blackbird

It is my business to see that the Canadian Forces is run properly as it is everyone's business. They are serving Canadians and we pay for them. Women's rights and safety should not be put at risk. Simple eh!

quote The Doctrine of Satan: The Name Game "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou Shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms, that made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?" Isaiah 14: 12-17 In Lucifer's boastful cry, "I will be like the most High," discontentment weighs on every word; the anointed cherub wanted an PRAYING TO A NEW GOD: LUCIFER • 41 identity change. The new persona he wished to pursue included the response of worship from whomsoever would. This is seen in his appeal to Jesus Christ to "fall down and worship me," recorded in Matthew 4:9. Unfortunately his ambition will be fulfilled, as seen in Revelation 13:4, "and they worshipped the dragon." Revelation 12:9 identifies, "the great dragon [as]. , .that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan." for the whole article go to New Age Bible Versions archive.org on a search line. Almost all modern versions of the Bible have taken Lucifer (Satan) out of Isaiah 14:12 KJV and put "morning star" in his place. In fact morning star is another name for Jesus Christ in a number of other verses in the Bible. This corruption makes no sense at all.

I have in fact responded to most of your comments. If there is a specific argument which I missed please give it again in one simple post. _______________________ Here are two examples of serious corruption in modern versions. This is a drop in the bucket. Micah 5:2 " 2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. " KJV The NIV says: "“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” Micah 5:2 NIV The KJV speaks about Jesus Christ being everlasting. The NIV speaks about Jesus Christ being from ancient times, not everlasting. Check Isaiah 14:12 "12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!" Isaiah 14:14 KJV This describes the fall of Lucifer from heaven. Lucifer's name became Satan. Now see what the NASB says in Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, You [a]star of the morning, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who defeated the nations!" Notice the name Lucifer has been removed and replaced with "star of the morning". The NIV says in Isaiah 14:12: "How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!" Notice how the NASB and NIV changed Lucifer to star of the morning or morning star. The fact is morning star is a title for Jesus Christ in Revelation 22:16 KJV "16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." So Lucifer has been elevated to morning star in the modern versions. Yet Jesus Christ is identified as morning star in Rev. 22:16, 2:28, and 2 Peter 1:19 in the KJV The fact is "morning star" is not in the Hebrew.

I gave lots of responses and tons of information which I doubt you bothered to even read. What specific argument did you make that I did not answer? Just give one argument so we can deal with it.

What???? A few corrupt manuscripts were found and used in the 1881 revised Greek New Testament by Westcott and Hort, but they have no validity to them and have no legitimacy to claim they are superior to the Received Text or majority of manuscripts which were used for the past 1,900 years. It's really quite simple. Would you be willing to watch a youtube video on this? If so, do a search for New World Order Bible Versions and you should find it.

The dead sea scrolls have nothing at all to do with the New Testament and do not affect the Old Testament. They are irrelevant to the issue of the versions.

