The Attack on the Bible

The Attack on the Bible
by Terry Watkins and James L. Melton (Edited by Tom Mack)


God promised in Psalms 12:7 that He would preserve His word, "Thou shalt KEEP them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER."

And God keeps His promise! I believe, without a doubt, the King James Bible is the preserved word of God. And the new versions are satanic counterfeits to cast doubt, cause confusion and ATTACK THE LORD JESUS CHRIST!

And I'm going to prove that on the remainder of this message! If you've come this far, please keep reading - what you're about to read - may be the most important words YOU WILL EVER READ!

Are the new versions different?

Most people believe the different versions are basically the same. They believe the newer versions are just "harmless" updating of words and made easier to understand.


One of the clearest verses in the Bible proclaiming the deity of Jesus Christ, that Jesus was God in the flesh, is 1 Timothy 3:16. The King James Bible reads, "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH. . ." The King James says, clearly, "GOD was manifest in the flesh".

The New International Version (NIV) says, "HE appeared in a body". The NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, etc, change "GOD" to "HE". "He appeared in a body"? Big deal! Everyone has "appeared in a body"! The KJV is clear and definite, "GOD was manifest in the flesh". "He" is a pronoun that refers to a noun or antecedent. There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT even make grammatical sense!

Part 1 - The Attack on the Bible

Part 2 - The King James Version of 1611

Why Accept the KJV as God's Preserved Word?
Questions for the KJV Critics
75 Common Sayings from the KJV
The Italicized Words

Part 3 - Text and Translating

Antioch vs. Alexandria
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
Facts about Westcott and Hort
Translating the King James Bible

Part 4 - Let's Compare Bibles

Part 5 - New Age Bible Versions

The New King James Version
The New Scofield Reference Bible

Part 6 - KJV: Editions, Apocrypha and Errors

The Various Editions of the 1611 A.V.
Why the KJV Did Not Accept the Apocrypha
Errors in the King James Bible?

Part 7 - Wrap-up: King James vs The New Age

Fifty Stumbling Stones of the Laodicean Translations
Recommended Reading

--- end ---

We still have no reason to doubt that the KJV Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word.


A Comparison Between the King James (KJV) & The New American Standard (NASB) Bibles

August 17, 2008 UPDATE
KJV or Modern Versions?


Anonymous said…
I still do not get the King James version only stance. Jesus did not speak English when he walked the earth.
Cathy said…
For English speaking folks, the Kings James version is from the textus receptus whereas the modern versions are rooted in the questionable Alexandrian, Egypt, manuscripts which were then modified by the heretics Hort & Wescott (click on graphic above to enlarge it).

PLUS, if you compare the versions, the modern ones have been changed and continue to be changed with every edition, removing/changing words to create confusion and remove any reference to the deity of the Lord and God, Jesus Christ.

That's it briefly, so please do the research for yourself and the Lord will show you.

Also, I do not follow/condone Ruckman who is a 'Kings James only' person that says the English version is the only anointed one.

I am referring to the root/source of the manuscripts and the authorized King James Bible is what I consider to be the real Bible for those of us who speak English.

Hope that helps!

Anonymous said…
It is the best English translation, but there are still many verses in it which one needs to go to the Greek to understand properly to be able to dispute heretics. Also people don't realize that even the KJV had the apocrypha at one point and has been updated as well. It is a translation, English is not an anointed language, only Hebrew and Greek are the originals and must always be studied for hard passages which heretics abuse.
Cathy said…
As far as I know, what you are saying is correct and I agree.


Tim Aagard said…
"There is no antecedent in the context! The statement does NOT even make grammatical sense!"

God is mentioned twice in the previous verse. Of course it makes sense.

This does not make me a fan of the NIV. I am not a fan of the KJV either. Saints who push the KJV over every other translation NEVER talk about the TRAGIC errors of translation in the KJV and the mirky history that surrounds the process of this translation. All of the translations have some mirky things about them. God can use all of them in His grace. He can preserve His Word in the middle of any pig pen. That does not mean they are all equally valuable. We are capable of understanding the weakness and strengths of each one and using the ones our conscience draws us to.

One example of KJV murkiness. This is true of EVERY english translation. They never translate the word for baptize. Baptize is only a transliteration of the greek word. There are several different english words that could be translated from it depending on the context because there are varied meanings of this word. But no versions translate it. They all leave it in an obscure transliterated form. This error has left the church divided on God's revelation on it's true meaning and expression in the household of faith. This has led to many believing they are headed to heaven because they were "baptized" as a child.

It is odd for saints to claim one translation or another is a "tool of the devil". Satan has used the word of God as a tool, even in a perfect translation long before any english translation existed. A perfect translation does not cease to be a tool of the devil.

