Why the King James is Not a Perfect Inspired Translation

KJVThe King James Bible translation was great piece of work for its day but is it really the perfect infallible word of God for all time? I do not think so. Due to archeology and scholarship, we have gained a lot of knowledge about the ancient world since 1611 and modern Bibles reflect this much more accurate and informed scholarship. For example, the Masoretic text of the Old Testament dates to AD 1000 but today we have access to the Dead Sea Scrolls (with Old Testament fragments back to 200 BC) and thousands of Ugaritic and other texts that inform us about the context of the Old Testament. In 1611, this stuff was buried under ground. Translations like the ESV are far superior to the KJV because they reflect this new knowledge.

As far as the discussion concerning NT manuscripts, Dr. Dan Wallace has penned a fine essay here. What you will find is that the KJVonlyist arguments are very misleading and trade on fear. Studying church history reveals that scribes added things over time rather than taking them out. The verses KJVonly people claim have been removed are additions, usually by Catholic scribes.  We want to study the inspired word not a medieval Catholic’s additions (as in the case of 1 John 5:7 KJV).

If you like the King James Bible and prefer to use it then I have no problem with that. This post is directed toward those KJV-only people who argue that God inspired the KJV translators to preserve a perfect inerrant translation of his word in 1611. This idea is easily disproved but persists with a cultist tenacity.

I joined a Facebook group called “King James Bible Debate” but I quickly discovered the members did not really want to debate. After the numerous pleasantries concerning me being a Jesuit plant were offered, I presented an argument that went unanswered… silence…  and I mean crickets were chirping… a few red herrings and non sequiturs were proffered and, then I was hurriedly banned from the group ( I suppose for being Jesuit). It’s very revealing when a group must silence dissent in order to preserve the paradigm – it is how cults always operate. The argument that got me banned is as follows:

 

  1. The God of the Hebrews hates false gods (Judges 2:17; Jer. 14:22; 18:15).
  2. The Greek term pascha means ‘passover’ and the KJV translators rendered it as passover 28 times. “Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.” (Lk 22:1, AV)
  3. However, they rendered the same exact same term as “Easter” in Acts 12. “And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.”(Ac 12:4, AV)
  4. The English word “Easter” is derived from the name of an Anglo-Saxon goddess, Ēostre, a form of the widely attested Indo-European dawn goddess. Saint Bede the Venerable, an Anglo-Saxon theologian, historian, and chronologist, best known today for his Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum recorded in the 8th century that it was it derived from Eostre, or Eostrae, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of Spring and fertility.
  5. The God of the Bible would never inspire a translator to name His holy feast day after a pagan goddess (Isaiah 42:8). This violates His character and holiness.

Therefore, the King James Bible is not a perfect inspired translation. This seems decisive enough to dismiss the central claim of the KJVonly cult but in light of a dispute over etymology I’ll offer one more argument that is similarly devastating to the “perfect translation” idea.

  1. When Luke wrote the book of Acts, he had an actual date and time in mind. There was no “Easter” celebration in Jerusalem in the AD 60s when Acts was composed. Luke meant the Jewish passover feast and it is well established that the early church celebrated Jesus resurrection during passover.

The paschal feast thus took place in the primitive Church at the same time as the Jewish Passover, that is, on the night of the 15th Nisan, and by the date rather than the day. The feast had, however, a very different character from the Jewish Passover, though without denying its derivation from this. [1]

  1. Due to replacement theology and anti-Semitism, the Council of Nicea defined Easter specifically so it was not on the date of the Jewish Passover. Constantine wrote:
  2. And in the first place, it seemed very unworthy for us to keep this most sacred feast following the custom of the Jews, a people who have soiled their hands in a most terrible outrage, and have thus polluted their souls, and are now deservedly blind. Since we have cast aside their way of calculating the date of the festival, we can ensure that future generations can celebrate this observance at the more accurate time which we have kept from the first day of the passion until the present time….  — Emperor Constantine, following the Council of Nicaea [2]

  3. Thus, by definition Easter does not denote the date that the inspired author Luke intended.

Therefore, the KJV is not a perfect inspired translation.

When your belief system is hinged on something as precarious as absolute perfection from a group of fallible men, one counterexample implodes the house of cards.

The doctrine of biblical inerrancy applies to the original autographs written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek. Although we do not have those originals, the science of textual criticism, as employed by Holy Spirit led scholars, gives a Greek New Testament text that we can confidently assess to be around 99% true to the originals in modern editions like the NA28. Translations are another matter. Some concepts in Hebrew and Greek do not translate to English directly, so no English translation is infallibly perfect, it is not even possible,  because they all must compromise at points. But thanks to hard working scholars and archeologists, we have a very accurate rendering of the ancient text that we can trust for all maters of faith and doctrine.

 



[1] Gerhard Kittel, Geoffrey W. Bromiley, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964–), 902.

[2] “Emperor Constantine to all churches concerning the date of Easter” http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-26

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.