Actually this book goes into how many doctrines are attacked and changed in various verses. 1. The deity of Christ is attacked. 2. The virgin birth of Christ is attacked. 3. Salvation by faith in Jesus Christ is attacked. There are many other basic doctrines which are attacked. Quote TABLE OF Contents Introduction. OVERVIEW: THE MESSAGE, THE MEN AND THE MANUSCRIPTS 1 The Mandate: Infiltrate 9 THE MESSAGE PART ONE THEY WORSHIPPED THE DRAGON 2 Praying to a New God 39 3 Your Father, the Devil 56 4 The Dragon 74 5 The One vs. the Holy One 76 6 His Marie & Masquerade 98 7 Mystery Babylon the Great 120 8 Seven Hills: Spires of Satan's Church 133 PART TWO THE NEW CHRISTIANITY 9 Men ShaU Be Unholy 152 10 Self-Esteem Dream 177 11 King James for Kids 195 12 Finally: They Worshipped Devils 218 PART THREE ANOTHER GOSPEL & ANOTHER GOD 13 Another Gospel 229 14 Initiated or In Christ 236 15 Striving or Saved 250 16 Gospels & Gods of the New Age 259 17 The New Earth or A New Age 280 18 Judgement or Interment 290 PART FOUR CHRIST OR ANTICHRIST 19 Antichrist Is Here 301 20 Test 1 for Antichrist 309 21 Antichrist: The Worid Teacher 322 22 King of Kings & Lord of Lords 330 23 Test 2 for Antichrist 334 24 Test 3 for Antichrist 351 25 Resurrection or Reincarnation 355 26 The Ascended Christ or Antichrist 360 27 The Final Blow 367 28 The Godhead's Gone 373 THE MEN & THE MANUSCRIPTS PART ONE THE MEN 29 The Serpent's Scribes 391 30 The Necromancers 397 31 The 'New' Greek & Ghosts 429 32 Silenced Scribes Summon Psychology 443 33 The Epitaph of Philip Schaff 457 PART TWO THE MANUSCRIPTS 34 The Majority Text 467 35 The Earliest Manuscripts 480 36 The Modem Greek Editions 492 37 Inspiration & Preservation 504 PART THREE BACK TO THE FUTURE 38 The Western Roots of the New Age & New Versions 515 39 The 1% Manuscripts 545 40 The Final Bible! 555 41 The Black Lodge 584 42 Lucifer's Lexicons 591 EPILOGUE APPENDICES A Summary: Westcott & Hort 616 B TheKJV and the Earliest Manuscripts 630 C The Seven Seals 635 NOTES DO YOU HAVE A HOLY BIBLE? unquote -Contents of New Age Bible Versions

I have given you several significant changes but you rejected them and claim now it is insignificant. The book I pointed out is about 690 pages long and has a massive amount of information. Do you seriously expect me to spend my life copying the hundreds of pages of information to spoon feed you here because you are too lazy to get the book or read it online? You know well it is impossible to give you the tons of information exposing the modern versions in postings on here or you should know. The information I have is Frank Logsdon was one of the key figures in producing the NASV. He recanted and this is what he said: "1 must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard. . .I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. . .We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translator; I wrote the preface. . . I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, it's terribly wrong; it's frighteningly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?. . I can no longer ignore these criticisms I am hearing and I can't refute them. . . When questions began to reach me at first I was quite offended. However, in attempting to answer, I began to sense that something was not right about the NASV. Upon investigation, I wrote my very dear friend, Mr. Lockman, explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV. . .The product is grievous to my heart and helps to complicate matters in these already troublous times. . .The deletions are absolutely frightening. . .there are so many. . .Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception in all of this?... I don't want anything to do with it. . . [T]he finest leaders that we have today. . .haven't gone into it [the new version's use of a corrupted Greek text], just as I hadn't gone into it. . .That's how easily one can be deceived. . .I'm going to talk to hun [Dr. George Sweeting, then president of Moody Bible Institute] about these things. . • [Y]ou can say the Authorized Version [KJV] is absolutely correct How correct? 100% correct!. . . If you must stand against everyone else, stand. Dr. Frank Logsdon unquote In the introduction to New Age Bible Versions

Simply put, the KJV is based on a overwhelming majority of manuscripts that have been believed to accurately give us the New Testament for the past 1,900 years. Then in the 1800s, a few corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts were found that were a little older, but disagreed with the overwhelming majority of manuscripts used for the past 1,900 years. They disagree with thousands of manuscripts and parts of manuscripts that have been found since the 1611 Authorized Version came out. But based on the theory of two heretics, Westcott and Hort, who produced a New Greek N.T. in 1881, modern Bible producers accepted this claim as legitimate. The overwhelming manuscript evidence proves the handful of corrupt manuscripts should never have been accepted. But there is money to be made in producing new Bibles and translations which is what happened. You say you are not interested in reading books or articles on it and want me to spoon feed you the proof, but you reject anything I say. So what are you doing here? You don't want to know anything.

