A contract with the devil

Take a look at this Chick tract: The Contract.
It is a simple comic strip that outlines pretty clearly the things I've heard people say about getting to heaven or going to hell.

-CBSB

Read More

Evolution: A Scientists Religion

I'd like to step back and take a look at a few things here about Evolution.

To start with, I don't believe that Evolution is any more of a "scientific" theory, than the Bible is. "What's that she's saying? Evolution isn't science? How can this be? She's crazy..." maybe not though. I'd like to take a look at what exactly the study of evolution is, as well as the definition of a few things "faith" related. I won't be comparing the beliefs of evolution and creationism in this particular blog, though if you would like to see an article relating to the the controversy between these two belief systems, you can look at my blog here.

Ok, on to some definitions.

Evolution - Biology. Change in the gene pool of a population from generation
to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift (Dictionary.com).

Mutation - 1.Biology.

a.	A sudden departure from the parent type in one or more heritable characteristics, caused by a change in a gene or a chromosome.

b.	An individual, species, or the like, resulting from such a departure (Dictionary.com).

Natural Selection - n. The process in nature by which, according to
Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their
environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics
in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted
tend to be eliminated (Dictionary.com).

Genetic Drift - Random changes in the frequency of alleles in a
gene pool, usually of small populations (Dictionary.com).

Summary: Basically, for a species to evolve (a dog for instance) the dog would need to mutate genetically over several generations, passing those genetic mutations on to future generations, until it is no longer considered a dog. Perhaps the dog mutated because its environment changed, and it needed to adapt to survive... for example, if there was a sudden ice age, the dog may begin to grow thicker fur, longer teeth, and become more aggressive just a little at a time to survive. According to my Anthropology Professor, evolution does not occur over night and needs many, many generations to occur. Also according to my anthropology professor, for evolution to have occurred, speciation (see definition below) needs to have taken place. Basically for evolution to have taken place within a species or a small population of a certain species, the animal needs to have genetically mutated so much that it no longer interbreeds with others of the species it came from, but only breeds with others genetically like it (ex. a dog mutates so much that it no longer breeds with other dogs... it is now no longer considered a dog, but a new species... one thing changes into another). Because evolution is the claim that one species can change or mutate into another, evolution says that because of random chance, primordial ooze mutated into an amoeba, which changed into a fish, which changed into reptiles, which evolved into birds, which changed into four legged creatures, which mutated into apes, which mutated into humans.

Speciation - 1) The formation of new species as a result of geographic,
physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously
interbreeding populations from breeding with each other.

2) n. The evolutionary formation of new biological species, usually
by the division of a single species into two or more genetically
distinct ones (Dictionary.com).

Now that we've taken a look at the definition of evolution, lets look at the definitions of science, theory, faith, and religion.

Science -

1.	A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2.	Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation (Dictionary.com).

Theory -

1.	A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2.	A proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact (Dictionary.com).

Faith - Belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis
would be substantiated by fact (Dictionary.com)

Religion - 1) Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter
of ethics or conscience.
2) A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon
by a number of persons or sects (Dictionary.com).

When we take a look at plain, basic definitions straight from the dictionary, this all seems fairly easy to understand, doesn't it? Lets continue then to the point of this blog.

Looking at the definition of science above, we see that to be considered science it needs to be based on a set of facts gained by observation or experimentation. That all seems well and good to me. If somebody sits me down and shows me proof of something that they have gained legitimately I have no reason to doubt what they are saying is true. Very quickly lets take a look at just a few things the study of evolution claims as their "scientific" proof, gained through observation and experimentation.

