Monday, March 2, 2015

God is an onlyst. [many Bibles = many gods]

> Edited text.

 There are two paths followed by Bible. One is the path of THE Bible, grown in the bloodshed of Christians, all along 15 centuries of Catholic persecutions, a path which comes from Antioch, passing thru the Itala Bible of Vaudoises (157 a.C.) and the Textus Receptus and ending in the King James Bible Authorized Version of 1611. 

Then there's the vein of Satan, coming from Alexandria and ending in that dust of acronyms all built around the ROMAN CATHOLIC, Jesuit-created perversions, called "Bibles": NIV, NKJV, ASV, etc.

Because you cannot change the word of God. If you do that you don't believe in God, but in a concept of your mind transformed in "God".

Edited - March 03, 2015.

Bro Stiliyanov warn me righteously that it is important to add that one can be saved also without KJB, elsewhere we could be in danger to transform the same Bible in a Pagan fetich and God's word in "magical words".  You can learn all the KJB and repeat his verses every day hundreds of times in your life, you are not automatically saved - no more or less to be baptized by immersion, if there's no faith. Telling that in the other way: if it is possible, of course more difficult, to be saved without KJB, it is quite sure that one of the obliged steps to avoid the salvation of a person is to supply him/her with a corrupted Bible coming from Alexandrian Gnostic workshops.

 *   *   *

Proof of King James Onlyism

Posted on

Alright, in this article I want to do a quick overview of why I believe King James Onlyism is without a doubt 100 percent true. If you read my series exposing modern Bible versions, you should be of the same view.
Now let me begin by saying there is a very deceptive tactic modern Bible translators and scholars are using.
If you read  a modern version, an NIV for instance, you’ll notice that the verses skip. For instance, in Acts 8, it goes:
Where’s 8:37?
If you read the footnote it will say something akin to:
“The oldest and best manuscripts omit this verse.”
The reader of Scripture is then left with the impression that “oldest and best” means closer to what the apostles wrote.
They are not telling you…


All modern versions for the most part have their foundations in the Nestle Aland text [ source]. The Nestle Aland text has it’s roots in the works of Westcott and Hort.

Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis. [1]
Nestle included the works of Westcott and Hort into his Greek text.
Wescott and Hort’s work was based upon the codex Sinaitcus and Vaticanus.

This text arose in Egypt and is generally conceded to be the most important one. Westcott and Hort, who named this the Neutral Text, thought that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus had preserved a pure form of the Alexandrian type of text. It is now evident that these manuscripts had been corrected by later scribes, but they are the most ancient uncials and preserve the Alexandrian text at an early stage. Some of the important papyrus manuscripts also represent this family. [2]
Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for textual criticism and is a leading member of the Alexandrian text-type. It was heavily used by Westcott and Hort in their edition, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881). [3]
The Vaticanus and Sianiticus manuscripts both date back to the fourth century.

Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the fourth century, and sometimes more precisely to the middle of that century. This is based on study of the handwriting, known as palaeographical analysis. Only one other nearly complete manuscript of the Christian Bible – Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican Library in Rome) – is of a similarly early date. The only manuscripts of Christian scripture that are definitely of an earlier date than Codex Sinaiticus contain small portions of the text of the Bible. [4]
The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; Gregory-Aland no. B or 03) is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. It is slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were probably transcribed in the 4th century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, with uncial letters. [5]
Now the scholars stop there. They say “see! Oldest and best” Now mind you, the reason the modern versions of the Bible are all missing verses, have changes, and deletions, is because the texts they are based upon eventually go back to these two manuscripts.
Now, before I get into proving that these manuscripts are not the oldest and best sources to get your Scripture, let’s take a look at where they actually came from.

The manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue. Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain, with Rome, southern Italy, and Caesarea all having been suggested. [6]
So the first manuscript where you’re getting your NIV, NLT, CEB, etc, was housed in the Vatican and still is. Your getting your modern versions from the Roman Catholic church.
What about Sinaiticus?

Codex Sinaiticus was found, in 1859, by Constantine von Tischendorf on his third visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai in Egypt. The first two trips had yielded parts of the Old Testament, some found in a basket of manuscripts pieces, which Tischendorf was told by a librarian that “they were rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery“. [Skeat, T. C. “The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus.” Novum Testamentum. Vol. 42, Fasc. 3, Jul., 2000. p. 313]
So let me get this straight, the “best” manuscripts were found in the  Pope’s library at the Vatican, and in a bin waiting to be burned?
But are they truly the oldest? Not by far.
The true text the King James Bible was based on are found during and before the fourth century.
Let me give you some examples.
Matthew 5:22 NIV  But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment.
Matthew 5:22 KJV  but I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.
There’s a serious problem with the NIV’s omission of “without a cause”.
Because Jesus got angry.
Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
The phrase “without a cause” needs to be there.
Now, according to the defenders of the modern versions, the “oldest and best” manuscripts don’t include it.