He was a co-founder of the NASV and when he saw how wrong it was, he distanced himself and does not support it. You need to look into that. I can't spoon feed you with every detail as you seem to demand. You don't have to prove anything to me. I have been reading about this for years. You are the one in total ignorance.

No they're not from the same manuscripts. As this conclusion says: YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING ERROR OF THE MOST DEADLY NATURE quote Conclusion Note to my readers If you are trusting a new version of the Bible, please consider the monumental evidence to the fact that the whole result of a translation based upon the Oldest and Best Manuscripts, is deceit and departure from the faith "as it was once delivered to the saints". The inevitable result is apostasy. If at this moment you have feelings of anger and resentment; this indicates that the spirit of error is at work. Horts ghastly prophecy is being fulfilled. The power and influence of the occult is at work, seeking to destroy your faith. Someone cries, "the new versions are easier to understand!" I agree that this is so; but an honest appraisal of the evidence shows indisputably that you are understanding error of the most deadly nature. In order that the devil may have a one world religion, the doctrine of the Deity of Christ must be destroyed. Having pictured the Lord of Glory, the Prince of Peace, the Creator of the Universe, the Only Begotten Son of God the Father, as being simply one of a number of religious leaders, the stage is set for the destruction of the soul, and the soon to be destroyed Church of the antichrist to be set up. Question - do YOU want to be part of that which is on its way to perdition? "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other Name under heaven, given among men, whereby we must be saved." Acts 4:12 THAT NAME IS JESUS! Copyrighted May 1989 All capitals within the quotations have been provided for emphasis by C.J.C. . maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM#Conclusion

That is completely false. I already explained that numerous times. This essay goes into the few corrupt manuscripts which modern versions are based on. You will have to go to this link if you want to learn about it .maranath.ca/OLDBEST.HTM The Contents are: Chapter Headings Introduction Three Witnesses Against the "Oldest and Best" Herman Hoskier John William Burgon Prebendary H. Scrivener Various Board Members SINAITICUS Antiquity Penmanship Correctors Readings Examined Five Famous Uncials VATICANUS Omissions Genesis Psalms The Lord's Prayer 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Hebrews To heal the broken hearted HORT ROME Infiltration The Firstborn By Himself Catholic Error 1 Timothy 3:16 Conclusion

You don't appear to understand what this all about at all. I tried to explain the KJV is based on the Received Text which is supported by the vast majority of copies of manuscripts. The modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts pulled out in the 1800s. If you don't want to read anything, that is your choice.