Comments

  1. Pete says:

    The KJV has served a great purpose in 400 years, by being a standard of discrediting groups like the Mormon’s. So even it’s faults had purpose. But I agree, KJV is not THE standard.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Pete that’s a great observation! Joseph Smith’s plagiarizing of the KJV translation errors proves the book of Mormon is not inspired too!

  2. jaz says:

    “All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching………… 2Tim3:16 of course The Apostle there is referring to the OT

    I agree about 1Jn5:7 in the KJV being added upon to give force to the False Babylonian/ catholic Trinitarian doctrine and also the Easter injection serving the same spiritual forces.

    The calling of God came to me through the RSV when for the first time I read a Bible. the verse was Eph5:18
    I believe that It is the person of the ‘Holy Spirit’ that enlightens our understanding and if a translation is fabricated in error, such enlightenment will not be Given.

    I actually use Three versions in my studies The New American Standard, the King James and the revised standard. My preference is the NAS.

    • Cris Putnam says:

      I agree about 1Jn5:7 in the KJV being added upon to give force to the False Babylonian/ catholic Trinitarian doctrine and also the Easter injection serving the same spiritual forces.

      The Doctrine of the Trinity is clearly revealed in the New Testament by the resurrection of Christ (proving his claim to deity) and outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. Your denial of it classifies you outside of the realm of biblical faith.

      • Chad Schafer says:

        Cris, I was wondering if you could give me your thoughts on that subject with these questions I was asked/have been trying to find answers to. The questions I struggled to answer are as follows:
        1.) If the Holy Spirit is an actual person then where is His throne?
        2.) Since we are made in the image of the Father, does that mean our Spirit is a separate person?

        Thanks for all you do! Really appreciate your work!

        • Cris Putnam says:

          1.) If the Holy Spirit is an actual person then where is His throne?
          2.) Since we are made in the image of the Father, does that mean our Spirit is a separate person?

          1) I don’t think the Holy Spirit is a person in the sense that he has a body and sits on a throne, he is a person in the since that he has an individual personality.

          2) As persons we consist of “body, soul and spirit” (3) or “body and soul/spirit” (2) but there is debate over 2 or 3, but I am leaning toward 3. Even in eternity we will have bodies. There seems to be a temporary state where we do not have bodies but it is incomplete.

      • jaz says:

        Mr Putman; You are to quick to judge!
        I do not deny the divinity of Jesus Nor of the Holy Spirit.

        I reject the Trinitarian doctrine of catholicism and protestantism as it presently stands.
        see: Alexander Hyslop ‘the two Babylon’s’ He gives a thorough explanation of the matter with its relation to the worship of the Eucharist.

        you say that the KJV of 1Jn5:7 was a (medieval Catholic’s additions) Please explain why you think this addition to the verse was applied?

        • Cris Putnam says:

          Mr Putman; You are to quick to judge!
          I do not deny the divinity of Jesus Nor of the Holy Spirit.

          You didn’t mention the Father?

          I apologize but please explain why would you say you deny the trinity? If Jesus is God and the Father is God and the Spirit is God but none is each other then that is the trinity. One God in three persons.

          Hyslop is NOT a good source to base anything on.

  3. owl says:

    One should never trust any works authorized by the british monarchy or any monarchy for that matter. That in itself should be a major red flag. Furthermore king james gave the KJV to the new atlantis proponent and occultist francis bacon for a whole year to add some occult magic to it prior to print. That is a second red flag. And finally it was cut to a perfect 66 book cannon in later editions after the initial removal of the apocrypha. Final atlantetean NWO red flag and why it is defended in a almost cult like manner.

    Even the catholic douay-rheims edition provides a better picture with its 73 books.

    • Tom Sinclair says:

      Agree. At the very least it should be 67 books, as with a careful reading of Enoch, you will find that more people than Jude quoted from it. Beware of the wolves. They can look 99.9% correct, yet they may just exist to reinforce one small lie. But a little leaven….

      Beware of men whose boast is in their achievements and who continually remind you of their pedigree. Beware of men who speak of “things too wonderful”. Look at who their friends are. Look at who they endorse and who endorses them. But most of all, consecrate yourself, read your bibles day and night, pray for wisdom and understanding, and The God of Truth will show you the wolves. Remember, Jesus told us they they would look like sheep, that they would look like us.

      • Charles says:

        The question on the canon of the Bible basically concerns the Old Testament. In general, among Christian denominations, the New Testament canon is an agreed-upon list of 27 books, although book order can vary. The book order is the same in the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant tradition. The Slavonic, Armenian and Ethiopian traditions have different New Testament book orders. I’m not saying the question of what books should be considered canon in the Old Testament are not worth discussion; or that they are less important. But I do want to point out to Christians that we all agree on the New Testament books. God Bless…

      • Cris Putnam says:

        Tom Sinclair –

        You seem to think the BoE should be cannonized scripture. Why? If it was all truly written by Enoch the patriarch, it would predate the rest of the Tanakh (O.T.) by thousands of years….yet not one O.T. writer mentions this book, or mentions any writings from Enoch to be in existence. However Enoch, who lived close to 6,000 years ago, his writings would pre-date Moses’ Torah and Job’s book by possibly 2000-3000 years, and would have been close to 1,000 years old when Noah carried it on the Ark to preserve it from the Great Flood.