Evolution's "proof":

• Carbon Dating: Carbon dating (a scientific method of discovering how old something that was once living is) proves that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old.
• Fossils: Bones found throughout the world, of animals, apes, and humans prove that humans and apes share the same ancestors (humans and apes were once one in the same).
• Vestigial Organs - Organs such as the appendix, tail bone, and tonsils (organs that we supposedly no longer have use for as humans) are really leftovers from when we were once apes.
• God is not proven: Surprisingly one of the "scientific" proofs given by evolutionists for why Evolution must be the way things happened is that Christians can't prove the existence of God. Therefore, if there is no God, and God didn't create us, then evolution must be the only reason that we are here as the humans we are right now.
• If there is a God, then why aren't we perfect right now?: Another thing many people use to explain evolution is the fact that we aren't perfect right now. (We have organs with seemingly no function (appendix), we have a blind spot in our eyes, and we experience pain and eventually death.

These are just a few claims of Evolutionists today. Now I would like to examine a few of these claims. There should be no problem with taking a look at these claims, right? They're proof... they were found scientifically as a way to prove the theory of evolution, right? Take a look:

• Carbon Dating: Carbon dating is one of the most popular radioactive dating methods used today. Ironically, despite its popularity, it is also one of the most misunderstood methods of dating. Many people mistakenly believe carbon dating can be used to date objects that are millions or even billions of years old. The fact is, carbon dating can only be used to date things up to approximately 50,000 years old. In fact, if an object contains (radioactive) carbon, this should be a clue that the object may not be any older than 50,000 years, (Trueauthority.com). Considering that the theory of evolution claims that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old, they should not be using carbon dating to date things. Another factor that carbon dating doesn't take into account is the fact that time is not the same today as it was thousands of years ago because the universe is expanding. This is why things that have been carbon dated fifty years ago were said to be a certain age, and when they are dated today, they are attributed a different age. This makes carbon dating an unreliable method of dating fossils. Read more about how carbon dating works at Trueauthority.com
  

• Fossils: The following is taken from an article entitled: Evolution: Fact or Fiction, by James Melton.
  

  In 1922, a bunch of bones were found in Nebraska by a man named Harold Cook. After studying the upper and lower jaws and the teeth of some thirty animals, a complete ape known as Ramapithecus was constructed on the basis of ONE TOOTH! Years later, the entire skeleton from which the tooth came was found. It turned out to be an extinct species of pig.

  Dr. Eugene Dubois discovered the famous Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus) in 1891. This "great discovery" consisted of a small piece of the top of a skull, a fragment of a left thigh bone, and three molar teeth. But, instead of being found all together, these remains were found in an area of about seventy feet, and they were found over about a year's time. They were also found in an old river bed with other assorted extinct animal bones. This, of course, presents a number of problems for Java Man. How can the "experts" be so sure that these remains all came from the same being? Better yet, how do such bones survive for 750,000 years without decaying? Where's the EVIDENCE to PROVE these theories? We know what the scientists want to believe about these findings, but WHERE'S THE PROOF?

  Piltdown man was discovered by Charles Dawson in 1912. Dawson claimed to have found some bones, some teeth, and even some primitive implements in a gravel pit in Piltdown, Sussex, England. He took them to a British museum where anthropologists claimed that they were 500,000 years old. Textbooks throughout the world then proclaimed Piltdown Man as the greatest find to date. Then in October of 1956, Reader's Digest EXPOSED this finding as "The Great Piltdown Hoax." The bones where found to be fraudulent. The jaw bone was proven to have belonged to an ape which had died only FIFTY YEARS before (not 500,000). The teeth had been filed down, and both, teeth and bones, had been discovered with bichromate of potash to cover up their true identity! So much for Piltdown Man.

  The so-called Neanderthal Man was discovered around 1900 in a cave in the Neanderthal Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany. Naturally, he was hailed as another great "missing link." Since that time, it has been proven that Neanderthal wasn't an ape-man at all. He turned out to be a fully erect human being with a cranial capacity of over 13% more than that of normal man. Today, he is classified as "Homo Sapiens" (completely human). The "missing link" is still missing.

