King James Version Bible - A Freemason/Rosicrucian Work of Deception

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#1
King James Version Bible - A Freemason/Rosicrucian Work of Deception

mason.jpg

[video=youtube;6KXnf2co4Dc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KXnf2co4Dc[/video]



Geneva Bible

GENEVA BIBLE 1599

The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.

For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.

Until he had his own version named after him, so did King James I of England. James I later tried to disclaim any knowledge of the Geneva Bible, though he quotes the Geneva Bible in his own writing, As a Professor Eadie reported it:

". . . his virtual disclaimer of all knowledge up to a late period of the Genevan notes and version was simply a bold, unblushing falsehood, a clumsy attempt to sever himself and his earlier Scottish beliefs and usages that he might win favor with his English churchmen." 1

The irony goes further. King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.

The King James Bible was, and is for all practical purposes, a government publication. There were several reasons for the King James Bible being a government publication.
 
J

J-Kay

Guest
#2
This sounds like the King James Bible is bad. I disagree.
However, I was not impressed with the Geneva Bible. That
is the Bible Kirk Cameron is using, if I am not mistaken.
I learned the King James Bible and now there are so many
versions it appears people are becoming confused. We must
be cautious not to take away from the message meant for us
to follow, and that is Jesus Christ died for us on the Cross,
shed His blood for our salvation.

 

Photoss

Senior Member
Sep 15, 2012
213
10
0
#3
Where did you get the information that King James I used a Geneva Bible? He would've had folio (or smaller) Bishop's Bible. The only reason he is connected to the Bible at all was because he was at Hampton Court Conference [1/16/1604] attempting to solve a number of issues between the Anglican and Puritan clergyman, and Puritan John Rainolds proposed that an ecumenical Bible version be assembled to create a uniform translation for the English churches to use.

Also, the 1611 first edition had a number of classical mythological figures in many woodcut initials, mostly due to the printer Robert Barker desiring that the most beautiful woodcuts in his collection be used. These included:
- Neptune astride a horse (Matt 1 and Rev 1)
- Demonic face with bat wings (Heb 1)
- Daphne (Rom 1)
- Two spirits with pitchforks (used several times in the NT)
- The apostle Luke
- The apostle John
- Half-man half-beast (2 Pet)
- Pan playing a flute and dancing (Psalm 141, parts of the Apocrypha, and 1 Pet 3)

Also included were:
- A flying goose
- Sitting angels
- A deer at rest
- A woman carrying a jar
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#4
Where did you get the information that King James I used a Geneva Bible?
Sorry for the confusion, I was promoting the Geneva Bible as a proper Protestant alternative to the King James Bible.

 
J

J-Kay

Guest
#5
Sorry for the confusion, I was promoting the Geneva Bible as a proper Protestant alternative to the King James Bible.

I admit I didn't get to watch the video before writing about
the King James and the Geneva. I just knew Kirk Cameron promotes
the Geneva, and I did try to read some scriptures from it and it seemed
more complicated compared to the King James. I need to check out the
Geneva verses and then same on King James and see again how I feel
about it. The thing that came to mind was this... Is satan trying to
keep us from the truth of Gods Word and leading people to the watered
down versions ? Just a thought. ~ Thanks, for giving us something to
check into. ~
 
J

J-Kay

Guest
#6
To compare the Geneva Bible with the King James, here is Revelation 6:12–17 in both versions (with spelling modernized). The differences have been italicized (in both extracts):
[TABLE="class: multicol, width: 100%"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"] Geneva Bible
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and lo, there was a great earthquake, and the sun was as black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon was like blood. And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig tree casteth her green figs, when it is shaken of a mighty wind. And heaven departed away, as a scroll, when it is rolled, and every mountain and isle were moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in dens, and among the rocks of the mountains, and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the presence of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of his wrath is come, and who can stand? [/TD]
[TD="align: left"] King James Bible
And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island was moved out of their places. And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains; and said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb; for the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? [/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

The title page of the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible; the illustration depicts the Israelites before the Red Sea.