  4. hopeful_watcher says:

    This blog site needs a subtitle, “No sacred cows.”

    Next up on the chopping block. Pretribulation rapture, meaning a rapture before the AC is revealed.

  5. Hugo Rohland says:

    Hi. I use the NIV as discloses all miss translations and allows me to decide for myself through careful study what is in line with the whole scripture. Am I glad, glad fiding you. . . I REJOICE. Let me stop.
    MARANATHA He is surely comming. . .soon.

  6. Joseph D'Hippolito says:

    I presented an argument that went unanswered… silence… and I mean crickets were chirping… a few red herrings and non sequiturs were proffered and, then I was hurriedly banned from the group ( I suppose for being Jesuit). It’s very revealing when a group must silence dissent in order to preserve the paradigm…

    Cris, welcome to the Wonderful World of Internet Dialogue! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen people insulted and banned, and have been insulted and banned myself, for not conforming to the prevailing ideological milieu. Logical arguments and research are irrelevant. I truly believe that the Internet brings out the most adolescent, if not infantile, characteristics of human nature. That doesn’t mean it’s bad; that just means people need to know how to respond to it.

    Then again, when you think about it, the “lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life” are, ultimately, adolescent (if not infantile) reactions to life. Part of spiritual warfare — a part that’s rarely discussed, btw — is the fight against these adolescent tendencies.

  7. Hi Cris:)

    Your observations are right on the money as per usual! I wanted to add that this being the fallen planet that it is there is truly NO perfect translation as they ALL come through man. The essence of the Holy Spirit is there and the teachings for the most part are accurate and yes, I do believe it is inspired. But in spite of all of that it still passes through the impure, imperfect hearts and minds of men, not to mention those who have wished to change and corrupt the word over time as well. THAT is why we need the Holy Spirit to guide us and teach us personally rather than to just take a pastor or teachers word for anything. When we put our total trust in ANYTHING worldly, including the bible, we miss the mark in my opinion. Our total trust should be reserved for only one…Jesus Christ/Yahushua Ha’ Mashiach! Yah bless you brother for speaking the truth.

  8. Ian says:

    Christians, shame on you for calling the Bible “worldly” and hissing “hath God said” for the 66 books He perfectly preserved through His Spirit. Is anything too hard for Him? The wisdom of God is wiser than men.

    1. Jesus Christ IS the very Word of God. (John 1:1, 14) The Bible translations are simply different renderings from the very same Hebrew and Greek texts that are easily the most documented in antiquity. And for nearly four centuries, God saw fit for his Church to have the KJV as its authorative translation.

    So to discredit the Scriptures that lead the Church for nearly a quarter of its span is both inaccurate and misleading.

    2. As for “paschal”, if you will just invest some time into plotting out the timeline of the text in Acts 12, you will see that the “Easter” referred to was indeed the pagan festivals celebrated by Herod and the Romans, and not the Jewish Passover.

    Leviticus 23:5 clearly defines Nisan 14 as the Passover. And starting the 15th day for seven days is the feast of unleavened bread.

    Therefore, per Acts 12:3, Peter was taken AFTER that year’s Passover! The next one was almost one full year away!

    Herod was a murderer of the early church; do you think he was concerned with offending them by waiting until after “Easter”? Of course not; he was himself celebrating that pagan festival. Easter was and always will be a pagan name for the day we celebrate as Resurrection Sunday, but Herod himself was not those who worshipped the risen Christ.

    Please, be good Bereans and not quacking ducks.

    Blessings,
    Ian

    • jaz says:

      Thanking you for your insight Ian,

      Alexander Hislop says, “The term Easter is of pagan origin. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven.” (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons , p. 103).

      I do not call the bible worldly, I have the greatest respect for it, as it was the vessel of my calling.

      • Our total trust should be reserved for only one…Jesus Christ/Yahushua Ha’ Mashiach! He should be the vessel of your calling.

        • jaz says:

          Faith comes by hearing the Word Rom10:17 The word is quickened by the Spirit.. which Jesus has sent into the world. It all starts with the Word heard!

      • Cris Putnam says:

        Alexander Hislop says, “The term Easter is of pagan origin. It bears its Chaldean origin on its very forehead. Easter is nothing else than Astarte, one of the titles of Beltis, the queen of heaven.” (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons , p. 103).

        Unfortunately, Hislop’s research was sloppy and undocumented. It is explained here.

        • jaz says:

          Mr Putman;I disagree The man had great insight. He is regarded as thorough and precise.
          His work was a thorn to papal Rome. He is still quoted by many today in the defence of the Faith.

