Another Vitriolic KJO Missive - 01/21/2005
OOOOPS I GUESS I MISS WROTE YOUR NAME ,Oooooooo well you do not care if your name get changed or miss spelled or even omitted ,You do that to GOD'S WORD so it is normal for dummies like YOU.
There is a false christ and you are serving him ,By putting GOD'S HOLY INSPIRED AND PRESERVED WORD
Psalm 12:6,7 thou shalt keep it O GOD KING JAMES BIBLE DOWN PUBLICLY.TRYING TO PROVE YOUR SELF SMARTER THAN GOD.
ROM 1:22 professing themselves to be wise ,they became fools,
And do not tell me your not after the "money" you get from your sick website ,You are a big time MONEY HUNGRY BOOOOZO!
OTHER WISE YOU WOULD NOT COLLECT IT MAKING .
Do not think your heresy will go unchecked by THE HOLY GOD ,
REV 22:18,19 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of the book ,If any man shall add unto these things ,GOD shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:and if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy ,GOD shall take away his part out of the book of life ,and out of the holy city ,and from the things which are written in this book .
CONTENDER MINISTRIES RESPONSE:
Hi David. Despite your hateful and vitriolic tone, I’d like to address your email in a reasonable fashion. There are two areas I’d like to address – one of reason and fact, and one of tone.
You seem to suggest that we have omitted things from the Bible. I’m assuming you mean that newer translations of the Bible “omit” words or phrases and make other changes compared to the King James Version (KJV). For this to be accurate, you are making the assumption that the KJV is the wholly accurate, inerrant Word of God in every respect – an accurate representation of what the prophets and Apostles wrote as they were inspired by God, without any change. That’s an immense assumption to make! There is absolutely no proof of this, and some proof to the contrary. While I can cite many examples, let me cite just a few. The KJV contains the Johannine Comma at 1 John 5:7-8. This phrase, while quite doctrinally accurate, is missing from the NIV and NASB (and most other translations). By your reasoning, the NIV and NASB “omitted” this doctrinally accurate phrase. If that were the case, I’d be most upset also! However, the Johannine Comma is found in no Greek manuscript before the 16th century, and only a couple after that! Biblical scholars are in consensus that the Johannine Comma is a late addition to God’s Word, and it does not accurately reflect what the Apostle John originally wrote in his epistle. Surely you would agree that no matter how doctrinally accurate a statement is, it would be wrong to include it in Scripture if it wasn’t originally put there by the inspired writer. Yet the KJV has done so. Why? Because Erasmus was pressured by the Roman Catholic Church to include it in his “Textus Receptus” as it was found in the Latin Vulgate. The Textus Receptus formed the Greek basis for the KJV. So rather than the NIV and NASB “omitting” something from God’s Word, we have a proven scenario that the KJV ADDED to the Word of God something that wasn’t originally there. Some argue that the Anglican KJV translators were inspired, and corrected the Greek by adding this. That’s an errant boast that even the KJV translators denied, but let’s assume for a moment that they WERE inspired. If this is true, then we should all be using the 1611 edition of the KJV. Yet nobody does today – not even you. The 1611 edition included the Apocrypha (the dubious, “deuterocanonical” books of the Roman Catholic Bible, including Judith, Esdras, Susanna, 1 & 2 Maccabees, 4 Ezra, Sirach, Baruch, Tobit, Bel, additions to Esther and Daniel, and others). I’d wager that the KJV you use does not include these books. Furthermore, the KJV went through several editions where various errors were corrected before the edition that is in use today. So you see, the KJV you use is vastly different from the AV 1611. If the KJV translators were inspired to “correct the Greek”, then nobody should have changed their inspired translation. Some have told me that the NIV and NASB are superfluous, as we already have an English language Bible – the KJV. My response to that is why then, did we need the KJV. Before it were other English language translations (Wycliffe Bible, 1384; Tyndale Bible, 1530; Coverdale Bible, 1535; Matthew’s Bible, 1537; Great Bible, 1539; Geneva Bible, 1560; Bishop’s Bible, 1569; Rheims-Douai Version, 1582-1610). Yet the KJV was an improved English language Bible. Why must you decry newer improvements? Between 1611 and the early 20th century, thousands more Greek manuscripts were discovered. These manuscripts were older than any that had been found before. Earlier copies place them closer in the manuscript family to the originals. Why not take advantage of these incredible finds? The truth is that the NIV and NASB differ only infinitesimally from the KJV. With only a couple of exceptions, the NIV and NASB provides a more accurate rendition of the early Greek than the KJV. While the NIV is clearer than the KJV on verses that declare the deity of Jesus Christ, the difference between these translations do not affect key doctrines. The King James Only position is simply without merit. Yet in spite of that fact, people adhere to this aberrant position because they have made an idol out of one particular translation of God’s Word. In this idolatry, facts simply don’t matter. God’s Word is more than one translation. God’s Word is the message within.
With that being said, I must address the tone of your email. You should read through it again. Can you see the hate and vitriol in your tone? These are hardly representative of the fruits of the Spirit. From your email, I see none of the fruits of the Spirit in you. Am I then to conclude that, in the absence of these fruits, the Spirit is not within you? I pray that you will seriously consider this, and seek forgiveness from God for the anger and hate that ruins any potential witness you may have.
p.s. We draw no salary or other remuneration from this ministry. Money hungry? Hardly.