Certainly is. quote CHAPTER THIRTY The Necromancers A cannon ball, in the form of a new and altered Greek New Testament text, was catapulted in the 1880's by two pirates, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort; it carries its doctrinal deathblow into the laps of unsuspecting Christians holding translations of this text. These new versions exhibit deep trenches in the text as a result of this barrage. Qefts in the content include the ascension, the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the virgin birth, New Testament salvations (e.g., Paul, the Ethiopian eunuch, the thief on the cross) and an army of other victims. These two swashbucklers approached the written word with a sword much like the soldier who pierced the side of the living Word. The sound of a 'New World Religion' echoes back from these sounding boards framed with the theories and philosophies of Westcott and Hort. The body of standard Christian reference works affirm their pivotal and powerful role in this war of words. Scanning the major works will document the singularity and paramountcy of their role. John R. Kohlenberger, spokesperson for Zondervan, (publisher of the NASB, Living Bible, Amplified Bible, NIV, and RSV) is author of a Hebrew/NIV Interlinear, as well as, Words about the Word: A Guide to Choosing and Using Your Bible. He discloses: Westcott and Hort. . .all subsequent versions from the Revised Version (1881) to those of the present. . .have 398 • NEW AGE VERSIONS adopted their basic approach. . .[and] accepted the Westcott and Hort [Greek] text.i He goes on to salute Westcott's, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament, saying,"This century old classic remains a standard. "2 Christians may not return the salute, but ask why the work of esoterics are "standards" and "classics" for the body of Christ. Baker Book House, publisher of half-a-dozen modem translations, also prints a bible selection guide entitled, The King James Version Debate. Author D.A. Carson admits: [T]he theories of Westcott and Hort. . .[are] almost universally accepted today. . .It is on this basis that Bible translators since 1881 have, as compared with the King James Version, left out some things and added a few others. Subsequent textual critical work accepted the theories of Westcott and Hort. The vast majority of evangelical scholars. . .hold that the basic textual theories of Westcott and Hort were right and the church stands greatly in their debt.3 The error of their textual theories and their recent abandonment by many scholars, in spite of Carson's last comment, will be discussed in a later section. In spite of this increasing elbowroom, their revised Greek text is still almost a mirror image of that used to translate the NIV, NASB, and all other new versions. Dr. E.F. Hills, Princeton and Harvard scholar, impresses, the ''New International Version. . .follows the critical Westcott and Hort text."4 Philip W. Comfort's recent Early Manuscripts and Modern Translations of the New Testament concedes: But textual critics have not been able to advance beyond Hort in formalizing a theory. . .this has troubled certain textual scholars. . .5 Even abbreviated histories of the canon, in reference works like Halley's Bible Handbook and Young's Concordance observe, "For the English speaking world the work of B.F. Westcott has proved of abiding worth. "6 "The New Testament Westcott and Hort THE NECROMANCERS • 399 Greek texts, which, in the main, are the exact original Bible words. . ."7 J. H. Greenlee's Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Erdmanns Publishers Co., 1964, p. 78) adds: The textual theories of W-H underhes virtually all subsequent work in NT textual criticism. Scholarly books, articles and critical editions of the Greek New Testament are slowly abandoning the readings of Westcott and Hort in their 'Newest' Greek texts. Yet the pews are piled high with the W-H offerings like the NIV, NASB and Living Bible. Wilbur N. Pickering, author of The Identity of the New Testament Text (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1980), pp. 38, 42, 96, 90) reveals: The dead hand of Fenton John Anthony Hort lies heavy upon us. (Colwell) The two most popular manual editions of the Greek text today, Nestles-Aland and U.B.S. (United Bible Society) really vary little from the W-H text. Why is this? Westcott and Hort are generally credited with having furnished the death blow [to the KJV and the Greek Text which was used for the previous 1880 years]. Subsequent scholarship has tended to recognize Hort's mistake. The W-H critical theory is erroneous at every point. Our conclusions concerning the theory apply also to any Greek text constructed on the basis of it [Nestle's-Aland, UBS etc.], as well as those versions based on such texts [NIV, NASB, Good Newsfor Modern Man, NEB, L.B., etc.] H.C. Hoskier's A Full Account and Collation of the Greek Cursive Codex Evangelism 604 (London: David Nutt. 1890), Introduction, pp. cxv-cxvi) and Codex Bmd Its Allies—A Study and an Indictment. (2 vols. London: Bernard Quaritch Ltd., 1914) notes: The text printed by Westcott and Hort has been accepted as 'the true text', and grammars, works on the synoptic problem, works on higher criticism, and others have been grounded on this text. . .These foundations must be demolished. unquote --New Age Bible Versions, chap. Thirty. pages 397 - 399.

