All through the ages those who would reject Christ' teaching and his church (The Roman Catholic Church). Have also had to reject the bible that Christ’ churches wrote, assembled, and protected for almost 2000 years.The canon, or list of approved New Testament books, was not approved by the Catholic Church until the 4th century a festal epistle of St. Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 367), as well as a contemporary decree of Pope St. Damasusin Rome (A.D. 381).They must either reject or pervert and change the scripture to fit their own agenda. They take their example from the devil ( the father of all lies). We read in Matt. 4:1-11
"At that time, Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert, to be tempted by the devil . . . Then the devil took him up into the holy city, and set him upon the pinnacle of the temple, and said to him: if thou be the Son of God, cast thy self down. For it is written: that he hath given his angels charge over thee."
This prophecy was taken from the 90th Psalm, but of the just man. Satan quotes this Psalm dishonestly to try to further his own goals.
When King James’ I called together his hand picked 54 scholars (stooges) their goal was to alter the Bible so that it fit their Protestant view point. In process they made 30,000 changes to the word of "God." They took out seven books of sacred scripture. (Old Testament: Judith, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Tobias, Wisdom, and the two books of the Machabees).
There are many ways King James and his stooges deceitfully changed sacred scripture. But, they fit in four general categories. First, is to reject the validity of whole books of sacred scripture. I go into this better little further along in this article. Second, they reject the ancient teaching and writing of Fathers of the church, on sacred scripture and true meaning. These heretics try to negate their importance by the theory of private interpretation of scripture. Which is strictly against the teaching of the Bible and Christ' Church. (Sec. Peter 1:20)
"Understanding that no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation"
Third, these heretics perverted scripture by changing the very texts. (The word of God) By adding or Subtracting to change or diminish the meaning here and there for their purposes. Fourth, is to make corrupt and false translations for the maintenance of their corrupt beliefs.
The original 1611 King James venison had over 30,000 mistakes most of which have been corrected of these changes and bad translations. That many errors show a design and plan. Because it hard for 54 scholars to mess up that many times by accident. Either it was on purpose or they were 54 of the most incompetent scholars in history and they had no business even trying to translate the Bible. Here is a small listing of only few of them. They are thousands more. This author has found over 4,823 examples, although I humbly admit I have not even begun to scratch the surfaces. Here is a small list of a few:
( King James Version) Hail, "thou that art highly favored,"our Lord is with thee
(Should Be) Hail "full of grace," our Lord is with thee.
(King James Version) "Its" shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt "bruise his heel."
(Should Be) "She" shall bruise thy head in pieces and "thou shalt lie in wait for her heel."
(King James Version)"Confess" your "faults,"
(Should Be) Confess," therefore, your "sins" one to another
(King James Version) Instead of "woman", they translate "wife" here also
(Should Be) Have not we power to lead about a "woman", a sister
(King James Version) Where in the Holy Ghost hath made you "overseers, to feed the church" of God
(should Be) Take need to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you "bishops to rule the church" of God
(King James Version) Instead of "angel" they say "messenger"
(should Be) For this is he of whom it is written, Behold, I send mine "angel" before thy face.
1 Timothy 9:14
(King James Version)For the word "graces" they say "gift" and " presbytery" the Greek word rather than the English word, "priesthood
(should Be) Neglect not the "graces" that is in thee, which is given thee by prophesy, with imposition of the hands of "priesthood."
1 Timothy 3:8
(King James Version) Likewise must the "deacons" be "grave"
(should Be) "Deacons" in like manner "chaste," not double-tongued
(King James Version) Elders for "priests" here also
(should Be) Is any man sick among you? Let him bring in the "priests" of the church, and let them pray over him
( King James Version) The "priest" they say here also "elders"
(should Be) They appointed that Paul and Barnabas should go up and certain other of the rest, to the apostles and "priests" unto Jerusalem.
( King James Version) And "Israel bowed himself upon" the bed’s head
(should Be) "Israel adored God, turning to "the bed’s head.
(King James Version)I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to "the image of" Baal
(should Be) I have left me seven thousand men that have not bowed their knees to Baal
( King James Version) I will go down into the "grave"
(should Be) I will go down to my son into "hell" mourning
(King James Version) For "hell" they also say "grave"
(should Be) You will bring down my grey hair with sorrow unto "hell"
3 King 2:6,9
(King James Version) "To the grave
(should Be) Unto "hell"
( King James Version) O death, I will be thy "plagues;" O "grave", I will be thy destruction
(should Be) O death, I will be thy death; I will be thy sting, O "hell"
2 Timothy 4:8
(King James Version) For "justice" they translate to righteousness and for a "just Judge" they say a righteous judge
(should Be) Concerning the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of "just ice," which our Lord will render to me in that day, a just Judge
1 Timothy 5: 17
(King James Version) "Elders" also in this Bible
(should Be) The "priests" that rule will, let them be esteemed worthy of double honor
1 Timothy 5:19
(King James Version) Instead of "priest" they put "elder"
(should Be) Against a "priest" receive not accusation
(King James Version) In the grave, who shall give thee thanks?
