If this is mentioned to a promoter of one of the new "Bibles," he will usually go into a spasm and reply, "Our Bible does teach the deity of Christ, and furthermore, every one of the fundamentals of the faith can be found in it." It is true Christ's deity can be found in the new translations in some places, but in many of the most clear and important places it is absent. Satan knows he cannot yet destroy every reference to Christ's deity in these versions because they would then no longer resemble (imitate) a true Bible. He knows they must, at least, read something like a true Bible to sell. So, for the time being, he allows a few of the less obvious references to remain.
Concerning the above statement that all the fundamentals can be found in these "perversions," we answer, so what? Is all it takes for a book to be a Bible is that it contain the fundamentals in it somewhere? Why even a one page tract could qualify under this definition. No, dear believer, there is much more to the Bible than just five (or more) fundamentals. It contains ALL the WORDS God wants man to have, not just the fundamentals. The men who make such thoughtless statements really do not believe what they are saying anyway. It is just a pat answer designed to throw up a diversion so they can get away from the Bible believer without their ego being harmed. They very well know that the deity of Christ and the other fundamentals can be found in practically every English version, even those they do not approve. The Jehovah's Witnesses' "Bible" (The New World Translation) has ALL of them in it, but no fundamentalist would recommend it to anybody. The same is true concerning the "Bibles" promoted by the Roman Catholics. Many "conservatives" rejected the Revised Standard Version when it came out because they considered it to be modernistic and unreliable, yet it contains all the fundamentals in it, too. Again, we see that personal opinion is the final authority of these scholars regardless of what they say.
In this chapter, primarily under the topic of the person and work of Christ, we are going to compare some of the readings of the new versions with the King James Version. This way the reader can see for himself the extent these versions have been corrupted and how the Authorized Version gives Christ the highest honor. Of the new translations we will mainly use the NASV, NIV, and NKJV in these comparisons because they are the most popular, and the readings in them are typical of the others.
(Furthermore, the same Devil who deceives lost people into joining cults such as these also deceives born again Christians into unknowingly joining another. Not a cult that denies the deity of Christ, but one that denies the existence of an infallible Bible. Like the members of the deity-denying cults, these believers were deceived by following the opinions of men they felt had advanced knowledge or superior education instead of following the Bible. Christian, again, beware.)
Here you may ask, "What does this have to do with me? I believe in the deity of Christ." Very well, but where did you first learn this truth? From a new translation, or from a person preaching or teaching from the King James Version? If in the unlikely event it was from the preaching of a new version, where did the preacher first learn it? Almost certainly it was from the Authorized Version, either directly or indirectly.
The King James Version is the only English Bible still published that contains every true biblical reference to the deity of Jesus Christ (as well as every other truth God has for man). Partially because of this bold position, God "authorized" it over the years to become the standard, final authority for all Christian doctrine. During much of the last four centuries it was the only Bible most people knew; therefore, we believe it would be safe to say that the vast majority of Christians alive today first learned of Christ's deity by reading and believing it personally or by being taught by someone else who did. However, contrary to nature, many of these same people will abandon the Bible that taught them this precious truth for one that in many places denies it! This would be a great mystery if we did not know Satan was involved.
When confronted with this irrational behavior, many of these "defectors" may attempt to defend themselves by again insisting that they can find Christ's deity in their favorite modern version. Granted they can, but the reason they can is because they are LOOKING FOR IT! They learned from the Authorized Version that Christ is God, so they need to be able to find this stated in some way in their new "Bible." That is, they had the advantage of having this truth clearly presented to them from the King James Version and were convinced of its validity, but then, after being indoctrinated by modern "scholarship," they forsook it for a version that expresses the doctrine much weaker. If a person was completely isolated from any influence of the Authorized Version (to the delight of Satan and his cohorts), and all he had for a Bible was one of these new versions, it would become difficult for him to learn of Christ's deity. And with only a few more changes made, it would be impossible for him to learn it!