The two versions are very similar to each other. Examination of the differences shows that the earlier Geneva version is often more direct and modern in style than the later King James, e.g.
“and the moon was like blood” (Geneva) versus “and the moon became as blood” (King James)
“as a fig tree casteth her green figs” (Geneva) versus “even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs” (King James)
By and large, the difference is that the KJV lacked footnotes that the Geneva Bible contained.
As can be seen by the text below, Daniel chapter 4 in the Geneva Bible appears to have removed two verses. In reality, the Geneva Bible places those two verses at the end of chapter 3, as the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin verses all did. It wasn't until the King James Version that those verses were placed with chapter 4 as opposed to chapter 3:
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2"]Geneva Bible – Daniel 3[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"]King James Bible – Daniel 3[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]Then the King promoted Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego in the province of Babel.[/TD]
[TD]30[/TD]
[TD]Then the king promoted Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, in the province of Babylon.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2"][/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"]King James Bible – Daniel 4[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]31[/TD]
[TD]Nebuchad-nezzar King unto all people, nations and languages, that dwell in all the world, Peace be multiplied unto you:[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]Nebuchad-nezzar the king, unto all people, nations, and languages that dwell in all the earth, Peace be multiplied unto you.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]32[/TD]
[TD]I thought it good to declare the signes and wonders, that the hie God hath wrought toward me.[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]I thought it good to shew the signes, and wonders, that the high God hath wrought toward me.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]33[/TD]
[TD]How great are his signes, and how mightie are his wonders! his kingdome is an everlasting kingdome, and his dominion is from generation to generation.[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]How great are his signes? and how mighty are his wonders? his kingdome is an everlasting kingdome, and his dominion is from generation to generation.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2"]Geneva Bible – Daniel 4[/TH]
[TH="colspan: 2"][/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]I Nebuchad-nezzar being at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace,[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]I Nebuchadnezzar was at rest in mine house, and flourishing in my palace.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]Saw a dreame, which made me afraide, and the thoughtes upon my bed, and the visions of mine head troubled me.[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]I saw a dreame which made me afraid, and the thoughts upon my bed, and the visions of my head troubled me.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]Therefore made I a decree, that they should bring all the wise men of Babel before mee, that they might declare unto me the interpretation of the dreame.[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]Therefore made I a decree, to bring in all the wise men of Babylon before mee, that they might make knowen unto me the interpretation of the dreame.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#7
I admit I didn't get to watch the video before writing about
the King James and the Geneva. I just knew Kirk Cameron promotes
the Geneva, and I did try to read some scriptures from it and it seemed
more complicated compared to the King James. I need to check out the
Geneva verses and then same on King James and see again how I feel
about it. The thing that came to mind was this... Is satan trying to
keep us from the truth of Gods Word and leading people to the watered
down versions ? Just a thought. ~ Thanks, for giving us something to
check into. ~
GBU sister J-Kay. I've been studying mostly from the KJV for about 9 months. Now so I'm delving into a new Bible. I think many of the objections to the Geneva Bible were because of the sidenotes/footnotes, some of which were written by John Calvin himself, so you can ignore the footnotes if you don't like Calvinism.

The restorer has made it available
for free :D at 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) - Version Information - BibleGateway.com

I'm not really convinced that Satan is behind watered down versions, but I do recommend studying 2 more different Bibles as a general rule, with the
New King James Version giving very good balance of the old translations and the modern translations (different Greek source for the NT).
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#9
The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.

For the last three centuries Protestants have fancied themselves the heirs of the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth Rock. This assumption is one of history's greatest ironies. Today's Protestants laboring under that assumption use the King James Bible. Most of the newer Bibles such as the Revised Standard Version are simply updates of the King James.

The irony is that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free. The Bible in use by those groups until it went out of print in 1644, was the Geneva Bible. The first Geneva Bible, both Old and New Testaments, was first published in English in 1560 in what is now Geneva, Switzerland,* William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively.
Quote from Authorized Version Defence King James Bible Versus Geneva Bible: "In fact, it was the PURITANS who REQUESTED the translation of the KJB to begin with. Without the Puritans REQUESTING the KJB, there would never have BEEN a KJB."

Pilgrims v. Puritans: who landed in Plymouth? | The Historic Present

Most Americans know the terms Puritans and Pilgrims. Most don’t know that these are two different groups.

Puritans were English Protestants in the late 16th century who wanted their church, the Anglican church, to follow the Calvinist model more closely and give up the remnants of Catholicism still present in Anglicanism.

During the reign of Elizabeth I, the Puritans consistently pushed their agenda in Parliament and in their local towns. Puritans would often remove themselves from their assigned parish church to go hear sermons from a Puritan minister in another town’s church. This was illegal at the time. In an effort to stop the wild pendulum swings in her kingdom from extreme protestantism to Catholic resurgence and back again, Elizabeth refused to legitimize the Puritan agenda. She did not prosecute them severely, but she did not rescind the laws making their activities illegal.

Their sense of being persecuted for their faith gave the Puritans a lot of energy. They developed a complete system for defining and realizing salvation that I can’t go into in a short post here. But they also split.

Puritans began as a group within the Anglican church that wanted to purify it of lingering Catholic influences. But some Puritans lost faith in the Anglican church. Deciding it could never be purified, they abandoned it, separating themselves from it. These became known as Separatists. The majority of Puritans, who remained within the Anglican church, were known as nonseparating Puritans. The two groups grew increasingly hostile as the 17th century wore on.