(should Be) But in "hell", who shall confess to thee?
James I, King or Queen of England
"His Majesty’s Royal Greatness... not only as to our king and sovereign but as to the principal mover and author of the work: humbly croving of your most sacred majesty." (Preface to the Authorized Version)
"He (King James I) disdained women and fawned unconscionably on his favorite men" (Encyclopedia Americana 1995)
"If any one lie with a man as with a woman, both have committed an, abomination let them be put to death: their blood be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13)
Who was this dishonest king? Morally what kind of man was he? First of all we know he was gay. Not only do the historical reference prove this. Such as testament of Sir. John Oglander in 1617, before the privy council England.
"The king is wondrous passionate, a lover of his favorites beyond the love of men to women. He is the chastest prince for women that ever was, for he would often swear that he never kissed any other woman than his own queen. I never yet saw any fond husband make so much or so great dalliance over his beautiful spouse as I have seen King James over his favorites, especially Buckingham." (Queen James and His Courtiers 1997)
We also have a large number of love letters from King James to one of his lovers thee Earl of Buckingham, who was later promoted to the post of post of "gentleman of king bed chamber" (Encyclopedia American 1995)
James use to end these letters calling Buckingham his only sweet child, his sweet child and wife, thy dear dad and husband and dear dad. (King James VI of Scotland I of England 1974) It is clear that their relationship parallels modern gay "father/son" associations. Most of these letters are so perverted and sexual that I being good Catholic could not print them here. But, I did print one of the few safer ones for a example (see page )
There is also a painting King James commissioned Daniel Mytens the elder to paint of him. It now hangs in the national portrait gallery, London. For this portrait (one of his favorite) James pose in Queen Elizabeth’s coronation gown. Making King James to the best this authors knowledge the first "Royal Drag Queen" in English history.
If this was not nauseating enough King James in 1617 address the honorable privy council with a official affirmation of his love for men Buckingham. This deplorable king try to justify his homosexuality with one the worst kinds of blasphemy. King James officialy stated he believed Christ was gay.
"I, James am neither a God nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defeat, for Jesus Christ did the same and therefore I can not be blamed. Christ had his son John, and I have my George." (King James VI of Scotland I of England, Antonia Fraser,1974)
This same man who was the principle able "mover" and "author" of this deceitful book, that some call "Bible." It is truly sin against God to call this wicked, evil king "most sacred" as the official preface does. This is another example of the horrible dishonesties of the writer and printer of this book through the ages. There have been many attempt to changes or pervert sacred scripture and history to fit their lies. They have fooled many trusting and ignorant people. Many people are just to lazy to search for truth and what is right.
Secondly, we know that King James also in his bid to consolidate his power over English people and church of England. ( This is reason of the making of his "Bible." Repressed the Protestants when it fit his purposes. King James, "repress the Protestants a strongly as have the Catholics." (Funk and Wagnalls New Encyclopedia) The use of torture was quite common under James rules. His political and economic blundering was so great it caused one French state man to laughing characterize King James as the "wisest fool in Christendom." ( Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia 1994)
The First of Many Lies
King James Version "Translated out of the original tongues"
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor (Exodus 20:16)
The reason that I put such importance on this lie out of thousands, is because it is this falsehood that the heretics use to validify there bible. Most Protestants have never stopped and thought about this phase. What it really means is a cleverly deceptive way of saying that some of the papers in front of them were written in Greek or Hebrew. It does not say original "text and does not mean that they used the actual writing of the apostle. It doesn't even say the papers they used were even scripture (Only written in Greek and Hebrew) for all we know they may have used a take out menu from the Jewish delicatessen down the street for their translation, that would explain a lot of their mistakes. This statement is so cleverly vague it is deceptive as to its meaning. Many trusting Protestants ignorantly read a lot more into "original tongues" than is really being said.
