[Will Kinney]

Revelation 17:8 "and they shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they see the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS." King James Holy Bible.

All King James Bible critics have a strong tendency to exaggerate, twist and misrepresent the evidence, and to flat out LIE. They unconsciously reveal their underlying hatred towards God’s true Holy Book and final authority. Blinded by their own pride, they make themselves out to be the authoritative voice for what they independently think God may or may not have caused to be written in His inspired and infallible Scriptures.

Not one of them completely agrees with anybody else about what should or should not be in “the Bible” and not one of them actually believes that there EVER was nor IS NOW any such thing as a complete, inspired, inerrant, infallible and 100% true Holy Bible in any language, including their ever changing and undefined “the Hebrew and the Greek”.

Such a Bible critic is Detroit Baptist Seminary Professor names William W. Combs. He has written a booklet called “Errors in the King James Version?

The other day I received an email listing a particular example of what Doctor Combs affirms in no uncertain terms is an undeniable error in our beloved King James Bible. Here are some of the things Mr. Combs mentions in his harangue against the Book of books.

He says:

“In the NT the translators of the KJV used a Greek text commonly called the Textus Receptus. Its origins go back to the various editions produced by the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus beginning in 1516. There is no one edition of the TR, but a number of editions with some differences among them. It is generally agreed that the edition used by the translators of the KJV was the fifth edition (1598) of Theodore Beza. All editions of the TR have some readings that are clearly erroneous, but have remained in the KJV. For example, in Revelation 17:8 the KJV reads:

The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and “yet is”.

Comment on what Mr. Combs has said so far. Notice how he tries to slam and vilify Erasmus as a “Catholic” scholar. Erasmus had strongly criticized many beliefs and practices of the Catholic church of his day and he died with his Protestant friends around him. One might just as accurately describe Martin Luther as “a Catholic monk” when in 1517 he nailed his now famous 99 Theses to that church door.

Mr. Combs berates Erasmus, and yet notes in passing that it was Theodore Beza’s Greek text produced some 82 years later that, in the main, the King James Bible translators used - not that of Erasmus. Helloooo? Is there a disconnect here?


Mr. Combs continues:

The final words in the verse, "and yet is," should actually read "and shall come"—"the beast that was, and is not, and shall come." NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT READS "and yet is"; ALL HAVE "and shall come." ... THIS IS AN UNDISPUTABLE ERROR IN THE KJV and the Greek text (TR) that underlies it.”

(Caps are mine)

Here is where the good Doctor Combs goes completely over the edge of reason and flat out LIES to us. It is NOT true that NO Greek manuscript reads as does the King James Bible, and that ALL have “and shall come”. Neither is it an “undisputable error in the KJV.”

Notice how all these Bible haters always pick on just ONE Bible? It’s always the King James Bible that allegedly has all these “errors” in it. Not Tyndale, nor the Geneva Bible, nor the Bishops’ nor the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV or Holman. No, it’s always the King James Bible. Satan’s vile hatred is directed through these modern day Bible agnostics against only One Book and that Book is the Authorized King James Holy Bible and none other. It is the only Bible believed and defended by hundreds of thousands of blood boutht Christians today as the inspired, inerrant and infallible words of the living God and the Standard by which all others are measured.


James White is another inconsistent Bible Agnostic who criticizes The “book of the LORD” (Isaiah 34:16 - and Yes, I am equating the book of the Lord to the King James Bible!). In his book, The King James Only Controversy, on page 64 he also critices the reading found in the King James Bible in Revelation 17:8, and yet this same James White in this same book recommends by name only three modern versions as being “reliable” - the NASB, NIV and the NKJV. Yet the NKJV reads exactly like the KJB he just criticized in Revelation 17:8! These Bible critics are nothing if not consistently inconsistent.

Let’s now look more closely at the history and the evidence for the reading found in Revelation 17:8. Mr. Combs tells us that NO Greek manuscript reads like the King James Bible. However the reading “and yet is” is found in several compiled Greek texts, including those of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and Scrivenir.

It is also found in the famous Sinaiticus Greek manuscript itself. The Sinaitucus manuscript has actually had three different readings. The first Sinaiticus reading apparently was "and AGAIN shall be", but then another scribe changed this to the absurd "and again YOU ARE" and finally another scribe changed it again to finally read "and IS", which essentially agrees with the KJB reading of "and yet is".