          May i suggest that you study his work, it is not something that can be just read over, it is to profound for that.

  9. Pete says:

    I’ve used a New World Translation to witness to a Jehovah Witness. Now, not defending that translation, but if I can use that has clearly been manipulated to defend a heretical group, I don’t see why some rail against the RSV, ESV, NKJV, or other newer translations. My bottom line is, I don’t speak old english. I like being able to understand what I read.

    To the gentlemen who railed against the Trinity as being created by Catholicism or Protestantism, the concept of the Trinity was identified in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, long before Nicea and Constantine. From William Lane Craig’s page:

    Church Father Tertullian brought greater precision to many of the ideas and much of the terminology later adopted in the creedal formulations of the doctrine of the Trinity. While anxious to preserve the divine “monarchy” (a term employed by the Greek Apologists to designate monotheism), Tertullian insisted that we dare not ignore the divine “economy” (a term borrowed from Irenaeus), by which Tertullian seems to mean the way in which the one God exists. The error of the Monarchians or Modalists is their “thinking that one cannot believe in one only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame person.” But while “all are of one, by unity (that is) of substance,” Tertullian insists that

    the mystery of the economy . . . distributes the unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. (Against Praxeas 2)

    Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity#ixzz2c9xoFNVC

    • Cris Putnam says:

      Thanks Pete!

      • jaz says:

        Would any of you two gentlemen care to explain this scripture Psalms33:6-9

        There are some of us who pray and ask for truth concerning difficult matters that cannot be understood.

        Just because the Church fathers said it was the truth does not necessitate that we have to believe their words.
        They also instigated and perfected the Eucharist worship that finally became the Holy sacrifice of the mass. Pete do you believe that these fathers were correct about that?

        It would be very lengthy for me to explain why I disagree with the catholic view. the protestant view is the catholic view

        Please take the time to ponder The scripture above For it was the one that was given me in answer to prayer.
        having received the revelation of it, I had reconsider the trinity doctrine as it presently stands.

        Mr Putman; That does not mean that I am outside of biblical faith.
        However; what it does mean, is that I am ‘out of Babylon’ with it’s manyfold theological systems of biblical interpretation.

        We are all individually accountable for what we believe & teach Be it church fathers or Yourselves.

        • cyberpriest says:

          Jaz: Very true; about accountability.
          I agree with you that the Trinitarianism of catholicism is not the biblical revelation of God.

          I have thoroughly like yourself questioned it. mainly because I could never understand it, and true Faith is most certainly based upon Knowledge revealed by The Holy Spirit. it is not learned in the schools of men.

          “The Lord God of Israel is one” Deut6:4 He is the same God who Said/spoke In the Gen1 account of creation. This is also what the scripture you share confirms… It was the same Word spoken that became Flesh.. I shared on this to some extent on a post some two weeks ago on this site.

          Jesus said it Mk12:29

          Apostle Paul said it Gal3:20

          It is assumed that because one rejects this ‘Babylonian Mystery doctrine’ That one denies the Deity of Christ and that of the holy Spirit. Nothing can be further from the truth.

  10. louthesaint says:

    “All scripture is God breathed” 2Tim3:16. That would only apply to the original Texts/manuscripts. Translations may differ. It only becomes error if the context is altered. and of course theological trends and traditions is probably the greater culprit to that effect.
    Many people have read the bible and received nothing from it, to them it is just ink on paper, but to the Spirit filled ‘the ink is alive’
    If God wishes to give insight, I believe that He can surpass the faultiness of translations. It is the Holy Spirit that ensures the correctness of interpretation upon the heart. Jn3:27