See the direction Satan is headed? If he can get rid of the Authorized Version by destroying the public's confidence in it with "scholarship" and replace it with versions that subtilty corrupt Christianity's most fundamental doctrines, he will clear the way for his "new age" religion and the worship of himself in the person of the "beast" (Revelation 13)! It is only because God has preserved his pure word in the Authorized Version, and that the Holy Spirit has bore witness to it through the centuries, that Satan has been held off as long as he has. Sadly to say, though, through the apathy, neglect, and lack of discernment of many Christians today, Satan is rapidly approaching his goal. Before he could succeed, he knew he had to destroy the confidence many Christians have in the King James Version and get them to abandon it as the Holy Bible. Under the guise of "older and better texts," he has convinced millions of believers to do just that, tricking them into accepting "Bibles" which remove Christ's deity from the following passages:
Furthermore, with "God" removed and "who" in its place, the verse does not make sense. Look at it in a new version. Who is "who"? The verse is vague and left open for anyone to insert his own idea of who "who" is. This is the way Satan likes it—personal opinion the final authority. Fundamentalists will insist the passage refers to Christ, which it does, but all it says then is Christ came in a body. With "God" removed, Christ does not have to be God. He could be an "angel" as some cults insist, or a lesser, created "god" as others claim. With the King James Version reading, however, there is no doubt, "GOD was manifest in the flesh."
Christian, who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe the testimony of the Authorized Version"By their fruits ye shall know them." which God has honored and used for the last two thousand years and which exalts our Lord Jesus Christ to His proper position? Or are you going to believe so-called scholars who will not allow the verse to exalt Him at all and whose "Bibles" God has practically ignored?
The excuse given for omitting it sounds plausible on the surface, but under examination it becomes apparent that it is not the reasoning of faith but of humanism. These "authorities" insist that because this verse has few Greek manuscripts to support it, it was not in the original text, but they have no proof for this. Some will even say it was not originally in any text and assert the reading was "invented" in the sixteenth century, but this is not true. It has been cited by several writers of the past, the earliest in 255 A.D. It is also found in nearly all the ancient Latin translations including the "Old Latin," which was translated no later than the second century.
Again, that this verse is rare in the Greek manuscripts does not PROVE it was not in the original autographs. You say, "Yes, but you cannot prove it was in them." True, I cannot, but neither can I or anyone else PROVE that John 3:16 (or any other verse) WAS in the original! This brings us back to the disease we mentioned earlier—"originalitis." These "scholars" are fanatically obsessed with manuscripts God has completely abandoned; manuscripts He clearly did NOT want preserved through the centuries. Again, a true Bible believer has the same attitude towards them as God does; hence he does not trust "scholarship" to provide him with a Bible, he trusts God! No, I cannot prove 1 John 5:7 WAS in the original autograph, but I can PROVE it IS in the BIBLE! I have a copy of it in my lap right now. Why is this verse in there? Because God WANTS it in there! And as we have said repeatedly before, this is the Bible God has used, is still using, and will continue to use by choice. If the God of Heaven cannot give man the very words He wants him to have, and preserve these words the way He wants to preserve them after He has promised to do so, then we have no sure basis to believe anything else He says! So what if this verse is not in the "Majority Text," it is in the BIBLE, and this should be enough for any Christian who walks by faith and NOT by sight.
The reader should now be beginning to see a trend. Why is it that the translators of these new versions, almost without exception, chose a reading that demeans Christ over one that exalts Him. When they are confronted with more than one possible textual reading, or with various ways a word or passage can be translated, they nearly always choose the rendering that lessens Christ. This is amazing. All of these translators claim to be Christians, yet when they translate a "Bible" they behave like they are not. One would think they would honor the One who saved them (if they are saved) by choosing the readings that exalt Him, but this is not the case. Even if the readings are found in the vast majority of Greek Texts (and nearly all are), they will abandon them for what they consider to be the "oldest and best texts" (the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus which contain the Apocrypha within the canon, see chapter 4). These men do not practice biblical principles in producing these versions, they follow the principles and mentality of worldly textual criticism. That is, they treat the Bible like it is just another historical book, attempting to recover it from the "sea of time." See how Satan has invaded the Seminaries and "Bible" schools with his natural reasoning? See how he has affected the thinking of the country's "most prominent scholars"? These "experts" go about their business of translating like God does not exist, or at least like He is unconcerned about His Son and His word. It appears they are motivated by purely human reasoning. Below are some more verses which show their bias against Christ.