There is a 1918 version called The New Testament Translation from the Sinaitic Manuscript, done by Henry Anderson. It clearly says: “when they see the beast that was, and is not, THOUGH HE IS YET PRESENT.” You can see this translation online here:http://www.lookhigher.net/englishbib...ion/17.html#v7

In his book When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text, brother Jack Moorman points out that not only does the Sinaiticus third reading give the same sense as that found in the TR, but so also do the Greek readings found in manuscripts 2049, 1854, 2014, 2034 plus 31 other Andreas type manuscripts.

Mr. Moorman points out: "Keep in mind that the context of the reading is the future tribulation, not John's day. It strains the sense to be looking at something that "will come". NASB - "Those who dwell on the earth will wonder...when they see the beast, that he was and is not and will come." When the world looks at him, he IS, not "shall be".

Doctors Hodges and Farstad, who put together the so called “Majority” Text, also note on page 777 of their book that there are also several Greek manuscripts that read “and IS” - parestin, the present tense of the verb parestai, instead of the future tense of this verb “and shall be” which is followed by many of the every changing modern versions. This combined evidence shows that when the learned Dr. Combs stated in no uncertain terms that “NO Greek manuscript” reads as does the KJB, and that “ALL read ‘and shall be’” he was lying.


There is a great deal of confusion found in the existing texts of Revelation 17:8 regarding the various readings of “and yet is” or “and is” or “and shall be” or simply omitting the phrase altogether. The Latin Vulgate of 380 and 420 A.D. simply omit the phrase, and so do Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale and the Catholic Douay-Rheims.

The 1841 English Hexapla shows the Greek text of Scholz, and the Six English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva Bible, the Douay-Rheims and the Authorized 1611. Scholz’s Greek text is basically the Westcott-Hort text which omits literally thousands of words from the Textus Receptus Greek text that underlies the King James Bible.

However he does footnote the various readings from the Received Text, and he shows clearly that the reading of the Received text in Revelation 17:8 is kaiper estin = “and yet is”, which is the one followed by the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible, the King James Bible and many other translations as we shall soon see.

http://bible.zoxt.net/hex/_1309.htm Shows in a footnote that the Received Text reading or Revelation 17:8 is “and yet is” kaiper estin.

Earlier versions like Wycliffe 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539 and the Douay-Rheims of 1582 followed yet different texts and just omit the phrase in question. These four versions read: “when they behold the beast that was, and is not.” (nothing about “any yet is” nor the Critical texts “and shall be”.)


Sinaiticus original read “and again shall be”, but Sinaiticus correction says “and is”. Vaticanus omits all of Revelation, so it is of no help in determining the correct reading.

Modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV have chosen to follow the codex Alexandrinus manuscript here, but often reject other readings of codex Alexandrinus in the same book of the Revelation. These modern version editors are not in the least bit concerned with what the so called “Majority” texts read because they simply reject outright hundreds of readings found in these majority texts. If they accuse the King James Bible believer of accepting the occassional “minority reading” as being legitimate then they are guilty of being blatant hypocrites. For every one minority reading found in the King James Bible there are at least 20 of them in versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman, NET, etc.

The versions translated from the Syriac are also in disagreement, even with each other. Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Aramaic reads: "the beast that was, and is, and NOW WHOSE END HAS COME", while Murdoch's translation reads: "the beast that was, and IS NOT AND APPROACHETH."


The reading of "the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS" is found in the Bishops' Bible of 1568, the Geneva Bibles from 1557 to 1602, the King James Bible, the NKJV 1982, Young's ‘literal’, the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version, the 1993 Word of Jah version (translated by Jewish Christians), Green's Modern KJV 2000, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Martin Luther’s German bible of 1545, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 and the 2005 Reina Valera Gomez translation - “se maravillarán cuando vean la bestia, que era y no es, AUNQUE ES”. Other foreign language bibles that also say “the beast that was, and is not, and yet is” are the Italian Diodati of 1649 and the New Diodati of 1991, the French Martin of 1744 and the French Ostervald of 1996. Again, it is the reading found in the printed Greek texts of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever and Scrivenir.

You can either choose to believe “the scholars” who constantly disagree with each other about what should be in “The Bible” or not, or you can choose to believe that the sovereign God of the universe has indeed been faithful to preserve His inspired words through history and that there really does exist a Bible on this earth that IS the complete, inspired, infallible and 100% true words of the living God. All the evidence - internal, historical and spiritual - points to this one Book and one Standard of absolute final written authority as being the only true Holy Bible by which all others are to be measured - the King James Holy Bible.