  11. Charles says:

    Here is a commentary on Genesis Chapter One using the Douay Rheims Bible. The commentary is in the brackets. Thanks and God Bless… {1} In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [In the Infinite Eternal Light of God: God gave beginning to creation: God created his whole creation of heaven; to share everlasting life with God: heaven, and earth are in essence one; that God created freely out of nothing: all of heaven being created; yet not made: and earth created; not yet being made: heaven, and earth sharing in the shine of the Light of God: heaven is not empty and is the realm of the pure spiritual creatures that God created.] {2} And the earth was void and empty, [The earth, where the Lord God would form and place man, is void, is empty, and water covers the surface.] and darkness [Satan] was upon the face of the deep; [The Abyss] [Satan, refusing to serve God his creator: rejecting the name [Lucifer] given him by God, lost the Light of God. [Saint Luke 10:18 And Jesus said to them: I saw Satan like lighting falling from heaven] [And in the book of Isaiah: we hear how Lucifer has fallen from heaven to the earth] and the spirit of God moved over the waters. [The waters in the heaven are all the spiritual creatures that God created] {3} And God said: Be light made. And light was made. [Here, what would become by the will of God evening and morning one day; God spoke and it was complete. The spiritual creatures who loved God, were made.] {4} And God saw the light that it was good; and he divided the light from the darkness, [Here, the darkness is all the spiritual creatures that followed Satan and refused to serve God.] {5} And he called the light Day, and the darkness Night; [The Will of God has moved Night from Day: allowing for time to begin. The spiritual waters of darkness [Night], now exist in time, separated from the spiritual waters of light [Day], that have the everlasting life that God gave his creation.] and there was evening and morning one day.
    {6} And God said: Let there be a firmament made amidst the waters: and let it divide the waters from the waters. {7} And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. {8} And God called the firmament, Heaven; [God spoke and it was so. The Will of God to divide the spiritual waters of darkness [Night] from the spiritual waters of light [Day]: with a solidity of a firmament that God established and called Heaven:
    The spiritual waters of darkness [Night] being divided from the spiritual waters of light [Day] exist in time, and also will exist under the firmament of Heaven in the whole space between the earth and the Heaven: The spiritual waters of light [Day] being above the firmament; have Heaven] and the evening and morning were the second day.
    {9} God also said: Let the waters that are under the heaven, be gathered together into one place: and let the dry land appear. And it was so done. {10} And God called the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, he called Seas. [God spoke and it was so done. The elemental waters are gathered together into one place; establishing the earth above the waters] [In the book of Job: we hear the Lord tell Job. Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth?] [He also spoke that the spiritual waters of darkness be gathered together into one place; that he called Seas] And God saw that it was good. [God established Heaven in the second day. Here, in the third day God has established Earth: and, he has established the Seas.] {11} And he said: Let the earth bring forth the green herb, and such as may seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind, which may have seed in itself upon the earth. And it was so done. {12} And the earth brought forth the green herb, and such as yieldeth seed according to its kind, and the tree that beareth fruit, having seed each one according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. [He spoke and it was so done. God created these in the beginning: but here in the third day; God’s paradise of pleasure is brought forth. Receiving only God’s Light: is perfect, and without decay] {13} And the evening and the morning were the third day.
    {14} And God said: Let there be lights made in the firmament of heaven, to divide the day and the night, and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: {15} To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth. And it was so done. {16} And God made two great lights: a greater light to rule the day; and a lesser light to rule the night: and the stars. {17} And he set them in the firmament of heaven to shine upon the earth. {18} And to rule the day and the night, and to divide the light and the darkness. And God saw that it was good. [God spoke and it was so done. Even with the earth receiving the pure omnipresent Light of God, along with his established Light of Heaven: God’s will provided here in the fourth day, the sun, the moon, and the stars, of which the stars extend to the heights of the firmament of heaven. To shine in the firmament of heaven, and to give light upon the earth: for which the earth, alone from the Light of God; would need the sun to receive life giving light.] [And after the fall of our first parents in the paradise of pleasure; Adam and the whole earth lost the Light of God.] [And He said to Adam: In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.] [And the generation of Adam, and men, and of all peoples, would not have the perfection of the garden that Adam enjoyed: even unto Noah with whom the Lord found grace, and was well pleased; had the sun rule the day. when the Lord told Noah, I will rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; then Noah had the moon rule the night; and the lights of the firmament that God had made did indeed divide the day and the night: and indeed were for signs, and for seasons, and for days and for years. [Genesis 8: 22 All the days of the earth, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, night and day, shall not cease.] {19} And the evening and morning were the fourth day. {20} God also said: Let the waters bring forth the creeping creature having life, and the fowl that may fly over the earth under the firmament of heaven. {21} And God created the great whales, and every living and moving creature, which the waters brought forth, according to their kinds, and every winged fowl according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. {22} And he blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, and fill the waters of the sea: and let the birds be multiplied upon the earth. [Here, in the fifth day; In contrast to the other five days: God did