Paul gives very specific instructions for believers on discussing "disputable matters" NIV or "doubtful disputations" KJV. Rom 14; 1 Cor 8. We must be careful not to slam, badger, or condemn family on this issue like some saints do.
Cathy said…
Hi Tim,
In both Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 8 Paul is talking about food, so not sure how this connects to different Bible versions which of course didn't exist back then.

My concern is the constant changing/revising/deleting of words/verses in the modern versions as opposed to the King James which is pretty much has been the same the last 100 years or so I guess.

The problem I see is the deliberate watering down of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ Who is God our Creator. This is all planned and we see the one world religion coming together before our eyes today.

I don't think the English version of the King James is holier than anything else like the Ruckmanites think. To me, it's the source that is important which would be the textus receptus for the King James as opposed to the Alexanderian manuscripts for the other versions. Click on the above graphic to see this.

In the past when I was reading various modern versions, that's when I started getting into error, so that's why I am taking such a strong stand personally for me.

Thanks for your input, Tim!

Tim Aagard said…
In both Romans 14 & 1 Corinthians 8, food issues are only the illustration of Pauls point. Helping believers love one another with disputable matters where more than one opinion is valid is Paul's point. Humans tend to be ascribe inspiration to to all their personal beliefs when some of their "beliefs" should be classified as personal conscience issues. The saints in that period were having relational breakdowns over meat offered to idols. The principle Paul gives here applies to many areas, including version preference where believers relationships break down or cause stumbling.

Think about this concept. A large majority of saints live outside of the U.S. and will never see, or understand a KJV. The Bibles they read are translated from versions or texts not of the TR. Is their faith somehow corrupted because of this? God is preserving His Word and bringing it into EVERY language with or without the TR.

I have used the KJV, NKJV, NASB, and NIV and see the deity of Christ equally in all of them. I see a severe issue with the gender neutralizing of God in many new ones, but I'm not against every word change so that I can only use a version from 400 years ago. To me, demanding that people use an archaic language to make sure they don't get into any false teaching is falling into another one of Satan's traps known as legalism - the adding of rules believers must follow that God has not commanded, or that substitute for many areas of maturity we should grow into that are the real protection- such as being a "Berean" - one who examines what he is taught to see if it is true.
Nicholas said…
Okay Tim.
1) None of the new versions are watered down in any way. I've read the KJV, NIV, NASV... They are all equal.
2) You say that the new versions do not illustrate Jesus Christ as being God. You say instead of naming God as being in the body they use He. And you say that that is too vague. Have you noticed that many times (but not all times) he is spelled He with a capital h. This occurs not ony at the beginning of sentences but, also in the middle.
3) Someone said that the new versions of the Bible are bringing the one world religion. This is far from the truth. The one world religion will be supported by the Antichrist. Do you really think that the basis of this religion would be the Bible. (Even if words are changed it is still the christian holy book.)
4) Also, I just thought I would throw this in there. Jesus did not speak Hebrew. He spoke Aramaic. The hebrew language was formed from the Aramaic language.
Anonymous said…
Would someone Please take the time to look up the Name "Jesus" in "Strong's Exhaustive Concordance" (KJV based) and simply count the numer of times that it is used in the KJV. Then go to the NIV with this Info. and you will see how many times & in what verses His Name has been "Eliminated" in it.

Then, look up the Name "Jesus" in the "NIV Exhaustive Concordance" and count the number of times that it is used in the NIV. Then go to the KJV with this Info. and you will see how many times & in what verses His Name has been "Eliminated" in it.

You can do this same thing with either version! Useing this blind guide "Logic" the KJV has "eliminated" the name "Jesus" more times than the NIV!

I was appalled when I did this sort of thing while reading Gail Riplinger's book several years ago. Don't know what her motives were but it was NOT for the sake of TRUTH!

If you also take the time to look at all the verses with He,His,Him,Lord,Lord's words substituted "In Either Version", is it really significant for the average person?? Yes, the elimination of an entire verse would be significant IF it were "essential doctrine" (a phrase to contend over).

I haven't visited this site for over a year. It seems like most people have clung to there personal perspective (me to) like a war orphan to a doll but If the above FACTS are not even considered how can the "Spirt of Truth" reside within us? Or, do we just not Know How or Want To Listen to it?

Cathy Palmer said…
Thanks for the interesting comment, Larry. Riplinger makes some good points BUT I don't trust her at all. We each need to search the scriptures ourselves.

Personally, I prefer the King James version as it doesn't get changed at every revision/printing whereas the modern verstions like the NIV do.