.Moreover, this impious opinion of theirs with respect to actions-namely, that it is incumbent on them to have experience of all kinds of deeds, even the most abominable-is refuted by the teaching of the Lord, with whom not only is the adulterer rejected, but also the man who desires to commit adultery; and not only is the actual murderer held guilty of having killed another to his own damnation, but the man also who is angry with his brother without a cause: who commanded [His disciples] not only not to hate men [7]
The quote above was from the writings of Irenaeus, which was written circa. 180. A.D. and it includes the phrase “without a cause” BEFORE the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts were even written.
This is strong proof that the way the King James Bible reads was in circulation much earlier, and what the apostles actually wrote.
1 Timothy 3:16 KJV And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
1 Timothy 3;16 NIV Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:He appeared in the flesh, was vindicated by the Spirit,was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world,was taken up in glory.
As you can see, the KJV reads God was manifest in the flesh, the modern versions read “he”.
Now mind you, these versions like the NIV are coming from the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, and they’re being faithful to these fourth century readings.
Before these two manuscripts were written, we can find the KJV’s reading in older writings.
Here is a quote from the writings of Hippolytus, “Against Noetus”

He now, coming forth into the world, was manifested as God in a body, coming forth too as a perfect man. For it was not in mere appearance or by conversion, but in truth, that He became man. [8]
Hippolytus was born 170. A.D. and died 236 A.D.
Again, this is way before the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written.
The way the King James Holy Bible reads is the correct, and truly oldest reading.


  1. The truly best would be the original Hebrew.

    King James ONLY-ISM is Jesuit doctrine based upon Anglicanism, which is Roman Catholicism with sunglasses.

    1. Doug, if you tell I am a "Jesuit-inspired", you ll make me happy.

    2. Eastern-Prussia ONLYISM.... .... c'mon Doug, let say something about the GREATEST Holocaust of history, those millions of Christians murdered by the Roman Catholic church because they read the precursors of the king James Bible, the ITALA Bible,....

    3. It's ridiculous for people to say "original Hebrew". The originals are long gone.

      The KJV is 100% accurate. The catholics/jesuits all hate the KJV. 'Nuff said.

  2. Doug, there are things in the KJV-only movement that reek of jesuitism, for example futurism (which I have now long abandoned) and the general elitist attitude of contempt toward every "unenlightened" christian OR the radicalism of Ruckman, but the striving after a finished word of God isn't one of them.

    It would be impossible for us to learn hebrew as well as the translators that have produced the version and the further back in time we travel, the less adulteration we will find in hebrew scholarship. In fact, modern hebrew and greek scholarship, along with the new manuscripts provide the greatest basis of undermining the authority and power of the word of God. These arguments are well covered in the KJBonly websites.

    As for anglicanism, well, I believe that the Church of England at that time firmily believed that the word of God supported their dogmas (as catholic as they were)and like Luther, they had no reason to pervert or bend the scriptures to satisfy their interpretations. With that being said, lexically, the KJB is markedly Catholic and Latin-Vulgatic. By that I mean they have used words that were common in Catholic theology and dogma, not that they have mistranslated the originial languages. Remember that in the Bible the "ark of the covenant" was at one time with the philistines, but that didn't taint it. Likewise, protestantism's chiefest merit is the translation and provision of the scriptures, be they deceived in many matters or not, carrying much Catholic baggage.

    It will be difficult to build good doctrine by attempting to establish precise meanings from the original languages. You will ultimately have to trust someone's scholarship in a sea of many. And how can you say who is honest and who isn't? And that their rendition is correct or not?

    1. well if the antichrist has one Bible (the Latin vulgate) what does that tell us?

  3. To me the term King James ONLYISM would reject later translations of the KJB into modern English and other languages, hence being a doctrine saying that the Bible may only be read in older English.

  4. "Eastern-Prussia ONLYISM.... ...."

    That's a strange response considering that I have already written about the broader picture:

    Did the Vatican ONLY persecute those that read the KJB 1611? Or other Bible readers as well?

    1. Catholics persecuted Muslims, but if they died in their sins not accepting Jesus Christ ttheir savior, they are eternally damned.

      Catholicism persecuted Lutherans, and both persecuted Anabaptists & Vaudoises. The only difference is that Lutherans were more cunning, dealing with Vaudoises with the typical Communist approach of the ''comrades in error who have to be helped to find the right way'', aka accepting the Catholic crap inside Lutheranism: dupersessionosm, pedo-baptism, etc.