not speak that it was so; or that it was so done; or made: meaning these creatures described in the fifth day are not to be present until after God rest. Rather God speaks likewise in terms of all that the waters bring forth; meaning both the spiritual waters and elemental waters. God will allow the spiritual waters of darkness to bring forth the creeping creature having life; [The serpent], and also God will allow the spiritual waters of darkness to bring forth the fowl that may fly over the earth in the firmament: under the Heaven. Here, God will allow Satan and the demons to inhabit these creatures that God created; and that the Lord God will form out of the ground; and that the Lord God will make. [Genesis 3: 1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any of the beasts of the earth which the Lord God had made.] These creatures that God will permit Satan and the demons to inhabit; will be upon the earth only after God rest; and will be brought to Adam to see what he would call them. These creatures will be destroyed when God brings the rain and waters of the deluge. The creatures that follow after the fall of our first parents are of the generations of the earth that God created; which the waters brought forth; and the Lord God made: he blessed [or enabled] them to Increase and be multiplied upon the earth, These creatures here, were also permitted by God to be destroyed in the deluge; less those saved with Noah in the ark.] [The creatures that follow after the deluge are of the generations of the earth that God created; which the waters brought forth; and the Lord God made: he blessed [or enabled] them to Increase and multiply and fill the waters of the sea: and the birds to be multiplied upon the earth. These creatures along with those saved with Noah in the ark are of the world we know today.] {23} And the evening and morning were the fifth day. {24} And God said: Let the earth bring forth the living creature in its kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth, according to their kinds. And it was so done. {25} And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds, and cattle, and every thing that creepth on the earth after its kind. And God saw that it was good. [God spoke and it was so done. All of these are created in the beginning: but here in the sixth day; the creatures that God said: let the earth bring forth; and God made; are the cattle of the field; these are present in the sixth day and to be with Adam; and like Adam and the earthly paradise of pleasure; are perfect and not subject to decay or death. These creatures are also permitted by God to be destroyed in the deluge; less those saved with Noah in the ark] [The creatures that follow after the fall of our first parents are of the generations of the earth that God created in the beginning; that the earth brought forth; and the Lord God made. These creatures also will be permitted by God to be destroyed in the deluge; less those saved with Noah in the ark. The creatures that follow after the deluge are of the generations of the earth that God created in the beginning; that the earth brought forth; and the Lord God made. These creatures along with those saved with Noah in the ark are of the world we know today.] {26} And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth. {27} And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. [Here, He spoke to make man with these qualities. And man being created with these qualities would be created in his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them. Man will know God; Man will be endued with understanding and free-will. And only man will be made in the image and likeness of God. This image and likeness of God: God gives to man in the breath of life that the Lord God will breathe into the face of man; that he will form from the clay of the earth; that man will become a living soul. And Adam became a living soul: perfect in body and soul with everlasting life. God made the woman with the rib of Adam: perfect in body and soul with everlasting life. Every soul of mankind that God will create after the fall of Adam will share with Adam in original sin: and the fallen nature of creation due to sin. Adam and all mankind is possessed of many prerogatives above all other creatures of the visible world.] {28} And God blessed them, saying: Increase and multiply, [Here, God has rendered them fruitful] and fill the earth, and subdue it, and rule over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and all living creatures that move upon the earth. {29} And God said: Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, to be your meat: {30} And to all beasts of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to all that move upon the earth, and wherein there is life, that they may have to feed upon. And it was so done. [Here, God spoke and it was so done. God announces these to be fair to behold, and pleasant to eat of. These were given to Adam in the paradise of pleasure where Adam could enjoy the pleasure of these, but did not need to eat. After the fall of Adam these were no longer perfect, and were subject to decay, these would now be for meat for Adam; and all mankind to follow: and to all the creatures upon the earth: to be for food for the body. These were all destroyed in the deluge less those taken with Noah in the ark. After the deluge, God delivers to Noah; as were the green herb; the eating of flesh to be for meat; along with the herbs and fruit trees of the earth that God has provided.] {31} And God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good. And the evening and morning were the sixth day. Concerning the Catholic teaching on the Virgin Mary. Mother of God.
    Catechism of the Catholic Church. Number {491}. – Through the centuries the Church has become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854: The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin. Number {492} – The “splendour of an entirely unique holiness” by which Mary is “enriched from the first instant of her conception” comes wholly from Christ: she is “redeemed, in a more exalted fashion, by reason of the merits of her Son”. The Father blessed Mary more than any other created person “in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places” and chose her “in Christ before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless before him in love”.
    Number {493} – The Fathers of the Eastern tradition call the Mother of God “the All-Holy” (Panagia), and celebrate her as “free from any stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature”. By the grace of God Mary remained free of every personal sin her whole life long.

