Bible Burning???

Just a thought – (this is what Blogs are for…)

I bookmarked an Independent Baptist Church website, because they have a lot of sermon resources. They have photos of book-burnings, including non-KJV bibles. Amazingly enough, they’re burning Bibles that are essentially the King James in Spanish, the Reina-Valera. I somehow think they’ve missed the point of being a Christian, here.

Do I use non-KJV bibles? No. Do I recommend non-KJV bibles? No. I strongly recommend against them. They’re softening the impact of God’s word, by eliminating key verses, deliberately translating some to fit with views of Unitarians, and other things we don’t have room for here.


I’ve seen uninformed Christians still, guided by the Holy Spirit, grasp the correct doctrine from a verse where words have been removed to keep them from grasping it. So, while the new translations are often blasphemous, and make it much harder for Christians to grasp doctrine (and even easier to be misled)… many still grasp it. It must just annoy Satan no end.

Aren’t you afraid you’ll have to explain to God why you were burning Bibles?

This is not acting in love. It’s not going to be understood by a Christian who does not understand this issue, has not been educated on this issue, and will understand only that a Church is burning Bibles. And I don’t think Zondervan will at all be hurt by the increased sales as you buy bibles and burn them.

In 20 minutes, I can educate most Christians to the point that they will only read the King James. in 20 seconds, you can utterly offend most Christians to the point that I doubt that I will ever be allowed the opening to educate them on this.


Which Bible is best for me?

A lot of Christian blogs and web sites feature a page called “What is the best Bible?” Usually, after a brief explanation of the various translation processes and nary a word about the original manuscripts, they present a few random verses from all the Bibles, and come to no conclusions whatsoever. So I thought I’d, in the interests of fairness, do the same!

The Doctrine of the Trinity – Father Son & Holy Spirit

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7 (KJV)

7 So we have these three witnesses 1 John 5:7 (NLT)

For there are three that testify: (1 John 5:7, HCSB)

For there are three that testify, (1 John 5:7, NET)

And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is true. (1 John 5:7 BBE)

For there are three that testify: (1 John 5:7 ESV)

And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth. (1 John 5:7 RSV)

There you go. Which version do you like best? And, which one is the most accurate?

King James: Comparing Verses

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind: 48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away. 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 51 Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Matt 13:47-51 (KJV)

“Again, the Kingdom of Heaven is like a fishing net that was thrown into the water and caught fish of every kind.48 When the net was full, they dragged it up onto the shore, sat down, and sorted the good fish into crates, but threw the bad ones away.49 That is the way it will be at the end of the world. The angels will come and separate the wicked people from the righteous,50 throwing the wicked into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.51 Do you understand all these things?” “Yes,” they said, “we do.” Matt 13:47-51 (NLT)

In the King James Version, the Disciples acknowledge Jesus Christ as Lord. In the NLT, they do not.

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, 8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. 9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. Matt 15:7-9 (KJV)

You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote,

8 ‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.9 Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas as commands from God.’ ” Matt 15:7-9 (NLT)

“Draw nigh unto me with their mouths” is removed. Thus, a Christian reading a modern translation is not taught that false converts exist. The modern versions also leave out that Christ is worshiped by the false converts in vain. “In vain do they worship me” is changed for “their worship is a farce”. The two sayings mean two different things.

“Teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” becomes “they teach man made ideas as commands from God” it’s a subtle difference.


It gets upsetting sometimes to have to fight so many battles on so many fronts.

On the Evangelical Christian front, you’ve got people like John Ankerberg, who is a fairly good apologist. Yet he lumps all Fundamentalist KJV Only believers into one category. It’s exactly the kind of hypocrisy that he battles against – and yet his own organization states “KJVO proponents, of whom Gail Riplinger, Peter Ruckman and D. A. Waite are good examples…”

That would be like saying, “Democrats, of whom Martin Luther King Jr., Roseanne Arnold and Adolph Hitler are good examples…” The stated principles of which all three persons listed are all diametrically opposed – it’s impossible to link them together.

D. A. Waite is a scholar, well educated, having several degrees in Hebrew and Greek. He is a King James Bible proponent because of conviction after examining the evidence.

I lack the time and finances to stop and examine Mr. Ruckman’s writings to verify for myself. But I have examined the writings of others Mr. Cloud has warned about, and found Mr. Cloud to be a well-informed and credible source. Peter Ruckman, according to David Cloud and Marc Monte, can at best be described as a man who writes bizarre theories (flying saucers and CIA-mind control…) and holds an almost cult-like influence over his followers. Marc Monte goes farther in describing him as a heretic.