How about this: "THE DOCTRINAL VIEWS OF WESTCOTT, HORT, AND OTHERS Westcott and Hort Were From the Anglican Church of England 1. Westcott's Views: He denied the historicity of Genesis 1-3. He wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, March 4, 1890, the following: "No one now, I suppose holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history. I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did." 2. Hort's View: …Agreed with Charles Darwin's false evolutionary theory. On April 3, 1860, he wrote: "But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable." 3. Hort's View: He denied a literal Eden and a real fall of man. "I am inclined to think that no such state as "Eden" (I mean the popular notion) ever existed and that Adam's fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly agrees." 4. Hort writing to Westcott calls atonement "immoral.” "I entirely agree--correcting one word--with what you there say on the atonement, having for many years believed that "the absolute union of the Christian (or rather, of man) with Christ Himself" is the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit...Certainly, nothing could be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ's bearing our sins and sufferings to His death: but indeed, that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” 5. Westcott believes that visions of the Virgin are merely God changing form. In a letter to a cohort from his séance club he writes: “As far as I could judge, the idea of La Salette (France) was that of God revealing Himself now, not in one form, but in many.” Note: (Our Lady of La Salette (French: Notre-Dame de La Salette) is a Marian apparition reported by two children, Maximin Giraud and Mélanie Calvat to have occurred at La Salette-Fallavaux, France, in 1846.) His view on visions now appears on pages of all new versions. For example, notice the following: 6. Hort believes in the Sacraments. Colossians 2:18 NASB KJT “Taking his stand on visions he has seen.” Note: The NASB also adds the word "visions" which is not in any Greek manuscript. “Intruding into those things which he hath not seen. 2 "I am a staunch sacerdotalist…the Sacraments must be the center. The band of a common divine life derived in Sacraments is the most comprehensive bond possible". (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, p. 99) 7. Westcott: No separation from worldly lusts. "Fighting and dancing ... I hope the church of the future will foster." "There was a time when it was usual to draw a sharp line between religious and worldly things. That time has happily gone by.” 8. Hort admits he knows little about church history, in a letter to a friend. "I am afraid I must have talked big and misled you when you were here, for I really know very little of church history." (Arthur Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. 1, P. 233) 9. Hort believes in the worship of Mary. "I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and Jesus-worship have very much in common in their cause and in their results.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol. 2, p. 50) 10. Hort concerning Salvation - Not by faith. A. His desire: He “pleaded for the social interpretation of the Gospel.” B. His vision: When “the crude individualism of common notions of salvation is corrected, as expressed in 'too purely personal Evangelical hymns.” C. His belief: “Without any act of ours, we are children of the Great and Gracious Heavenly Father.” D. His denial of Christ's sacrifice: "Christ bearing our sins ... [is] an almost universal HERESY.” E. Blasphemy - "There is no direct reference to the idea of purchase or ransom ... or to the idea of sacrificial atonement ... [The] lamb without blemish [is] the Passover lamb and not the Lamb of God. [He admits] Objections might be taken to his views, especially on the doctrine of atonement, if it existed.” F. Ransom to Satan, but not to God. "I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the Father." (The Life and Letters of B. F. Westcott, Vol. 2, p. 158, 373 334, 401, 224, 57. Vol. 1, p. 428-430. F.J.A. Hort, The 1st Epistle of St. Peter, 1:1-2:17. The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture. Commentary and Additional Notes, p.77, by James & Klock Publishing Co., Minneapolis, MN, reprint 1976). 11. Westcott on Baptism. "The remission of sins has always been connected with Baptism, the Sacrament of incorporation ... We are placed in relation to God by Baptism.” (The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Vol. 1, p.160). 12. Hort concerning Sin and Hell. “The second death is probably a combination of the Deluge (Flood) and Sodom…It stands between the Garden of Eden and the Manna ... Finite sin cannot deserve infinite punishment.” (The Life and Letters of F.J.A. Hort, Vol.1, p.118). 13. What NIV Editors, Armstrongism, and Jehovah's Witnesses think about Hell. They all agree! unquote Views-Complete-4a-and-b.pdf

There is a massive amount of information on this subject. You need to do some studying. This website has a lot of information concerning Westcott and Hort, the two heretics behind the modern versions. KJV and the Proffessor

Who was Frank Logsdon? Do some investigation. " Evangelical pastor and Bible conference speaker Frank Logsdon was a respected evangelical pastor and Bible conference speaker. He pastored Moody Memorial Church in Chicago and Central Baptist Church in London, Ontario. He was also the co-founder of the New American Standard Bible (NASB), but later renounced any connection to it1