  Finally, we come to Lucy, a 40% skeleton found in Ethiopia by D.C. Johanson in the 70's. Johanson claimed that "Lucy" had walked on two legs, because of the "angle of the thigh bone and the flattened surface at it's knee joint" (National Geographic, December, 1976). However, the knee joint was badly crushed; so Johanson's conclusion is mere speculation. Anatomist Charles Oxnard said the "Lucy" did NOT walk upright, at least not in the same manner as humans. The chimpanzee DOES spend some time walking upright, so this was probably just another ape. (Evolution: Fact or Fiction). To effectively use a fossil record as evidence that humans are the descendants of apes and other creatures, there needs to be a fossil linking creature A to creature C... do you see what I'm saying? If creature A is an ape, and creature C is a modern day human (you or me) there needs to be a fossil linking the two together. Today, with all of the fossils that have been found, there is no fossil B (the missing link effectively) to show that A evolved into C. If someday the right fossil is found, the fossil record will read A B C... right now it has wide gaps in it and reads something like: A C E G H I M O P...

• Vestigial Organs: Many medical doctors agree that all of these organs have important functions in the human body, and aren't "vestigial organs" in any sense. The appendix contains a rich blood supply which serves as some defense against cancer. The tail bone isn't where your monkey tail used to be, as Darwinians believe, but it instead provides support for the muscles which control elimination. The pineal gland contains important hormones which the body needs. The plica semilunaris helps to keep foreign particles out of the eye, and the tonsils help to keep foreign particles out of your child's throat. The tonsils also help to keep infection from spreading. Yes, even the ear lobe has a purpose, for it helps to keep our ears warm during cold weather (Evolution: Fact or Fiction).

• God is not proven: Now, going back to the definition of science: Systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation, it isn't really fair to use this as evidence for the theory of evolution. Scientists can neither prove, or disprove the existence of God.

• If there is a God, then why aren't we perfect right now? Again, going back to the definition of Science, we know that this isn't something that can be used as evidence for the theory of evolution... it cannot be proven or disproven that God didn't make us perfect to begin with. According to the Bible God made us in His image, and originally we were perfect until we allowed sin to come into the world... originally we were made to live forever, originally women were made to give children without pain, originally we were essentially perfect according to the Bible. Seeing as how science can neither prove or disprove the validity of the Bible, this is not evidence of evolution. We've already covered that the appendix does have a function in our bodies today (and if we were created perfect in the first place then the appendix most certainly had a function when man was first created). As far as having a blind spot in our eyes where the nerves connect to the back of our eyes... that's why God gave us two eyes. Because we have two eyes, and also because our eyes are constantly making small adjustments that we don't even notice, we do not see a blind spot as we look around a room or look at an object. If we only had one eye, that would definitely be a problem... hm... do think God was smart enough then to give us two eyes? Of course he was.

So now that we've taken a look at why the study of evolution isn't exactly science according to the definition of science, let's take a look at faith and religion. While there is still no specific evidence showing that evolution exists, many scientists and other people today still avidly pursue the belief that it does exist, and still try to prove that it does today. They believe that one day they will find the evidence they need to prove their theory about why and how we are the way we are. Faith being a: Belief that is not based on proof, and religion being, Something one believes in and follows devotedly, just looking at the definitions Evolution is beginning to seem more and more like religion, is it not? Evolutionists have faith that what they believe in is true, and are so devoted to their beliefs that they are willing to follow what cannot even be considered as scientific evidence. Even my anthropology professor said one day, "Nature knowingly created us this way." For somebody who constantly tells us that there is no God and no intelligent design, it sure sounds to me as if he believes nature is "smart" enough to know to create us the way we are. In itself does that statement not show that he believes in evolution as a religion?