Now, I don’t agree 100% with any one human being. I will state I agree with David Cloud 90-95% of the time, and Marc Monte about 85-90% of the time.

I’ll take a moment and state I agree with the Lord Jesus Christ 100% of the time. But Jesus Christ is more than just a human being! I follow Jesus Christ, and not a man.

Returning to the subject at hand, Gail Riplinger claims that the King James is superior to the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, the Textus Receptus and Masoretic texts. She goes so far as to claim that all tools such as Strong’s Concordence are corrupt and toxic, and we should not go to the Textus Receptus to read the Greek, since God did a second and additional Inspiration, elevating the King James Bible above the originals, making them superfluous. This is unScriptural, as Jude contends that the faith, once delivered to the saints (stating that once completed, the Bible is IT!) and the warnings in Revelation not to add from nor subtract from the word of God. And Psalms 12:6-7 tells us that god will preserve His words forever.

I am King James Only. It does not mean that I believe the same as Peter Ruckman (“Second Inspiration”) or Gail Riplinger (“King James Only, above the original Greek and Hebrew”), or even D. A. Waite! I will say I agree with everything I’ve heard D. A. Waite say or write about the King James Bible… but I have only a half dozen sermons/messages by him, and a handful of articles. I agree with David Cloud (who interestingly enough, was not invited to the television show Ankerberg has) on the King James Bible.

Ankerberg protests that we are pigeonholing him, by labeling him as anti-KJV, and claims this is hypocrisy. Yet Ankerberg (and his co-workers) are doing exactly the same thing by lumping all KJV-only believers in the same category as Riplinger and Ruckman, and by listing D. A. Waite in the same category he is implying that Waite is as off-kilter as they are.

Ankerberg owes all KJV-only believers an apology. Or at least an admission that while he is not anti-KJV, he is most definitely anti-KJV-only.

KJV Only

When I say I am KJV only, what does that mean? I’ve come to discover that other people have incorrect pre-conceived notions about the meaning of what that is. And I’ve discovered that Ruckman-ites and Riplinger-ites have coined a phrase for me and others with my beliefs – “Textus Receptus Only.”

Let me state it a different way. Textus Receptus only means King James Only since the King James version is the only translation that comes solely from the Textus Receptus, the New Testament in Greek.

To believe like Peter Ruckman is to be a Ruckman-ite. To believe in Gail Riplinger is to be a Riplinger-ite. Please don’t hijack the title claimed by Dean Burgon, the Dean Burgon society, and countless thousands of others who by conviction are King James Only, but fail to believe in cultish, bizarre unScriptural notions such as “Second Inspiration” and “King James above the Original Texts”.

Do I believe that you cannot be saved reading an NIV? No. There’s a sufficient amount of the truth and power of God’s word in the NIV to save someone. It greatly weakens the overall message, and can attempt to mislead one from following true biblical doctrine. But yes, I believe someone can be saved reading the NIV. I was reading an NIV at the time I was saved. And I think anyone who hears my testimony of that night will agree I was completely and thoroughly saved. I was still reading the NIV at the time that I became, by conviction, KJV only. I also had an NASB and an RSV.

King James Only means that by conviction, I will use the King James Bible to read from, study from and preach from. It means I am convinced it is the complete Bible, the inspired word of God. It represents the best English translation from true copies of the Bible as it was passed down to us from the Apostles.

It means (to most KJVO Believers) that the Modern Bibles are based upon a fraudulent attempt to reconcile two manuscripts that disagree with one another in over 10,000 places, and which have been edited in every verse by two, three and as many as twenty other hands, verses erased, words changed, notes added in margins… If most Christians ever read the writings of Tischendorf about the Textus Sinaiticus, they would put away their other bibles.

It means that we reject the work of Wescott & Hort because they had an agenda, they were unsaved men, and that they deliberately compiled the verses that best represented their particular doctrinal stands, whenever there was a choice.

It means we reject Nestle-Alland for the same reason, as their manuscripts are almost letter for letter identical to Wescott-Hort.

I think that translations such as the NASB was best described by Kent Hovind with the phrase, “A good translation of the wrong manuscripts“.

Which translation is better, the NASB or the King James? Well, since only one comes from the received text, which came to us from the churches separate from Rome from the times of the Apostles until now… it’s a moot question. Were the NASB to be translated afresh from the Textus Receptus, it would be a different story!

And then… it won’t be as precise as the KJV. Here’s an example:

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. (John 3:7 KJV)

Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ (NASB)

The second “you” in the verse… is that singular, meaning Nicodemus? or is it plural, meaning “everyone?”