Now lets take a closer book at the accuracy of this statement. They list the original tongues as Hebrew and Greek lets look at the first one "Hebrew." There are two very different ancient Hebrew languages Biblical "Hebrew" and "Mishnaic Hebrew." James stooges conveniently forgot to say which one they used, so lets look at both. First we will look into the "Biblical Hebrew." It is the original language adopted by the IBLRI or Israelites from the 12 century to the second century B.C. . About that time the Israelites were using Aramaic parts of the rabbinical literature were originally written in Aramaic. About the second or third century B.C. seventy learned Jews assembly in Egypt to translate the biblical Hebrew and Aramaic scripture into Greek. In the third century B.C. the Old Testament began to be translated from Hebrew and Aramaic into Greek. ( Encyclopedia International 1982) This bible became known as the Septuagint from the Latin word Septuagint "seventy". They did this for several reason, biblical Hebrew have became out dated it is a more primitive language then the Greek or Aramaic. Also it was no longer understood by most of Jews. Since King James scholars do not mention that some of the text were written Aramaic and the fact that biblical Hebrew was nearly extinct (with the exception of some sacred documents) two hundred years before Christ was born. 1800 years before the King James Version was written. It is safe to say that the Hebrew , James handpicked stooges used was Mishamaic Hebrew or post biblical Hebrew. This is a later version of the original Hebrew strongly based on the Aramaic. With about Three hundred words borrowed from the Greek or Latin. "Greek and Latin words penetrated into Hebrew" (Encyclopedia International 1982) the point in is that the "original language" of the old Testament the original biblical Hebrew was an extinct and dead language time Christ was born. "The oldest existing Hebrew biblical texts date back only to the 10th century"(The Pocket Bible Dictionary 1996) it is interesting to note that these writings are not written in biblical Hebrew but rather the "Mishnaic Hebrew" which included Vowel-points. Clearly contrary to what the King James version claims its could not have been translated from the original language biblical Hebrew.
Secondly, it is important to note that the Hebrew scriptures (whether "biblical" or "Mishnaic") was NOT the translation chosen by Christ to use, Christ and his disciples used the Greek translation known as the Septuagint "Christ and his apostles used Septuagint frequently. In quoting from the Old Testament sometimes they cited the Septuagint verbatim or with unimportant verbal changes: There are about 350 quotations from the Old Testament in the gospel. The Acts, and the epistles, The Ethiopian eunuch whom Philip met was reading the Septuagint (Acts viii. 30-33)."( A Dictionary of the Bible, 1954 p.799)
which coincides with the fact that other than gospel Matthew the new Testament was exclusively written in Greek. Which brings up the next question why would the 54 translators to the King James Version wish to use any translation of scriptures not used by Christ?
This brings us to the next question why did they choose to use 10th century "Mishnaic Hebrew texts instead of the 5th century Greek text ? This explains why in many places of the original King James Version the New Testament quotes do not match up with the Old Testament quotes, leading to much confusion and problems.
The Missing Books
"The New Testament quotes from the longer Septuagint Greek [which did contain the Deutero-Canonical books, Tb, Jdt, Wis, Sir, Bar, 1Mc, 2Mc, and parts of Est and Dn. Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible 1963, 310] Canon no less than 350 times." (Background To The Bible, An introduction to Scripture Study 1978.)
(The Books of The Bible 1997)"The original 1611 King James Version contained the Deutero Canonical books it was not until the 1629 revision that they came in two dispute"
The Deutero Canonical books were part of every Christian Bible Canon up until the 16th century. Even if the 54 scholars translated the original 1611 King James version of the Bible included these books in their cannon. It was not until 11 years later during the 1623 re-vision of this Bible that these books were removed. "The Apocrypha consists of the books that are found in the Greek version of the Jewish Bible—the Septuagint, the earliest complete version of the Bible was possess—but that were not included in the final, Canonical version of the 90 A.D. Hebrew Bible. For this reason, they were called "Apocrypha," the hidden or secret book, and while they formed part of the original King James Version of 1611." (The Apocrypha, by Edgar J. Goodspeed, copyrights: 1989,1959,1938). This forces us to make one of Three observations about the King James version of the Bible, either:
1) The original 54 scholars who translate the King James Version were highly and incompetent and clearly prove their ignorance of scripture by adding seven books to the Bible which do not belong.Whichever observation you wish to believe it forces us to doubt the authenticity and accuracy of this English translation. it also forces us to classify the King James Version of the Bible has nothing more than a Miss-Translated.
OR2) The revisionists the reformed the King James Version in 1623 were highly and incompetent a clearly prove their ignorance of scriptures by removing seven sacred books of the Bible.
OR3) Neither the original 54 scholars or the revisionists had any idea of what they were during and never should have attempted to play with Holy Scripture.