In conclusion I'd like to say that the theory of evolution is being taught in public schools today with no other theories being taught beside it. The definition of theory being: A coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena, does the Bible not fit this definition, then also becoming at the very least a theory just like evolution? Evolution is a faith based theory, just as is the Bible. Evolution offers us an explanation for why things are the way they are, and yet cannot be proved scientifically. The Bible also offers us an explanation for why things are the way they are, and yet cannot be proved scientifically. Both evolution and the Bible are based on faith. Should both not be taught side by side in both public and private schools so that people can choose what to believe for themselves? Are evolutionists, scientists, and teachers so afraid that people will choose what makes the most sense to them that people will stop believing in evolution completely?

-CBSB

Read More

Evolution

This term I took an Anthropology 101 class, which basically turned into Evolution 101/God sucks class. I thought it was pretty funny how every day the professor (Professor Powers) went on and on about how Christians were wrong and how once upon a time Catholics murdered scientists and how Evolution was the only way. I am a firm believer that Creationism and Evolution should at the very least, be taught side by side so that people can make the choice for themselves. For the longest time before I was saved, all I believed in was Evolution, because that was all I had ever heard about in public schools. In this class the professor talked about Evolution and Creationism in two very different ways... never giving both sides of the story. When talking about evolution he only have the "good" side of the story, and when talking about God and creationism he only gives the "bad" side of the story, essentially never giving all of the facts for both, only the ones he wanted the class to hear. You can imagine then how funny I thought it was that he said repeatedly that there is no intelligent design, but then how one day in class he said, "Nature knowingly created us this way." I'm not a genius, but that statement sounds a lot like he was saying nature was intelligent and created us the way we are because it knew what it was doing. Evolution then becomes a religion just as much as Christianity does. The following article outlines just a few of the things about Evolution that people like Professor Powers will never tell us. Evolution: Fact or Fiction

Give it a look and decide for yourself.

Another great link to take a look at is a link to this Chick tract: Evolution <-- This lays out a few basic things about evolution in an easy to read/simple to understand comic strip.

-CBSB

Read More

How to Witness to a Jehova's Witness

I found this article on a Christian site, and I thought it was pretty interesting. Even if you are a Jehova's Witness, I think you should take a look at it. I believe this article is not only good for witnessing to JW's but to anyone. It gives good tips and a personal story. The article can be found on the link below:

http://www.crosswalk.com/spirituallife/1408500/

There's also a book called: "Answers to my Jehova's Witnesses Friends" by Thomas F. Heinze that you can read for free online here. To read it scroll down the page and click on a chapter link under "contents" to begin. Ignore the payment options below the chapter links unless you want to buy a copy and have it delivered.

You can also read a short comic strip/Chick Tract about Jehovah's Witnesses here.


-CBSB

Read More

Bible Trivia

We've added a Bible Trivia/Bible Quiz section to the blog, which can now be found at:
http://kjvbibletrivia.blogspot.com/

Check it out.

-CBSB

Read More

Hebrew and Greek Alphabets

For anybody interested, here are links to the Hebrew alphabet and Greek Alphabet

-CBSB

Read More

KJV vs. other versions of the Bible

Sophomore year in college I had to take a speech class. One of the assignments was to do a speech on an controversial issue. I asked my speech professor during class one day if it would be appropriate to do a speech on the differences between the KJV and other versions of the Christian bible.

Immediately there was an outburst from other students in the class. People were downright angry, and both the professor and I were surprised. She told me that it definitely sounded controversial, and that if I wanted to try it, to give it a shot. My best friend (a pastor) and I then spent two weeks researching and putting together a presentation. The following is the general information I gave the class minus the PowerPoint presentation.

 *********

So, I’ve got to admit, I’m a little disappointed. I went into a bible bookstore the other day with my friend who’s a pastor. Now, a bible bookstore’s entire purpose is to sell bibles, and other religious material. They have an entire wall filled floor to ceiling, wall to wall with bibles. We went and looked at this wall of bibles, and there were all these really cool bibles with different covers. There was a duct tape bible, a metal bible with a cool metal cover, bibles with gator skin, suede, two toned bibles, everything. Now, I was getting really jazzed, I mean, I was going to buy a really cool looking bible, so I picked up the duct tape bible and started looking through it, but then I saw that it was a New American Standard bible, or NAS. I read the King James Version, so I thought, “Ok,” and I put that one back, and picked up the metal bible. But alas, it was the New Living Bible, still not KJV! We looked through bible after bible, and the only King James Version Bible’s we found were three, plain black bonded leather bibles… and bonded leather is the kind they attach to paper that falls apart after you use it a few times.