Concerning Luke 2:33, the Bible correctors often try to defend their versions by saying, "Mary called Joseph Jesus' father in verse 48." Yes she did, but how could anyone miss how Jesus corrected her in the next verse! In verse 49 He says He was about His "FATHER'S business" in the temple! Joseph did not dwell in the temple, God did. Another difference between verse 33 and verse 48 is in who is speaking. Luke, the writer of this Gospel, who is also a medical doctor, says under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in verse 33 that Joseph is NOT Christ's father (if you have an Authorized Version) because he knows it to be a fact (Luke 1:1-4). Verse 48, however, contains an account of what Mary said at that time. She, of all people, knew that Joseph was NOT Jesus' real father, she likely referred to him as such publicly to protect them all from rumors (John 8:41). The majority of Greek texts again read with the King James.
First, in verse 16, this "corruption" removes "Good" from "Good Master" and then makes "Master,""God" from the verse also, making it say "there is only One who is good." These changes take the attention away from who Jesus Christ is and put it on a young man's philosophical question about good works. Jesus said, "Why callest thou ME good" in the real Bible; the imitators say He was only referring to good works. A typical Satanic approach. The Devil would much rather someone look at themselves and their "good works" than look at Jesus Christ and their sins. There are scores of other places in the new versions like this. They make changes that appear slight on the surface, but when one looks at them a little closer, he finds that they either question, corrupt, or destroy some truth God wants His people to have. Let the reader beware. "teacher". In verse 17 it makes the question read "Why do you ask me about what is good?" And as if this were not enough, it removes
If Christ is "the only begotten God, then the other "God" in the verse must NOT be "begotten." This makes TWO gods. There is no way around it. If one believes either of these two corruptions, the "begotten God" has explained the unbegotten God! This fits the Jehovah's Witnesses (and others) official doctrine perfectly. They do not believe Jesus Christ is the one true God manifest in the flesh, and they use this verse as a "proof-text" to promote this lie. The author has had them use this very verse in their "Bible" to try to convince him His Savior is a lesser, created "god." Thank God the real Bible says that Jesus is "the only begotten SON," which eliminates the problem, but the tragedy is this cult could have just as easily used the fundamentalist approved NASV to teach this fallacy, and sometimes they do! They will use it in an attempt to confuse a loyal "fundamentalist" who trusts "scholarship" as his final authority.
The Bible believer knows that there is only ONE true God and that He is manifest in three persons (1 John 5:7). The second person (the Word) came to earth as the only begotten Son (Psalm 2) of the first person (the Father) through the third person (the Holy Ghost, Luke 1:35). This preserves the integrity and unity of the scripture and allows Christ to retain his proper position as Jehovah.
The author has found that after being confronted with this two Gods heresy, some of the NASV promoters will take exception with this verse and say something like, "With all due respect to the great scholars who made this valuable translation, I choose to retain the reading "only begotten Son" in John 1:18...." Statements like this further prove what we have mentioned repeatedly before, there is no book or collection of books in any language anywhere on earth that these men will allow to be their final authority. When "push comes to shove," they will always resort to the only authority they fully trust—their own MIND.
For a fresh breath of relief from the corruptions we have just waded through, the reader is encouraged to read Acts 7:59 in the King James Version. There he will find an instance where the translators showed their true motives and their love for Christ and His deity. The word "God" in this verse is in italics, and since this means it is not in the Greek, it shows they added it so the verse would make sense. They could have chosen another, less emphatic word (as nearly all of the new versions have done), but they chose "God" to leave the reader in no doubt that they believed when Stephen was calling upon the "Lord Jesus," he was calling upon God.
