., 1855, p. 337)Masonry, like all the religions, all Mysteries, Hermetiscism, and Alchemy, conceals its secrets from all except the Adepts and Sages, or the Elect, and uses false explanations and misinterpretations of its symbols to mislead those who deserve to be mislead;Only the illuminated ones at the highest levels of Freemasonry and other secretive societies are privy to the Luciferian agenda of the New World Order.
So Masonry jealously conceals its secrets, and intentionally leads conceited interpreters astray. (Morals and Dogma, pp. 104, 105)
BILL CREATES DETENTION CAMPS IN U.S. FOR 'EMERGENCES'!
COLLAPSE OF U.S. ECONOMY & CIVIL WAR?
KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE FACTS
LUCIFER: ANGEL OF LIGHT - FATHER OF LIES
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1611
Seeing its readings proves to cynics that the KJV's text has never been "revised" and is identical to that used today
(except for the rare 1611 typographical slips which were shortly thereafter fixed by King James translators themselves).
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1637
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1772
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1787
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1829
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1872
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 1903
THE HOLY BIBLE, Printed in 2004
You can now purchase a 1611 King James Version 400th Anniversary Edition at a very low price. Published by Zondervan this is an exact, page-by-page, digitally re-mastered replica of the original 1611 printing, re-sized to a convenient 8.1 x 5.7 x 3 inches, and contains the original Old English Black Letter font. Click Here
Compare these scripture verses, John 14:16, John 16:7, I Corinthians 1:18, II Corinthians 2:15, Revelation 1:18 and Revelation 20:13,14, in modern bible versions such as the NIV and the NKJV and you will see that the KJV's superior "Comforter" has been replaced by a subordinate "helper"; and the assurance of our present salvation here and now where we "are saved" by grace through faith has been replaced by a works-based salvation where we are in the process of "being saved" by our own good works; and the word "hell" has been omitted thereby obscuring its philological meaning.
It is no coincident that new bible versions often agree with the Jehovah Witnesses New World Translation and the Roman Catholic New American Bible. For those who take the time to [search] the scriptures daily to [p]rove all things, and search out a matter to try the spirits and do their own research (Acts 17:11; I Thess. 5:21; Prov. 25:2; I John 4:1), the serpent's signature can be seen subtly weaved into the pages of new bible versions. There is overwhelming evidence exposing the nature of the unholy omissions, additions and substitutions and the spiritual forces responsible for the changes (Isa. 14:14; II Cor. 2:17; 11:14,15; Eph. 6:12; II Thess. 2:3,11; I Tim. 4:1; Rev. 13:8).
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Do new versions corrupt the gospel?
2. Do new versions corrupt the Lord's model prayer?
3. Do new versions permit sodomy?
4. Do new versions support foul spirits?
5. Do new versions support Roman Catholic errors?
6. Do new versions hurt Christians?
7. Does the Amplified Bible ignore the Rev. 22 warning?
8. Do some Dead Sea Scrolls pervert scriptures?
9. What about the Geneva Bible?
10. Why didn't Jesus use the Septuagint?
11. Do new version editors admit "important" changes?
12. Where does the NIV omit 15 verses?
13. Why avoid Greek and Hebrew lexicons, interlinears, software, and grammars for Bible study and translation !!!!!!!!
14. What is the most subtle Catholic change in new versions?
1 JOHN 5:7 - KJV "ERRORS"
ALLEGED KJV ERRORS: Easter/Passover
AMERICA: REPENT OR PERISH!
ANOTHER BIBLE - ANOTHER GOSPEL
ARE YOU A MORMON ?
BIBLE VERSIONS - WHICH IS THE REAL WORD OF GOD?
CHRIST'S MASS - HISTORY REVEALS THE TRUTH
CHRISTMAS 2000 Years Before Christ
COULD THIS BE THE MARK OF THE BEAST ?
FREE MASONRY EXPOSED
GOD and AMERICA
GOT MORALS ?
HISTORY OF BAPTISM
HISTORY OF THE RED LETTER EDITION
IMPORTANT NEWS ARTICLES
IN AWE OF THY WORD
IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS
IS SUNDAY SACRED AND HOLY ?
JESUS' BIRTH - THE UNTOLD STORY
KJV 1611 - THE MYTH OF EARLY REVISIONS
NEW AGE BIBLE VERSIONS
ONLY ONE GOD
PROPHECIES OF THE MESSIAH FULFILLED IN JESUS CHRIST
REMEMBER THE SABBATH DAY
ROMAN CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT CONFESSIONS ABOUT SUNDAY
SCRIPTURES FROM THE HOLY BIBLE
THE 1611 KJV DEDICATORY
THE BIG BANG
THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN IS AT HAND
THE GOD OF HEAVEN OR THE god OF THIS WORLD ?
THE ONE WORLD GOVERNMENT
THE TEN COMMANDMENTS
THE TRUE SABBATH
WHAT'S WRONG WITH HALLOWEEN
WHAT MUST I DO TO BE SAVED ?
WHO IS KING JAMES ?
WICCA/PAGAN SATANIC TIES
WORLD RELIGIONS - Article 2