In the modern “Precise, accurate” language of the NASB, it is vague. It could be either. In the “antiquated” language of the King James, it is precise…. It means “Everyone”.

“Y” words… plural. You, yours, ye. “T” words… singular. Thee, Thou, Thine. In the KJV, It’s specific… I tell thee (Nicodemus) Ye (everyone) must be born again. It reflects the difference between σοι and υμας in the Greek.

What King James Only is Not.

In other posts you’ll find,  I’ve dealt enough with Riplinger-ism and Ruckman-ism. And I’ve dealt with what it is, albeit in a poorer manner than David Cloud did in his “What KJV Only means”. I recommend a visit to Way Of Life to read it.

King James Only, to me, does not mean that a person should burn their NIV. Or TNIV, or whatever the latest flavor.

King James only means to me, and to countless others, that we by choice and conviction believe the King James Bible to be the best translation from the Textus-Receptus. I’ve heard of one other translation from the TR, but have never seen it so I can’t comment. Since there’s only one translation from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that passed down from the apostles to us… that’s the one I use.

The Translators of the King James Bible spent years deciding what the best wording in English was for what the Bible says. To deviate from that is to get less than the best – and in reality, to open the door to apostasy and heresy. We got the RV in 1891, and 130 years later the churches, like the modern Bibles, are denying cardinal doctrines. Coincidence, I think not.

To stand for the Bible is to stand for what is right, and ultimately, to stand for God. It is to be like those Israelites who ran to Moses’ call,

26 Then Moses stood in the gate of the camp, and said, Who is on the LORD’S side? let him come unto me. And all the sons of Levi gathered themselves together unto him. Exodus 32:26 (KJV) 

That’s what it means.

How Christians are Deceived

So we have these three witnesses —8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood—and all three agree. 1 John 5:7-8 (NLT)

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. 1 John 5:7-8 (KJV)

This is arguably the most controversial verses in the Bible – to theologians. I’m going to state that the reason it’s so controversial is because it states without a doubt that The Lord Jesus Christ is God – a conclusion they’re not comfortable with.

There are scholarly treatises and doctoral dissertations on “The Johannine comma”, a scholarly way of saying “this verse makes me nervous, because I’m not saved and if I’m wrong about Jesus I’m going to Hell.”

So, when Wescott and Hort removed half of the verse when assembling the Wescott-Hort Greek Manuscript (you know, the “Oldest and best manuscript” you keep reading about – that was made in 1886!), unsaved Theologians and Unitarians alike breathed a sigh of relief. “Ah! At last! A manuscript we can make Bibles out of that won’t leave me awake at night in fear of burning in Hell forever!”

It was good thinking. That way, the horror of waking in Hell sneaks up on you.

Why is the New Living MisTranslation so bad?

“So we have…” trivializes the power and awe of the Godhead. It was so tremendous to Isaiah and Ezekiel that when you read of it in a King James, you’re left filled with wonder and amazement, and sinners are left in dread. It reduces the awesome majesty of the Godhead to the commonplace-ness of a color TV. “So we have a 56″ flatscreen and we have these three witnesses, and we have two iPhones and…”

The King James puts it in more proper perspectives. “For there are three that bear record in heaven” – heaven is removed from the NLT, the NIV and the NASB. So much for the NASB being “The most accurate translation.”

“The Father, The Word and the Holy Ghost” is missing from modern Bibles. It is the clearest Biblical statement of the Trinity, which offends Unitarians. What you’re never told is that Unitarians are always present on every Bible Translating committee – despite the fact that they are heretics for their denial of Jesus Christ and also the Holy Ghost. It amounts to being the same as having Jehovah’s Witnesses translating your bible. So verses must be translated in such a way that Unitarians are not offended by them, instead of saying, “Well, the Greek says this, so that’s what we’re writing.”

To appease the Unitarians, and the unsaved theologians – which included Wescott and Hort – they left out all of those who bear record in heaven. Only the witnesses on the earth are left to bear witness, the spirit, the water and the blood. And the completing “and these three are one” is removed.

Now, most theologians will say, “That can only be found in a few late manuscripts!” That’s not true. You can find it not only in the Syrian Manuscripts, but you can find it in the Peshitta, a New Testament written in Aramaic, and is VERY old.

The Pulpit Commentary, a commentary for pastors, claims that “… are (not) quoted by a single Greek Father”. This is either an un-researched comment, or its an outright lie. Cyprian, an early church father writes, “and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.” That’s a direct quote of the verses that are missing from your modern per-version of the Bible.

I am King James Only, by conviction after studying. I did not want to be King James only. I wanted to read my new NASB I’d just bought. But after study, I am KJV-O.