So I asked my friend, “Why are there no cool looking King James Bibles?” and he told me, “Most people today hate the King James Bible.” I didn’t understand it at the time until my speech class got mad at me just for mentioning the KJV.  I’m going to tell you my personal reasons for reading and using the KJV rather than other versions. I’m not saying my bible is better or yours is better, I am only giving my personal reasons.  While this isn't meant to offend you, I can almost guarantee that it will, because this is what I've encountered now over and over with people who use other versions.

1) First let's start off looking at why most people don’t like the King James Version:  People say “It’s too hard to understand.” Let's have a look.

Matthew 8:29 KJV vs. Matthew 8:29 NAS

Matthew 8:29 KJV

“And, behold, they cried out, saying, what have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come to hither to torment us before the time?”

Matthew 8:29 NAS

“And behold, they cried out, saying, what do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

As we can see, most words in this passage (blue) are the same, and very few are changed. Those that are changed are not too difficult to understand. Let’s take a look at another passage: 

Luke 4:4 KJV vs. Luke 4:4 NAS

Luke 4:4 KJV

“And Jesus answered him saying, “It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 NAS

“And Jesus answered him, “It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone.”

Again, most words here are the same, the only thing that the NAS has changed from the King James, is that they have taken out the words “But by every word of God,” from the end of the passage. Ok, let’s take a look at one more passage. 

Isaiah 7:14 KJV vs. Isaiah 7:14 RSV (Revised Standard Version)

Isaiah 7:14 KJV

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7:14 RSV (Revised Standard Version)

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Here I have compared Isaiah 7:14 between the King James and the RSV (Revised Standard Version), rather than the NAS. All words (blue) are the same with the exception that “Virgin,” has been changed to “Young Woman.” We know that Young Women and Virgins are not the same. Here they are not changing words to be more easily understood, because most of us should know what a virgin is.

2) Why most people don’t like the King James Version: People say, “I don’t like the Thee’s and the Thou’s.” 

Well, let’s take a look at that briefly:

Thee, Thou, and Ye equal You. Therefore, Thou shalt not steal equals You shalt not steal. But wait, here’s something cool! Thee and Thou, which start with a T are singular, meaning only one person, and Ye, which starts with a Y is plural, meaning more than one person. So if you are standing in a group of friends and I point to you and say Thou shalt not steal! I could be talking to the whole group, but because I used the word “Thou” I just made it personal and I’m just talking to you. If you are standing in a group of friends and I point to you and say “Ye shalt not steal,” I’m talking to the entire group, which is one cool thing that the King James Version does.  Other bibles just say 'you shall not steal' and are therefore not as accurate because the reader doesn't know if the speaker is talking to a group, or one person in that group.

3) Why most people don’t like the King James Version: People say, “My translation is better than the King James because the words are newer.” 

According to the KJVonlyissue.com, a website that is actually against the use of the King James Version: “In fact there are instances where the use of Archaic words are more accurate than what our modern English allows.” For example: In the KJV, shambles means marketplace. Today marketplace means something different to us. The newer versions of the KJV just say marketplace.

4) Why most people don’t like the King James Version: People say “Have you ever tried to teach a five year old on a King James? They won’t understand!” 

Well, personally, I haven’t tried to teach a child on the King James Version bible, but:  (Update -->) We teach our daughter from the King James Bible.  She learns bible stories and memorizes scripture straight out of the KJV.  We've been teaching her from it since she was three years old (she's almost five now) and she hasn't had an issue with it.  It's our duty to help her to understand the verses no matter what Bible it comes out of.