    • Joseph D'Hippolito says:

      Charles, I have no problem with God wishing to bless Mary in a unique way as a pre-ordained carrier of the Messiah. But that neither explains nor justifies much of the popular piety concerning Mary as an intermediary or intercessor with Jesus. That popular piety obscures the principles in the Letter to the Hebrews about Jesus’ role as the Heavenly High Priest who can identify completely with human nature (Hebrews 4:14-16) and who enables Christian to come boldly and confidently to God’s throne for help.

      Recall that when Jesus died, the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the rest of the Temple in Jerusalem was torn in two from the top down (Mt. 27:51; Luke 15:58). That was an act of God because it was impossible for a human being to tear it from the top down. That act not only signified the fulfillment of the Mosaic Law’s demands for atoning sacrifice but made the priesthood offering such sacrifices obsolete.

      • jaz says:

        Amen to that.

      • Charles says:

        I would like to share with the readers what happened to my wife and myself in September of 2007. But first I would like to say what I shared in another comment that I posted on. My wife was from a mostly evangelical family. She became catholic in 1990; about three and a hath years after we were married; and when our son was about a year old. I was from a catholic family, I graduated from a catholic high school, and I did not take my faith seriously. But in March of 2005 I had a life changing spiritual experience; and I knew that God is real. For the next 2 years I found myself searching for the Truth. I began reading the Bible for the first time in my life. My catholic faith was familiar to me, but I truly did not know the authentic catholic teaching of the church. My wife in August of 2007 called me at work one day, and she told me she was seeing an image of Mary in our bedroom closet door. She said, “I want to show you when you get home”. She said she told our son and daughter and they said “Mom we really don’t see that”. Well I told her that I believed her and couldn’t wait to get home. Well, when I got home I could not see the image of Mary that my wife was so insistent about. I said to her that I do believe that she could see it. Well she then asked a couple of friends of ours who were non catholic to look at what she was seeing, and they said to her they really did not see it either. My mom and my sister when they looked, they told my wife that they were not really seeing it either. Well, after everyone had looked at what she was seeing: And none of them were telling her that they could really see what she was so insistent about; she still kept telling me that she just could not understand why no one could see it, because she saw it so clear. Well, a few weeks after this, (which it was only after the event occurred that we realized that she had first seen the image of Mary on August 15; which happens to be a Holy Day of Obligation for catholic’s to celebrate the assumption of the virgin Mary) we were at home; and my wife approached me, and she seemed to me very much unlike herself: She wanted us to be together and she was not at all concerned that our children who were 18 and 14 were awake and in their rooms; which are located right next to our room. She was being very seductive and I knew that the way she was acting was not herself, or any way I have ever seen before. I tried to reason with her that our children could be hearing us: She got quietly upset and walked out of our house and went to our car which was outside in our driveway, and got in the back seat. I also quietly went out after her. While I was in the car with her I was very nervous about what was happening: I began to pray in my mind to the Lord; asking to bring the Holy Spirit: And after about 10 minutes she agreed to go back into the house. Well we both went back to our room and after we had got in bed, she said to me “There she is. Can you see her”. I was still so nervous I told her “Yes”. But the truth is, I could not see anything, our room was almost dark, other than a hall light that was on. Well immediately after I told my wife that I could see Mary like she had asked me, my wife rolled over on her side and was in a deep sleep: And I immediately heard an animal like sound leaving the room through our bedroom window, which is located behind the bed. My wife since this has happened has not had any more experiences like this. And I went and got an extra statue of the virgin Mary that my mom had, and placed it on the outside of our house. I remember thinking to myself; when I was younger I thought having statue’s kind of seemed maybe silly, but I didn’t have a problem with it. Well I guess I have become one of those silly catholic’s. God Bless…

        • This was quite obviously a demonic attack and if I had to put a name on the spirit I would say that it was Jezebel. Mary, while she performed an awesome and amazing service for God, was a human woman, period. Nothing more. Idolizing statues of her or anyone else for that matter is in clear violation of Yah’s first commandment. Your idolizing the “spirit of Mary” which is NOT the Mary that gave birth to Jesus and these statues is what has opened you and your family to demonic attacks.

          Clearly you need to repent of the idols and cast out the demons associated with them. If you do not, you are not following the very commandments set forth by Yah Himself.

          • Joseph D'Hippolito says:

            I don’t believe that the popular piety surrounding Mary constitutes idolatry. I know of no serious Catholic who views Mary as divine, and I was never taught that in Catholic religious education. However, that doesn’t necessarily mean such piety is spiritually healthy or reflects God’s revealed will for His people. I would suggest all of you do an Internet search for the term “orphan spirit,” especially when its used in a Pentecostal or Charismatic context. I believe that spirit — whether it’s a supernatural entity, a psychological response or something else — runs amok in the Catholic Church. I think that best explains a lot of the Catholic attitude toward Mary and the saints as intermediaries to Jesus.

          • Cris Putnam says:

            Joseph directing prayer to Mary is worship. Think about what is being promoted… how can a human being hear the simultaneous prayers of millions of Catholics? That is a divine attribute, not a human one. In scripture prayer is offered exclusively to God. It is undoubtedly idolatry.

          • @Joseph D’Hippolito, I understand what your saying but I respectfully disagree. Mary has been labeled a Co-redemptress and if that is not idolatry I don’t know what is.

        • owl says:

          Charles,
          That is an interesting situation you experienced and thanks for sharing. Obviously it was demonic especially when seduction gets stimulated it is a given sign. Best you can do is pray for the Holy Spirit to clear up the lingering demons around your home space. I agree with Sharon that statutes need to go as they just keep the door open to these lower entities. My family roots are in catholicism as well and my doom days tend to be dec 25 and aug 15 year over year, usually experience some kind of attack or unusual complications on those particular dates.

  12. Joseph D'Hippolito says:

    Sharon, the idea of Mary being a “co-redemptress” shows that the Catholic Church does not understand the nature of blood atonement for redemption, as detailed in the OT. That’s bad enough because without having such an understanding, one really can’t understand (let alone appreciate) what Christ’s atonement means. But it’s not a matter of idolatry. Excessive and unnecessary theological speculation, certainly, but not idolatry.

  13. Joseph D'Hippolito says:

    Joseph directing prayer to Mary is worship.