We have only looked (and briefly at that) at six verses in the modern versions that attack the deity of Christ. And though there are several more, these should be enough to show the reader the attitude these new "Bibles" have towards the Lord and the direction "scholarship" is going. The King James scholars preserved the correct readings in their Bible, exalting Christ to His proper place, but every major version published since has tried to bring Him down. This fact alone should be enough to convince any Christian of the superiority of the Authorized Version.
One of the verses they like to produce as "proof" is 2 Peter 1:1 (the others are usually 2 Thessalonians 1:12 and Titus 2:13). In this verse the NKJV and NIV change the placement of the word "our" to make the verse read "...of our God and Savior Jesus Christ" where the Authorized Version says "...of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." Contrary to their charge the King James is not obscure here at all. The deity of Christ is found here as it is found in many other passages which link God and Christ in such manner. Take 1 Timothy 1:1 for instance, here we find "...of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ." Does this verse refuse to allow the "Lord Jesus Christ" to be "our Saviour"? Of course not. Does the way it is worded not permit "God" to be "Lord"? Again, no. Does the verse refuse to allow Christ to be "God"? For the third time, no.
This verse, as 2 Peter 1:1, contains a figure of speech known as a "hendiady." It is a common occurrence in the scriptures. It is defined (by Bullinger, Companion Bible) as "two for one" or "two words used, but one thing meant." That is, the Holy Spirit uses two words or statements to refer to one thing or person. The second statement (often connected to the first with "and") does NOT add another person or object but only adds information to, or states in another way, the first. Zechariah 9:9 gives two examples of this. The "daughter of Zion" and "daughter of Jerusalem" in this verse is NOT two different daughters, the second statement is just another way of stating the first. This verse ends with another hendiady, "...and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass" (see Matthew 21:5). Does this mean Christ rode upon TWO asses at once? Don't be silly (Luke 19:35). The two statements speak of one object, the "foal of an ass" (second statement) is "an ass" (first statement) also!
One reason 1 Peter 1:1 is worded the way it is in the King James Bible is because of this figure of speech. The second statement "...and our Lord Jesus Christ" simply adds more information to the first, "the righteousness of God." It declares Jesus Christ "God" and also speaks of Him as "the righteousness of God" (Romans 10:1-4)! As for the placement of the word "our," the King James translators were merely following the writing style of Peter (and the Holy Spirit) as found in the rest of the epistle. "Our" is not once found before "God," but it is often found before "Lord," "Christ," or "Jesus" (see 1:2,8,11,16, etc.).
The Authorized Version remains vindicated. It clearly elevates the Lord Jesus Christ more than any new translation.
The vile Good News Bible (TEV) removes "blood" from FOURTEEN verses (most of them dealing with Christ) and replaces it with "death," (Matthew 27:4; Acts 20:28; Romans 3:25, 5:9; Ephesians 1:7, 2:13; Colossians 1:20; Revelation 1:5, 5:9). These substitutions are a gross perversion of the scriptures. Instead of translating the Greek word for blood correctly, the translators slyly (and unethically) insert their "private interpretation" (2 Peter 1:20)—death. As anyone knows the words blood and death are not synonymous, they do not convey the same meaning. The Lord's supper in Matthew 26:26-28 clearly shows they are different. The "bread" represents Christ's body which died, and the "fruit of the vine""for the remission of sins." A person needs more than just Christ's death to save him, he also needs His blood. Satan is trying his best to keep this vital information from believers and also unbelievers. represents His blood which was shed
Another doctrine the new versions attack is Christ's ascension. The NASV and some others will not allow the Lord to ascend into Heaven in Luke 24:51. The words "carried up into heaven" are omitted from the verse. This forces Luke to contradict himself. Luke said in Acts chapter one that the "former treatise" (gospel of Luke) he wrote was of "all that Jesus began both to do and teach. Until the day in which he was taken up" (vrs. 1-2), but the NASV will not allow Him to be taken up. It just says He departed. You may think that this is insignificant since the ascension can be found in other passages, but it is not. No portion of the Bible is insignificant. If a person allows only one word to be removed or changed in it he does not have all the words God has for him.