Other things to consider: Before 1881 there were no new Translations so:

• The King James Version was the only version people had to teach their children on (no matter what age), and:  
• My best friend taught and saved his young daughter on the King James Version

5) Why most people don’t like the King James Version: People say “It’s just another translation isn’t it?”

Actually it isn’t, and here’s why: The King James Bible, and newer translations, are translated from: TWO Different manuscripts! 

Lets take a look and compare these two separate manuscripts:

• After the bible was compiled, each church copied the bible word for word. 
• 95% of the copies matched each other word for word.
• Those 95% that matched word for word were called the Textus Receptus (Received Text). 
• The 5% text that did not match word for word was called the Critical Text.
• The Textus Receptus (or the 95% text): agreed with each other (or matched the texts contained within).
• The Critical Text (or the 5% text): Not only disagreed with the Textus Receptus (95% Text), but also: disagreed with it’s two main texts (The Vaticanus and Sinaticus) contained within.

Now the bible says, “God is not the author of confusion,” (1 Corinthians 14:33), which means that he will not write one thing and mean another. 

It also means that God will not contradict himself, as the Critical text (5% Text) often does. 

Lets take a look at the Critical text (5% text that disagrees): 

• The Critical text disagrees with itself over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone. 
• The Critical text makes over 6,000 CHANGES from the Textus  Receptus (95% Text). 
• Changes made in the Critical Text include: omitted words, whole omitted verses, changed words, and changes in doctrine (Doctrine being something that is agreed upon and taught by the people). 
• Also: 12 entire verses are left out of the last chapter of Mark 16 in most bibles translated from the Critical Text (5%).

Ok, let’s take a look at the Textus Receptus or (95% text that agrees) briefly: 

• Every text within the Textus Receptus (95%) agrees with each other. 

Take a look at this list of different bibles translated from the Textus Receptus (95% that agrees text) and bible translated from the Critical Text (5% that disagrees text)

Translated from the Textus Receptus (95% text) (agrees)

• (KJV) Authorized King James Version
• •William Tyndale Bible (English)
• Coverdale 1533 (English)
• •Valera 1602 (Spanish)
• Matthew’s (English)
• • The Great Bible (English)

Translated from the Critical Text (5%) (disagrees)
 

• •(ASV) American Standard Version
• •(ESV) English Standard Version
• (NASV) New American Standard Bible
• •(NIV) New International Version
• (NKJV) New King James Version
• •(NLV) New Living Translation
• Amplified Bible
• Holman Christian Standard Bible
• New Life Version
• • The Living Bible
• Young’s Literal Translation
• • The Message Bible
• New International Reader’s Version
• •The Vaticanus (part of the critical text)
• The Sinaticus (part of the critical text)

Lets take a look at a few changes in Doctrine that bibles from the Critical text have made.
  
Below we see the same verse we first compared, Matthew 8:29, between the KJV and NAS versions (KJV being translated from the Textus Receptus and NAS being translated from the Critical Text).  Where I showed you what was the same before in blue, I will now show you what is different in red:

Matthew 8:29 KJV (95%)

“And, behold, they cried out, saying, what have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? Art thou come to hither to torment us before the time?”

Matthew 8:29 NAS (5%)

“And behold, they cried out, saying, what do we have to do with You, Son of God? Have You come here to torment us before the time?”

Here the NAS version takes out Jesus, suggesting that Jesus isn't the son of God. This is only one verse out of hundreds where “Jesus” is changed to “You,” or “Son of God,” is changed to “Son of man.” There is a book called "The Eye Opener" that contains page after page after page of changes in doctrine such as this one.

Below is the second verse we compared before Luke 4:4:

Luke 4:4 KJV (95%)

“And Jesus answered him saying, “It is written, that man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 NAS (5%)

“And Jesus answered him, “It is written, Man shall not live on bread alone.”