    When Catholics or Eastern Orthodox direct prayer to Mary or to the saints, they are using them as intercessors to Jesus. Technically speaking, it’s not worship because neither Catholics nor Orthodox consider Mary or the saints to be divine. Yes, viewing Mary and the saints as unique intercessors contradicts the Biblical concept of the term and obscures Christ’s un-equalled role as the Heavenly High Priest. My point is that something doesn’t have to be idolatrous to be spiritually sabotaging or contradictory to Biblical principles or practice. It’s not to condone or defend the practice in question.

    • cyberpriest says:

      As an Ex catholic I understand what you are saying.

      (Hail Mary “mother of God” pray for us sinners).. This is part of the rosary prayer of devoted Catholics.

      Is mary the mother of God! If ye be a Trinitarian she surely is so! For according to the Doctrine (trinity) Jesus is God the son..However; according to the New Testament Jesus is the (((Son of God))) Rev2:18
      Check any concordance for (god the son) You will not find it.

      Question, Which according to the Apostles is He… Is He ‘god the son’ or ‘ the Son of God’ ?
      Nowhere in the NT is Jesus referred as ‘God the son’ how subtle is the Enemy of truth, how he changes the word as in the garden!..
      It is Mystery Babylon that tampers with truth in the most seductive way to promulgate her adulterous doctrines.
      “Come out of her My people” Thus cries the Spirit of Elijah in these Last days.

      • Quentin Reynolds says:

        Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
        Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
        Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
        Joh 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
        Joh 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
        Joh 1:6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
        Joh 1:7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
        Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
        Joh 1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
        Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
        Joh 1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
        Joh 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
        Joh 1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
        Joh 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

        Let’s see, the Word was in the beginning, the Word was with God, the Word was God, the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. I think that pretty well sums it up as to whether Christ is God, also the Word was made flesh….(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father). So Christ was also the Son. Why would I want to come out of the place where I am a joint heir with Christ Jesus, Son, God, Redeemer, King? The enemy of truth can quote the Bible better than any scholar but to deny Jesus is Lord over all is best explained here;

        1Jn 2:22-23 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

        I don’t intend to sound mean, but I will defend Jesus as very God AND the Son of God.

  14. Charles says:

    Hope this comment is pertinent. When you look at he King James Bible, or the Douay Rheims Bible, or the Jewish Tanakh: the creation account in Genesis is in overall agreement. I just wanted to share a comment on the creation account of Genesis that I wrote and would like your comments. Creation is from God, and revealed by God. In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. The heaven is the realm of the pure spiritual creatures that God created, and not space. The earth is not a planet revolving in a solar system; but the unique and immoveable place that God formed and placed man. God did not create other worlds. Just earth. God did not create or make a universe having billions of galaxies, containing billions of suns with billions of solar systems having planets: or multi-verse universes. God did make two great lights; the greater light to rule the day; and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. For which the stars extend to the heights of the firmament under the Heaven. God made only one greater light that we call the sun, and only one lesser light that we call the moon. And God set them in the firmament: And all of the lights he made shine only on the earth.
    God did allow and made a firmament, or the whole space between the earth and the Heaven: For which the Heaven is the realm of the pure spiritual creatures that God created and made. Satan and all the spiritual creatures that rejected God no longer have Heaven: And therefore have set themselves subject to death and eternal punishment. God created and made Adam and the woman perfect. Adam enjoyed all things of God to be perfect. Adam and the whole earth did not evolve or revolve. Adam and the whole earth were not subject to decay or death: Rather given perfection and everlasting life. Gods revelation of creation was not subject to wait for man and modern science to tell him how things are. But man and modern science is subject to Gods revelation to determine what they will tell us. Jesus says: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. Jesus also tells us that Satan the devil that old serpent was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. I believe our Lord with all my mind and soul and pray to the Holy Spirit to do his will…

  15. Alan says:

    In regards to the word Easter in Acts, it is my understanding the Romans celebrated “Ishtar” (who was Semiramis, Nimrods wife) or pronounced as Easter, a celebration of worship for pagan gods long before it became a Christian holiday. Going back further in time, it was a day to celebrate the resurrection of the god Tammuz (Ishtar/Semiramis’s son). It would only make sense to use a pagan name to identify a pagan celebration in the context of the scripture speaking of King Herod. Yes?

    I am not clear on the debate concerning 1 John 5:7. Could someone explain?

    I am just trying to understand.

    Thanks

  16. Mauno says:

    No problem with that, because Holy Spirit inspired to use pagan Easter in Acts on PURPOSE, because Jewish Passover was obsolete on that time and thus pagan worship in His eyes. So, in that way it fits better to use still word Passover, even though it stopped working after Christ’s crucifixion.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. […] Why the King James is Not a Perfect Inspired Translation – A supposed Christian apologist apologizes for the King James Bible.  ”It was good for its day.”  Reminds one of emerging church superstar, Rob Bell, who passed the same judgment on God Almighty in a recent video. […]

Speak Your Mind