In the very next verse (Luke 24:52) many of these versions refuse to let the Lord be worshiped. The King James correctly says, "and they worshiped him," but the perversions say, "they bowed down" or the like. That there is a difference between the readings is obvious, one can bow down to a person without worshiping him (see also Matthew 20:20 in the NKJV). Again, notice how all of these changes are negative towards Christ. Every change is at His expense.
The Authorized Version expresses every fundamental Christian doctrine more often or more clearly than ANY of the modern versions; this fact alone should speak volumes to any Christian seeking the truth. While the new "Bibles" demean Christ in many key passages, the King James exalts Him at every opportunity. How much more evidence do you need (Matthew 3:17)?
There are many other omissions in these "Bibles." Compare any new translation with the King James Version in the following verses for some examples, Matthew 6:13, 9:14, 11:23, 15:8, 16:3, 19:9, 20:7, 20:16, 20:22, 25:13, 27:35; Mark 6:11, 10:21, 13:14; Luke 1:28, 4:4, 4:8, 7:31, 8:43, 11:2-4, 22:31, 22:64, 23:38; John 1:27, 3:13, 3:15, 11:41, 16:16; etc. These verses contain only some of the omissions in the gospels alone, there are many more in the rest of the Bible! How could anyone think a "Bible" that took out so much of the Bible was a real Bible? Satan has a lot of people fooled.
This is not all. The last twelve verses of Mark and a large portion of John chapter eight are strongly questioned in these corruptions. The NIV separates Mark 16:9-20 from the rest of the chapter as not "reliable" and does the same with John 7:53-8:11. I suppose God must have been unable to keep His word pure from the intrusion of these passages for nearly eighteen centuries and had to wait for some "scholars" to come along who were able correct this "unfortunate error." Nonsense! We know the readings are genuine because they are in the Bible! God has promised to preserve His word for every generation, so why would any Christian doubt that He has? So what if the "doctors" SAY these passages were not in the "original," they cannot PROVE it, and the fact they are in the Bible God has chosen to use for the last 380 years is evidence against them.
If people want to cheat themselves out of having all the words God wants them to have by believing these new translations, that is their business, but a true Bible believer wants EVERY WORD God has for him. That these modern corruptions sell for Bibles shows the sad state of Christianity today. You could not have fooled a New Testament Christian or even one in the early nineteenth century with this garbage for a minute. As soon as he saw all the changes, attacks against his Savior, and omissions, he would have rejected them as trash. But today this trash is the "preference" of millions.
For instance, nearly all of the new "highly reliable" versions would have us believe that NO ONE in the Old Testament had to worry about going to Hell. Why? Because they do not mention Hell ANYWHERE in the Old Testament! In them all who died, whether they were "righteous" or "wicked," went to "sheol" or the "grave." No wicked person was in danger of Hell. How convenient this would be for an evil person if it was true. No matter what his behavior is, he would go at death to the same place as the righteous. These versions are more like the Jehovah's Witnesses' NWT than they are like the King James. The world "hell" cannot be found anywhere in the NWT. It transliterates all of the Hebrew and Greek words instead of translating them. Though the "fundamentalist" approved versions do mention Hell a few times in the New Testament, (they have to, to appear as Bibles) they join with the Hell-denying (and Christ-denying) Jehovah's Witnesses in the Old.