“By taking out, “But by every word of God,” the NAS just changed the entire meaning of this passage. We know that man can not live by bread alone… both verses say that. The KJV tells you what he can live by (but by every word of God). 

Finally, let’s compare Isaiah 7:14 again:

Isaiah 7:14 KJV (95%)

“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Isaiah 7:14 RSV (Revised Standard Version) (5%)

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel.”

Here the only thing that the RSV (translated from the Critical Text) has changed is they have changed “Virgin,” to “Young Woman.” By doing this the RSV attacks the doctrine that Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. Now young women have children all the time and are not Virgins. The KJV says “Virgin,” because it means Virgin. This passage talks about waiting for a sign.  If a young woman giving birth was the sign God was going to send, it wouldn’t be much of a sign, because we’d be getting the same sign over and over again every day. This is why the word was translated to Virgin rather than Young Woman. The original word that was translated actually had three different meanings: virgin, young woman, and damsel. By looking at the context, we know that the KJV translated it correctly to Virgin. There are also other verses where Mary talks about never having known a man, meaning she never had sexual relations with a man.  This also tells us that the original word was translated correctly to “virgin.”

So now we come to the point where we have to ask ourselves: How did we get two separate transcripts, where one is flawed?

Here’s what happened: 

1. One of the original transcripts from the Textus Receptus made it’s way to a monastery in Alexandria Egypt. 
2. A man named Origen decided to edit the Bible, to his beliefs. 
3. Origen and 10 other people edited the transcripts. 
4. Those transcripts found their way to the trash heap in the monastery, where they were later found by archeologists and called the Critical text and used for modern translations of the bible today.

By the way: Origen was later disowned by the church for heresy (teaching false doctrine).

Let’s review:

Although there are many words in the KJV not widely used today, the KJV is usually just as easy to understand as other translations if you try.  People who read the KJV also use the Webster's 1828 dictionary (available for free online or purchase in the store) to determine the meaning of words as they were translated then (such as shambles). 

Before 1881 there were no other (full) bible translations, so the KJV was the only version people taught their children on.

The King James Bible and other bibles are not the same: 

• The KJV and other translations are translated from TWO different texts. 
• The transcripts used for the Critical Text (5% text) disagree with each other, and the Textus Receptus/majority text (95% text) 
• The Critical Text (5% Text) was edited over 10 times by 10 different people and then discarded in the trash! 
• The Critical Text (5% Text), omits words, phrases, and entire passages as well as changing doctrine!

The Bible says: The word of God cannot be improved upon, meaning: you can’t make the bible better by putting your own beliefs in. 

From the facts listed here it's clear that the Critical Text (5% text), changed and edited by Origen and 10 other people, is flawed by it's very nature because they injected their own beliefs into the bible. 

You may also be interested to know that since the time of the discovery of the Critical Text, modern day Bible translators have continued to edit and inject their own opinions and beliefs into the Bible.  You can read a short article about that HERE.

I hope this has been as much as an eye opener for you as it has been for me.

Sources:

• 
Final Authority by William P. Grady, PHD

•Let’s Weigh the Evidence by Barry Burton

•

•The Answer Book: A Help book for Christians by Dr. Samuel C. Gipp, TH. D.

•

•http:www.biblebelievers.com

•https://www.KJV-only.com/theethou.html

•The Authorized King James Bible (KJV)

•

•The New American Standard Bible (NAS) ©

•

•The Revised Standard Bible (RSV) ©
Selecting a Translation of the Bible by Lewis Foster 

As a final note, I'd like to point out the sources cited above. If you'll notice, the NAS and RSV have a little copyright symbol included in their name, which means a man wrote it and I have to get their permission to use what they wrote. The KJV has no copyright symbol, and is the only bible that claims to be the "Authorized" translation of God.

If you would like to read a tract (comic) absolutely packed with information about how Satan tries to attack the purity of the Bible, click here.

Read More