Mirror, you need a mirror.
So the key question is not merely:This is the frontispiece from the 1611 KJV. Notice the Freemason and Rosicrucian imagery.
You would need trustworthy sources that proves that.
It is a lot worse than you think. Just watch Nick Sayer's video I just posted on Mollenkott. Watch the whole thing, even if it is in parts.
So, what Bible of the month that keeps changing are you for?
KJV only people are incorrigible.
Like I said,
It is possible but it's like counting Stars that are named & just numbered ,that's about 260 years, without eating and do fo.
Non-answer.
Seeing John Rainolds who was a Puritan suggested the idea to King James the idea of a new translation, I would hardly call it a conspiracy. Also, when you choose words to place into a translation, you choose words that exist in that language that people understand. For example, chirche (church) is a word you can find in the Middle English dictionary. This means that hundreds of years before the King James even existed this word was understood as referring to God’s people. Also, those who cry about the poor Puritans over the Geneva have no clue that even after they arrived in America, they eventually switched to the KJV during the Antinomian crisis with Anne Hutchinson. This even is noted by a respectable historian. So while King James may have intended Anglican rule with his translation, in reality it broke denominational barriers within Protestantism and became the standard in English and for translating into many foreign languages. It was the Bible that went out to the major continents (which the Museum of the Bible even states). The KJV was the Bible that help influence the three greatest revivals, and caused more memorization and unity over one text than any other Bible. This was not a conspiracy by King James. It is the fruit of God preserving His word.
No smoke. The information is not hidden in some locked secret vault. You are free to check my 77 changed doctrines PDF at www.affectionsabove.com. There is also another PDF on my site (the one with the animated fall leaves in the background) that highlights differences on a textual level, and also a translation level. Granted, I do need to do an overhaul on my 77 changed doctrine writeup. There are a few I need to fix due to my studies in the original languages. If you want to point those issues out, I would be happy for a critical eye to check it.
It is the American version of the Westcott and Hort’s Revised Version.
The ERV, and the ASV are not updates of the KJV because they do not even the Johannine Comma in it.
I actually believe a person can be saved by a Modern Bible and even live a holy life to a certain degree. That said, I believe your chance is far greater in falling away from the faith by being caught up in the Modern BIble Movement because they teach you to basically distrust the Bible in that there is no settled word of God and that people can just choose what they want to add or delete from the Bible. It’s madness. But of course people in the Modern Bible Movement either really do not think about this problem or they prefer the idea of chopping up God’s word like a piece of meat to their own preferences. In short, there is no authority and the Catholics are happy with the Modern Bible Movement. The Catholics used to say more often that Protestants believe in a paper pope. Not so much now. Many Protestant Christians are too busy attacking the Bible that was trusted for hundreds of years.
Another sidestep.
So you basically are not able to recognize the tons of Conditional Salvation verses in the Bible.
So was Moses bowing down to God's word when he knew had the perfect set of God's word with the stone tablets that had the ten commandments on it? No. But somehow in their liberal age thinking that one has a perfect set of God's word just means one will bow down to it like it is an idol, when that is not what is going on. Granted, we do revere God's words. The Bible tells us this.
Good thing I don't answer to you. The information does not change if it is here vs. it being on my PDF on my site.
I am not of the position that the KJV English conveys every nuance of meaning in the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. That was part of the purpose of this thread. I disagree with my fellow KJV English only brethren in their condemning the original languages. That said, for the promise of God to continue, there has to be some form of His word today that people must be held accountable to (if you believe all the verses on the promises of God's word being pure, holy, and preserved forever). I believe that the KJV anchored in its underlying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek is that word. One cannot have different words that conflict with one another a word that shape shifts with no end in sight. You wouldn't fly in a plan built upon conflicting schematics, then why do so with a book that deals with your very soul? It doesn't make any sense. There has to be a standard to be held accountable to. Jesus said that if we do not receive His words, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48). Yet, in the Modern Bibles, his words are altered and removed. Some verses in Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin. I even ran into a Christian on a forum who said that Jesus sinned and he pointed immediately to a Modern Bible. So they do teach false doctrine. Modern Versions teach you to marry your rapist. Oh, how the atheist would love to shred the faith of the new Christian over this. Our Bible does not have these kinds of silly blunders and problems.
Now, that's more like it!
While it is a common belief in the KJV camp, not all TR/KJV believers hold to OSAS.
