LandmarkBibleBaptist.net
STANDING FOR THE KING JAMES BIBLE

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7) "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)




CONTENTS

MY TESTIMONY | KJV ARTICLES
THE KJV VS MODERN VERSIONS
eGROUPS & LISTS | BIBLE STUDY | LINKS



TESTIMONY OF A REPENTANT MODERN VERSIONS USER


My name is John Henry. I'm a sinner who was save by God's wondrous grace in 1977. For a few years after my salvation I preferred the
New American Standard Version (NASV), and at first thought that all versions were okay, but I was very, very wrong!!! Upon a closer examination of the versions it became clear to me that only the King James Version (originally named the Holy Bible) is the preserved, inspired, inerrant and infallible Word of God in English. I still own several modern versions. Among them the NASV, NIV, RSV, NAB, NKJV. However, I rarely use them and when I do only for comparison with the true Word of God in order to refute their errors.

There is a vast difference between the Holy Bible (also called the Authorized Version) and the modern versions (MV's). For the most part the MV's all agree with each other, but the stands alone. As one wise preaches has said, "Things that are different are not the same."

You see, the Greek and Hebrew were tampered with by an apostate by the name of Origen in the late 2nd Century AD. There are in fact two lines of bible manuscripts: The pure line protected by the church, and a corrupted line put forth by apostates. What "scholars" try to pass off as "the oldest and best manuscripts" are actually Origen's corruption of the original. I have in my library both the corrupted Greek and the Majority Text or Textus Receptus (TR). The MV's are based on Origen's corruption. While the KJV is based on the Greek TR (Over 5200 manuscripts in better than 95% agreement) and the Hebrew Masoretic Text.

The AV New Testament is based on Erasmus' Greek Textus Receptus (TR), but not exclusively so. It was translated from an eclectic text of several languages. Erasmus rejected the readings of the corrupt Vatican manuscript and did not include it's readings in his Greek work. He considered from the massive evidence available to him that the Textus Receptus was the correct text. The Vatican manuscript (Codex Vaticanus) was in Origin's corrupted line of MSS. In addition to the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek the Authorized Version translators also used two other ancient texts: the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Italic Bible of the Waldensians. The translators also had German, French, Italian, Spanish and Latin Bibles (most of which were greatly influenced by the Waldensians; not the Roman Catholics), plus six earlier English Bibles that King James authorized for comparison and use (They were Tyndale's [1525], Coverdale's [1535], Matthew's [1537], Whitechurch's [1539], Geneva [1560] and the Bishops [1568] Bibles).

Unlike some KJV advocates, I have no problem with referring to Hebrew and Greek or even Syriac and Old Latin (Italic) for that matter. Bibles in those languages were likewise inspired of God. One might glean a good amount of insight from word studies in the ancient languages of those who gave their lives for the Bible they believed in. However, we must be careful with study helps when we see phrases as "the oldest and best manuscripts omitted these words" or "omitted in many manuscripts" or "These verses do not appear in two of the most trustworthy manuscripts" (referring to Vaticanus and another in the corrupted line of manuscripts). There are a good number of "scholars" and "authorities" out there that are trying to cast doubt on the Word of God. And such language studies are not necessary. For English readers, a good KJV Dictionary, plus Bible dictionaries like Smith's, or Davis, and an English dictionary and a good concordance are the best Bible study aids one can have. I recommend Strong's Concordance and Websters 1828 Dictionary.

Satan is very much interested is destroying the Word of God, but he will never succeed. In the mean while the Word of God is the believers only offensive weapon. If you want to use a butter knife NASV or NIV, go right ahead. But as for me, I will use "the Sword of the Spirit" (Ephesians 6:17; cf. Hebrews 4:12). I must disagree with all who say that "Bibles are all just translations from the original languages." No, the Holy Bible (KJV) is the preserved Word of God, and the MV's are not!

The KJV preserves the inspired words pened by the prophets and apostles translated into English. As all living things derive their life from their parants likewise the KJV derives its inspiration from the originals by way of copies and ancient translations (i.e. Syriac & Italic). Ultimately it all boils down to faith. Is our Almighty God able to preserve His Word or not? I, for one, believe God. A man's name is only as good as his Word. So it is with God! We no longer have the original manuscripts, but God did promise to preserve His Word:

"As for God, his way is perfect: the Word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Psalm 18:30)   "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy Word above all thy name." (Psalm 138:2)   "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6-7)

I hope the articles and links on this web site is a blessing to you!

John Henry,
Web Servant
KJV@LandmarkBibleBaptist.net



 

KJV ARTICLES

 

Handy Reference For King James Bible Believers

The Bridge to Babylon By Brian Sirois

Derivative Inspiration of the KJV By John Henry

Missing In Modern Bible By Jack Moorman

The Workes of King James By King James

Two NT Text Lines By John Henry

Is 1 John 5:7 an Error?!

The King James Only Controversy- Answered By Hugo Schonhaar

History of the Controversy By Dr Clinton Branine

Principles Of Bible Preservation By Jack Moorman

The New Eye-Opener By J. J. Ray

Is the King James Bible Harder to Understand?

Textual Corruptions By John Henry

Barry Davis' 64 Questions Answered By Dr. Herb Evans

Satan's Religion Of Works & The Modern Versions By Will Kinney

Textual Criticism Fact & Fiction By Dr. Thomas Cassidy

And These Three Are One (1 John 5:7-8) By Jesse M. Boyd

The Johannine Comma By Floyd Jones

1 John 5:7-8: Is It Inspired Scripture? By John Henry

Questions On The New Testament Canon By John Henry

"Easter" In Acts 12.4? By John Henry

The KJV Versus Other Translations By John Henry

The KJV Defended By Edward Hills (Book)

Forever Settled By Jack Moorman (Book)

Manuscript Evidence By Dr. Thomas Holland (Book)

Old Latin Version

King James' Instructions To The Translators

Another Bible, Another Gospel By Robert M. Barker

The King James Code By Michael Hoggard (Abridged Book)

David Cloud Slanders KJV Bible Believers As Hereticks

John Henry's Answer to David Cloud's False Charge



THE KJV COMPARED TO THE PERVERSIONS
 

Modern Versions: Table of Changes By Hugo Schonhaar

New Age Bible Versions

HELL in the NIV

Verses Missing from the NIV


KJV INFORMATION & DISCUSSION
 


King James Bible Information Service - Yahoo Groups

Which Bible? Discussion - Yahoo Groups

Which Bible Information Service - Topica Groups


 
KJV BIBLE STUDY HELPS

The Word Of God (Audio)

The Word Of God (Text)

KJV Dictionary

King James Dictionary

Webster's 1828 Dictionary

Smith's Bible Dictionary



KJV LINKS

KJV Bible Page - Brandon Staggs

Wilderness Cry - Dave Marlett

Dial-the-Truth - James Melton

Way of Life - David Cloud






LandmarkBibleBaptist.net

The Fundamental Top 500