You missed the main points entirely. Of course the KJV is an English translation BUT it is based on the Received Text. The modern versions are not, but were produced with corrupt manuscripts. I already described this in a fair amount of detail. I am talking about the English translation of the Bible. Other languages may have used the Received Text as well which would make them trustworthy. Particularly other language Bibles made before the last couple hundred years would like have used the Received Text. The point is, which you appear to have missed or ignored, is the fact God promised to preserve his words, that is, actual words, not ideas. "18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 KJV "6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalm 12:6, 7 KJV We know the KJV is the Holy Scripture or words of God that he promised to preserve because it was accurately translated from the Received Text. Thus the KJV is a trustworthy copy in English of the original manuscripts, which no longer exist. The New Testament was written in Greek and copies of these originals were made and distributed around to various places in the early church. Copies of lectionaries or sermons that preachers made were also examined because they quoted the earliest copies of manuscripts. The modern versions like the NIV and NASB are not word for word translations as the KJV is. They are what is called dynamic equivalence. They are reworded and are editors and modern heretics thoughts of what they think the Bible should say in English. That is why they are called dynamic equivalence translations. The modern versions are based on a few corrupt manuscripts, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The Vaticanus manuscript was retrieved from the Pope's library and the Sinaiticus manuscript from a monastery in the Sinai desert in the 1800s. They are corrupt and differ with the Received Text in thousands of places.

I am surprised you would say this. I just gave you a couple relatively long posts explaining a number of things the articulate the problems. I described in a fair amount of detail the source of the modern versions versus the source of the KJV. It appears you did not bother to read the last three posts I made above. We are living in the last days when the Bible predicted there would be a falling away. The falling away from Biblical doctrines and practices by the church is one aspect. The falling away from the inspired, preserved word of God, the KJV, is another part of the falling away. Funny you would acknowledge the falling away of churches, but not the falling away from the preserved Bible itself. Guess you don't think Satan and his demons are capable of deceiving men about the Bible itself. Well, I explained in detail how that happened from the 1800s with Westcott and Hort., the two heretical Church of England clergymen by their hate of the KJV and their deception with a few corrupt manuscripts they used. They were involved in the occult and mysticism with the Ghostly Guild and also held heretical doctrines.

This is odd for a number of reasons. People and churches that use modern versions generally claim only the "original" manuscripts are inerrant or without error. That means they believe all Bibles we have are imperfect. The fact there are hundreds of different English versions and hundreds of revisions of them and there are differences between them means their producers did not believe in an infallible Bible. What makes you think your version is infallible and not the NIV (New International Version)? What makes your NASV or NASB infallible? I think I already explained the King James Version is the only version based on the Received Text which is supported by over 5,000 copies of original manuscripts, parts of manuscripts, and lectionaries while the modern versions take their lead from the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts used by the two heretics in 1881 to produce their corrupt revised Greek New Testament. Modern versions followed this corrupt Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort. From it later were produced what is called the critical text used by Nestle Aland and United Bible Societies texts and from these came the modern versions in the 20th century. These corrupt manuscripts differ with the Received Text in thousands of places and the corrupt manuscripts even differ with each other in many places. So it all boils down to whether you accept a version based on a small handful of corrupt manuscripts versus the KJV which is based on the Received Text which is supported by something around 98% of the extant manuscripts. The small number of corrupt manuscripts also apparently come from an area or place called Alexandria and could have been also corrupted by early heretics in that part of the world. It might also explain why that handful of manuscripts were not used by the early church and down through the centuries. We need to ask why they were suddenly pulled out of the Pope's library and a monastery in the 1800s and used to replace the Received Text by the two heretics Westcott and Hort. You need to read the history of these two men and what they were involved in during the late 1800s. Why did they hate the KJV and Received Text? But the Received Text came from a wide area of different places where the early church grew. So there is the fact of where the manuscripts came from to also consider. The book I told you about, New Age Bible Versions, goes into many things such as the men behind the modern versions, the manuscripts that were used, and many other factors. You need to seriously study that book. It is written by someone who studied the subject and worked on the book for six years. A very scholarly person and book. I hope you research this book and other related facts. You can find many articles on the Trinitarian Bible Society website as well. Another website with many articles is the Jesus is Savior website. You can Google King James Bible defended and look for that website. May God bless you as you research this subject. I understand you love the NASB and have probably become very attached to it emotionally. But you should not let that deter you from seeking the truth. Truth is more important than feelings or emotions as you know. May God bless you as you dig into this and I hope you do.