For an example of this look at Psalm 9:17 in the NASV and NIV. In the Authorized Version the "wicked are turned into HELL," but in these "perversions" the wicked need not fear about Hell, they need only be concerned about "sheol" in one (NASV) and the "grave" in the other (NIV). See how the verse has been watered down? "Sheol" sounds like a much more pleasant place to go to than "hell" does. Every English-speaking person knows what the word "hell" means, but how many could define "sheol"? This is a very clever trick of Satan. Take an uncommon word, "sheol" (sheol is NOT an English word, it is a Hebrew word transliterated into English), and use it to replace a very familiar and well established word (Hell) under the pretense it is a more accurate rendering. "Sheol" is generally defined as "the unseen state" or "the unseen world of the dead," but ALL are in this state at death whether they are wicked or not, Likewise, ALL go to the grave whether they are wicked or not. These two corruptions (along with many others) have essentially destroyed this verse by eliminating a Hell for the wicked and those who ignore God. See also Psalm 16:10, 18:5, 55:15, 86:13, 116:3, 139:8; Proverbs 23:14; Isaiah 5:14, 14:9,15, etc.
The King James correctly shows the difference between the destination of the lost and saved by mentioning "hell" 31 times in the Old Testament, each occurrence a translation of "sheol." "Sheol" is also translated as "grave" and "pit" in the Authorized Version. This indicates that the translators carefully examined the context of each occurrence of the word and translated it accordingly. The new "Bibles" have both the saved and lost going to the same place, but the Authorized Version correctly sends the wicked to Hell.
As for the New Testament, most of the new versions only have the word "hell" in them from 13 to 15 times. The King James, however, has it 22 times. Obviously, someone is interested in removing this word from the Bible. If you do not know by now who it is you will never know. The King James Version"hell" a total of 53 times, each occurrence giving the Bible believer information about the destination or dwelling place of the lost. The NIV mentions it a mere 14 times, cheating the believer (and the lost) out of 39 other occurrences which provide vital information. I am sure this pleases the "serpent" greatly. mentions
For the sake of brevity, we will only look at a couple more of the numerous mistranslations found in the modern versions, both dealing with the word of God. Look at 2 Timothy 2:15 in the NKJV (or any of the others). The Authorized Version clearly says that a believer is to "study...rightly dividing the word of truth" to show himself "approved unto God." The NKJV, however, knocks "study" right out of the verse and replaces it with "be diligent." It has removed the ONLY verse in the New Testament that commands a Christian to study the scriptures. Is there any doubt who is behind this? According to this version (and the others) a saint does not have to study the Bible to show himself approved, he only has to "be diligent" doing something. The NIV also destroys the latter part of the verse by replacing "rightly dividing the word of truth" with "who correctly handles the truth," completely eliminating a reference stating the Bible has divisions. Two of the most essential practices a believer should be engaged in, studying the scriptures and learning how to rightly divide them cannot be found in any modern translation. No wonder many of today's churches are filled with ignorant Christians.
Again, take the NKJV and read 2 Corinthians 2:17. The translators had to change this verse because it exposes the very activity they are engaged in! The Authorized Version says, "For we are not as many which CORRUPT the word of God...," but the NKJV (and the others) replaces"corrupt" with "peddle" (or something similar). No edition of the trueKing James Version says "peddle." The result of this change is clear. One can peddle something for profit without corrupting it, but once it is corrupted it becomes impure. How well this describes the dozens of new translations Christians have had to wade through for decades—impure. They are corrupt "Bibles" that are peddled by "Bible" publishers.
Apparently, today's "Bible" publishers are more concerned with making money than they are with getting God's word out. How else can one explain a "new, more accurate, clearer," version coming on the market an average of one every two or three years? Does the English language change that drastically so quickly? Of course not, it all boils down to "filthy lucre." If they were primarily concerned about getting the word out, they could print an edition of the Authorized Version with notes in the margin that explained any difficult word and not spend thousands of dollars publishing other translations. This edition could be sold for a very reasonable price because there would be no committees to form, translators to pay, or huge advertising campaigns to fund. But, believer, we are being unrealistic. What motivates "Bible" publishers is seemingly the same thing that motivates worldly publishers: competition, sales, reputation, and PROFIT. And if they have to "revise" (corrupt) the Bible to be "successful" and get ahead of the competition, then revise it they will.
