{"id":3719,"date":"2024-08-03T19:28:03","date_gmt":"2024-08-03T19:28:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/allthecounselofgod.com\/?p=3719"},"modified":"2024-08-03T19:28:03","modified_gmt":"2024-08-03T19:28:03","slug":"the-kjv-1611-vs-the-new-translations","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/allthecounselofgod.com\/index.php\/2024\/08\/03\/the-kjv-1611-vs-the-new-translations\/","title":{"rendered":"The KJV 1611 vs. The New Translations"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

I invite you to take any new version that you wish and compare it with the King James Bible as we look at some selected portions of scripture. You are going to find that some of the most important doctrines of the Bible are being attacked in the new versions. Whether you have a Living Bible, a New International Version, a Revised Standard Version, or any of the other perversions of scripture (including the New King James Version), you are going to see with your own eyes that Satan is alive and well on the revision committees of the new translations. Let\u2019s compare Bibles.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Isaiah 7:14<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTherefore the LORD himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most of the new translations have attacked the Virgin Birth of the Lord Jesus Christ by substituting the word \u201cvirgin\u201d with \u201cyoung woman\u201d or \u201cmaiden.\u201d A young woman or a maiden is NOT necessarily a virgin. Mary, the mother of Jesus, WAS a virgin. In fact, Matthew tells us so in Matthew 1:23, when he QUOTES Isaiah 7:14 and uses the word \u201cVIRGIN.\u201d What does YOUR translation say in Isaiah 7:14?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Luke 2:33<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The King James credits Mary with being the mother of Jesus, but does NOT refer to Joseph as His father. However, many new versions imply that Joseph WAS the father of Jesus by changing out the word \u201cJoseph\u201d with the word \u201cfather.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Acts 20:28<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTake heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Many of the new versions attack the Blood Atonement of Christ in this verse by OMITTING the word \u201cblood.\u201d Does your\u2019s? The Blood Atonement is a MUST for anyone to be saved (Matthew 26:28; Revelation 1:5; Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22), yet the new versions are taking it out of the Bible!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Colossians 1:14<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is THROUGH THE BLOOD that we have remission of sins, but most new versions completely OMIT \u201cblood\u201d from the text. What about YOUR version?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Daniel 3:25<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHe answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is one of the great Old Testament verses which magnifies the Lord Jesus Christ. As you can see, the verse says that the Son of God, which is Jesus Christ, actually appeared in the fiery furnace nearly 600 years before He was actually physically born. This shows us that Jesus Christ is ETERNAL. He is DEITY, a member of the Holy Trinity, the \u201cSon of God.\u201d<\/em> So the King James Bible EXALTS Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, if you have a new translation you may have trouble finding the \u201cSon of God\u201d in the passage, for many have changed it to read \u201ca son of the gods,\u201d or something similar. Does your translation magnify the Lord Jesus Christ by properly referring to Him as the \u201cSon of God,\u201d<\/em> or does it pervert the text with pagan nonsense?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Micah 5:2<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cBut thou, Beth-lehem 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 old, from everlasting.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The King James gives us the superior reading by telling us that Christ is from \u201ceverlasting.\u201d<\/em> That is, He is eternal, as we\u2019ve already seen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Do the new versions contain this reading? No, most of them do not. Some say that He\u2019s from \u201cancient times,\u201d <\/em>and others say that He\u2019s from \u201cdays of old,\u201d<\/em> but these terms do not imply that Jesus is Deity. The term \u201ceverlasting\u201d DOES imply Deity. The King James is SUPERIOR, for it EXALTS the Lord Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Luke 23:42<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this particular case, the dying thief is being saved. Romans 10:13 tells us that we are saved by calling upon the name of the \u201cLord,\u201d <\/em>and this man addresses Jesus as \u201cLord.\u201d <\/em>The new versions, however, rob Jesus of His Lordship by stealing the word \u201cLord\u201d <\/em>from the text! Is your version guilty or innocent?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Matthew 6:13<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The King James says that the POWER, the KINGDOM, and the GLORY belong to God, but many new translations omit these important words. Does yours?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare Revelation 11:17<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSaying, We give thee thanks, O Lord God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This verse reminds us that Jesus is COMING AGAIN, or at least it does in the King James. In many versions (or perhaps we should say \u201cperversions\u201d) the words \u201cart to come\u201d <\/em>have been taken out of the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare I Timothy 3:16<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cAnd without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This verse tells us that Jesus Christ walked on this earth as\u201dGod\u201d in the flesh. We know this is true, for \u201cImmanuel\u201d (Isa. 7:14; Mt. 1:23) means \u201cGod with us.\u201d So it is correct to say that \u201cGod was manifest in the flesh.\u201d Do the new versions say this? No, most do not. Most new versions have taken the word \u201cGod\u201d out of the verse and used the word \u201che\u201d in it\u2019s place. As you can see, this is a much weaker reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let\u2019s Compare II Timothy 2:15<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStudy to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is probably the greatest verse in the New Testament on Bible Study. Naturally, the new translation editors couldn\u2019t resist the temptation to change it. The word \u201cStudy\u201d has been omitted by most all new versions. Does II Timothy 2:15 in your version tell you to \u201cstudy,\u201d or has the verse been butchered to pieces by Satan\u2019s scribes?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There you have it, friend, eleven good examples of how the new translations are NOT better. Satan has been very successful in convincing our generation that the new translations are necessary and that they are better. They are UNNECESSARY and they are SATANIC! In fact, the Greek text from which ALL new translations are produced was constructed by men who were deeply involved in the OCCULT (B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort)! BEWARE OF ALL THE NEW TRANSLATIONS!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The King James Bible is based on over FIVE THOUSAND pieces of manuscript evidence, which is NINETY-FIVE percent of all manuscript evidence available. The new perversions (all of them) are based on the remaining FIVE percent. Friend, if you\u2019ve been led to believe that there are better translations than the King James Bible, then you\u2019ve been deceived by the Devil. We urge you to forsake the new translations and return to the grand old Book that God has used and blessed for centuries. Use the Book that God uses: The King James Authorized Version.<\/p>\n<\/body>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"