I am just watching a youtube video that gives some very strong evidence that the KJV is produced under the clear direction of God. This is an amazing video. It is in fact demonstrating something miraculous. You need to watch it yourself. There is too much to it to put in a few sentences on here. You have to see it for yourself. It is called The 1611th Mention of LORD (And Why It's a Really Big Deal) Bing Videos Incidentally, while this video and what it reveals if in fact true is interesting information, it is not the reason I believe the KJV is the true inerrant Bible. There are many other sound reasons I believe the KJV is God's only inerrant word in English. The books, articles, and information on the subject I have read over the last 40 years convinced me. I praise God for giving me this information by his grace through the decades. I understand the difficulty you might have in accepting this and I will pray that you are able to see the light on it. There are also videos on youtube that delve into this. One interesting one you might consider is called New World Order Bible Versions. You can type that on a search line with the word youtube and you should be able to find it. We are living in the last days and it should come as no surprise that God's word has been under Satanic attack for a long time. God's word was forbidden for the common people down through the middle ages by the Roman Church and the King James Bible was also condemned and forbidden by the Roman Church.

All the modern versions are part of Satan's plan to attack the word of God. That is one of Satan's and the demon's main objectives. The best way to weaken Christians is to destroy or undermine the Bible and their faith in it. In the Bible, that began back in Genesis ch3 when Satan uttered his first words to Eve, "yea hath God said" questioning God's word. With the proliferation of all the modern version based on corrupt manuscripts he has been making a lot of headway. Also modern versions are in many ways Roman Catholic Bibles. There are many changes that actually support RC doctrines. We haven't even begun to discuss that.

I am explaining the consequences of not believing in an infallible, inerrant Bible in churches and Christianity today. Apostasy is rampant. If people don't have a real Bible, they are not going to grow in faith in the same way as people who believe in an infallible, inerrant Bible. I can hold my KJV Bible and know it is God's inerrant, preserved actual words. " 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18 KJV I can believe every word in my KJV Bible is God's word. He promised he would preserve it. It is based on the Received Text which has been the words of God for nearly 1,900 years. Modern versions like the NIV and NASB are based on a few corrupt manuscripts and not strictly the Received Text and cannot be trusted. Where was the Bible for the past 1,800 years if we have to suddenly abandon the Received Text and accept the modern versions that changed the words in thousands of places in the past 140 years?

Sadly you have been lied to and deceived. Many church people and members today are deceived. That is easy to prove by looking at their practices. They reject many things in the Bible. We have churches that have women elders, women ministers, gay ministers, lesbian ministers. Churches that don't absolutely oppose abortion, MAID, same-sex marriage. Some preach a social gospel, and are more concerned with socialist politics than the gospel and new birth. Some preach very superficial sermons and avoid more controversy as much as possible. They don't believe in an infallible, inerrant Bible either. That is part of the problem. They are under demonic deception.

Actually public schools teach children or teenagers to use contraceptives if they are going to have sex. Using the words sexual immorality to try to counter what is taught by public schools is a very weak way to counter that. Secondly, people that use the modern versions do not believe the actual words in the modern versions are infallible and inerrant. There are countless new versions that differ in countless way. People that use them will tell you there is no absolutely infallible Bible. So why would they accept your interpretation of sexual immorality any more than some leftist interpretation? They wouldn't Since there is no inerrant Bible according to users of modern Bibles, nobody can claim they have the absolute true understanding. I made far more than assertions. I gave you the actual words that have been changed in modern versions. Which modern version is the inerrant, preserved words of God? Do you know?