Furthermore, since 1880 over one hundred new translations have been published, each claiming to "correct," "revise," "clear up," etc., all the "deficiencies" of one book (AV), yet NONE of these "improved" versions is considered inerrant by anyone. Their translators claim to be able to find ALL the "errors" in the King James, but they can't produce a "Bible" that is error free! With over one hundred attempts to their credit they still don't have a PURE Bible. What does this have to say about "scholarship"? Why would anyone follow such an inconsistent crowd? All of the evidence we have presented above should be proof enough that Bible corrupters are just as prevalent today as they were in Paul's day.
For some more examples of corruption in translating look at the following verses in the NKJV comparing them with the Authorized Version: Matthew 20:20; Romans 1:18,25; 1 Corinthians 1:22; Galatians 5:4; Philippians 3:8,21; 1 Thessalonians 5:22,23; 1 Timothy 6:5,10,20; James 5:16; Jude 24; etc. For some Old Testament examples examine the following verses in the NIV: Genesis 1:28, 6:4, 22:8, 24:22, 43:34, 49:1,4,10,18; Exodus 3:14, 12:1-5, 34:7; Numbers 14:29, 21:5, 33:52; Job 41:1; Psalm 9:17, 12:6-7, 19:1, 22:20,30; etc.
Though there are more arguments we could present showing the nature and integrity of the Authorized Version, the information we have presented above should be enough to cause any Christian who has fallen for the "original autographs" and "oldest and best texts" pitch to reconsider his position. Most believers when they first get saved are inclined to trust the "experts" on issues they are ignorant about, and this is understandable, but just because someone is considered an expert does not mean he is one. Every Christian is instructed to "search the scriptures" and "study" to shew HIMSELF approved. This is so he can KNOW for himself what is truth and what is error. These matters are much too important to be left to the opinions of experts, especially when the experts contradict each other.
As we mentioned earlier, one does not have to be a Greek or Hebrew scholar to be able to determine the truth. God never intended for a "priest class" of elite scholars to have a lock on the words of life. He wants all of His children to have access to His pure word so they can learn about Him, love Him, obey Him, and grow in Him. Any saint who can read grade school English can do just that.
From an objective viewpoint, the position we hold concerning the King James Version is really the safest position a Christian could take. Suppose we are wrong in believing the Authorized Version is the pure, inerrant word of God, all God could charge us with in this regard is believing the Bible He has given us TOO MUCH! On the other hand, if the King James IS inerrant and God's absolute final authority in English, all who have rejected it as such will have to answer for NOT believing it (unbelief)! They will also have to explain why they believed NO Bible on earth was inerrant after God's promises to preserve His word. If Bible believers are wrong they will be judged for having too much faith in the King James Version;King James critics are wrong they will be judged for faithlessness, infidelity, and for sowing unbelief! if the We choose to be associated with the former rather than the latter.
From the material above (and more like it) and the witness of the Holy Spirit, we are firmly convinced that any edition of the Authorized King James Version of 1611 (apart from any typographical errors, of course) is God's pure, inerrant, infallible word; all other versions are inferior. We are convinced its English text of both the Old and New Testaments IS the very word of God and ALL the words God wants us to have. Unlike many Christians today, we HAVE an inerrant Bible which we can SEE, HANDLE, READ, STUDY, and CONSULT any time we wish. How unfortunate it is for those who have a "Bible" that is not inerrant, or believe in one that no longer exists.
Finally, even with the great amount of godly fruits God has brought
about with the Authorized Version, we realize its critics will
continue to mount charges against this blessed book. Because of this,
we understand the King James is likely to become less and less
used in this Laodicean age (Revelation 3:14), but this does not affect
this blessed book's integrity whatsoever. God is in this precious
book, more than He is in any other. And though Satan will continuously
attempt to corrupt it, God will have it in all its purity, somewhere,
for His faithful to read, learn from, love and enjoy. Do you have
an inerrant Bible?