It was the Separatists who took the Mayflower for America. Forced to leave England because it was treason to leave the Anglican church, small groups of Separatists left for Holland and other Protestant European countries. The group that we know as the Pilgrims went to Leiden in Holland. Americans often learn that they decided not to stay there because their children were becoming Dutch, but this is not true. They left because Holland’s truce with Catholic Spain was near its end, and the Protestant Separatists would have been wiped out if Spain had taken control once again of Holland.

So the Separatists received permission from the English government to go to America. Why? They were funded by financiers in London, and the crown figured that if the colonists made a go of it, the crown would seize the colony and enjoy the profits. The religion of the colonists was secondary to the financial potential they represented.

Not all the people on board the Mayflower were Separatists. Stories of the horrors suffered by colonists at Jamestown, in Virginia, were well-circulated in England. The feeling in England was that the Jamestown colonists had gone to America grossly unprepared. The Separatists vowed not to repeat those colonists’ mistakes. They recruited tradespeople from London whose talents would be essential to building a new society—carpenters, blacksmiths, etc.

Those recruits were not Puritans or Separatists. They were Anglicans. But mostly, they were people who didn’t really think about religion too much, who just wanted a chance to go to America. The Separatists, then, were in the minority as the Mayflower set sail. Fights between the two groups broke out almost immediately. The Separatists got on the others’ nerves with their religion, which permeated all aspects of their lives, and the Anglicans got on the Separatists’ nerves with their deliberate sacrilege and mockery of religion. When they landed in America, the Separatists had a hard time keeping control of the colony from the majority.

Now, the nonseparating Puritans in England came under real persecution starting in 1630, with the election of Archbishop Laud, who dedicated himself to wiping Puritanism out and bringing the Anglican church as far back toward Catholicism as he could. Tens of thousands of Puritans would emigrate to Massachusetts in the 1630s. But they didn’t go to Plymouth. They weren’t about to miss their chance to found an untrammeled, unchallenged, all-powerful Puritan state by moving in with a bunch of crazy Separatists and, worse yet, blasphemous, Catholic-tinged Anglicans.

The Puritans instead founded Boston, north of Plymouth. And as the Puritan colony centered there—the Massachusetts Bay Colony—grew, it quickly outstripped Plymouth. Bay colonists ruthlessly confiscated land, including lands owned by Plymouth. By the 1640s, Plymouth was reduced to a backwater, and its Separatist quality was fairly diluted, even as the Puritanism of the Bay Colony grew and strengthened.
 
Mar 27, 2014
1
0
0
#10
I am very impressed with the Geneva Bible. It has a directness about it that I really appreciate. There is a wonderful history behind this Bible too and I would encourage you to explore the history behind the Geneva Bible if you haven't done so already. There is a brief history of the Geneva Bible at: Geneva Bible - The Bible that Changed the World

I do like well-done modern updates of classic Bible translations to make it more accessible. For example, I have a New King James version of the Bible via John MacArthur's Study Bible. I do like the King James Bible though in moderation. I just don't want to use it as my main Bible.

Recently, there was an update of the Geneva Bible done by conservative scholars and they did an excellent job (Kirk Cameron and Gary Demar are telling their fans what a good translation this updated version of Geneva Bible is.).
 
Mar 15, 2014
325
1
0
#11
How many books were in the original KJV bible? There were more is what I was told. Which books, does anyone know??
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
20
0
#12
biblegateway.com has a large database of bible versions, you may want to check there. Unless you are referring to ancient manuscripts in which case that website will do nothing for you.
 
Mar 15, 2014
325
1
0
#13
I searched and found that there were 80 books in the first KJV of the bible. It kind of puts a damper on those who believe the KJV is the only "good" bible.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
24,881
6,486
113
#14
I searched and found that there were 80 books in the first KJV of the bible. It kind of puts a damper on those who believe the KJV is the only "good" bible.
while you were searching did you notice the indexes of those old Bibles were separated into "canon" and "apocrypha" ?
 
Mar 15, 2014
325
1
0
#15
while you were searching did you notice the indexes of those old Bibles were separated into "canon" and "apocrypha" ?
I have a SLOW isp, why don't you list them for us, or give a link?
 
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
20
0
#16
I searched and found that there were 80 books in the first KJV of the bible. It kind of puts a damper on those who believe the KJV is the only "good" bible.
here's the thing for me. I have no doubts that the old testament of the KJV is missing something, many things. Jesus references books that clearly aren't there. I do however have one thing that keeps me joined at the hip to the KJV, the new testament is written from the Textus Receptus "received texts. I will not, under any circumstances give credence to the "other texts" IE vaticanus and sinaiticus. Nor will I trust men like Wescott and Hort or any who follow in their footsteps. Until I find something that is derived from the Textus Receptus alone and doesn't remove hundreds of words like "Jesus" and "Lord and Savior" I am absolutely stuck on the KJV