“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail...” Isaiah 34:16

Will Kinney

[PaulB]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us – they are a source of inspiration.

You made a very good point by highlighting the fact that these people always aim their scorn at the KJB. It is as if the very thought that the English speaking world could possibly possess the very words of God is the most absurd claim that anyone could ever profess.

In the worldly sense it always seems to be the minority groups that are protected more than the norm. Yet when it comes down to the Bible version issue, it is always the one that stands alone by itself that has to be rejected as worthless, erroneous and without any place in today’s church.

I think that in my 20 years as a believer I have heard the KJB come under more attack, opposition and ridicule than I have over any other piece of religious literature including the New world translation, the book of Mormon or the Koran!

It’s like you said Will, it is a spiritual attack (the usual old lie “make one wise”) is the very path that many of these Bible critics have taken, and in doing so they now no longer know what God has said any longer. Everyone that seems to come out of the woods claiming “the reading ought to be….” Don’t seem to hold that conviction when they are asked to produce the Bible translation that Christendom has awaited since the apostles. They only seem to be sure of one thing and that is (i.e. the failings of the KJB). They could write volumes of books telling us how bad a translation it is and yet they never present us with the infallible translation that they all seem to get their confident assertions from.

Do you think that they are afraid of criticising satan’s versions in this way because they may knock the sales of them down and thus be forced to face lawsuits – or is it just a plain old hatred of the sacred text that drives them in this direction?

I know that satan hates the very sword that wounds him and it seems that he is using the church to get it as far away from his midst as possible. It has almost become a seminary curriculum to deface the sacred text of the KJB these days – are they presenting awards for the best possible attack or something?

The good old conviction of the preserved sacred text of Scripture has almost totally been replaced with the puffed up proclamation (on many a church’s statement of faith) that better scholarship has left them clueless!

It is almost as if their only conviction is that the KJB is not what it claims to be – and like you said Will, they never apply the same rule to the modern versions that contain the same wording!

God bless

PaulB

[Will Kinney]

Hi brother Paul. Excellent feed back. You ask a lot of rhetorical questions with the answers implied and I totally agree with what you are saying.

Today's Christians are having their "bibles" disappear right before their eyes. God said He would send a famine of hearing the words of God. What better way to do this than to pile differing versions upon versions where today hardly anybody knows what "the bible" says anymore and they believe less and less what they do say.

It's the old divide and conquer tactics of Satan's warfare, but it is all ultimately under the sovereign control of the God of the universe. Nothing takes Him by surprise. The growing unbelief and falling away from the faith doesn't shock nor worry Him in the least. He told us beforehand that it would happen.

We can just rejoice in His grace of giving us the faith to believe The Book and trust Him for what lies ahead.

Accepted in the Beloved,

Will K

Originally Posted by PaulB

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us – they are a source of inspiration.

You made a very good point by highlighting the fact that these people always aim their scorn at the KJB. It is as if the very thought that the English speaking world could possibly possess the very words of God is the most absurd claim that anyone could ever profess.

In the worldly sense it always seems to be the minority groups that are protected more than the norm. Yet when it comes down to the Bible version issue, it is always the one that stands alone by itself that has to be rejected as worthless, erroneous and without any place in today’s church.

I think that in my 20 years as a believer I have heard the KJB come under more attack, opposition and ridicule than I have over any other piece of religious literature including the New world translation, the book of Mormon or the Koran!

It’s like you said Will, it is a spiritual attack (the usual old lie “make one wise”) is the very path that many of these Bible critics have taken, and in doing so they now no longer know what God has said any longer. Everyone that seems to come out of the woods claiming “the reading ought to be….” Don’t seem to hold that conviction when they are asked to produce the Bible translation that Christendom has awaited since the apostles. They only seem to be sure of one thing and that is (i.e. the failings of the KJB). They could write volumes of books telling us how bad a translation it is and yet they never present us with the infallible translation that they all seem to get their confident assertions from.

Do you think that they are afraid of criticising satan’s versions in this way because they may knock the sales of them down and thus be forced to face lawsuits – or is it just a plain old hatred of the sacred text that drives them in this direction?

I know that satan hates the very sword that wounds him and it seems that he is using the church to get it as far away from his midst as possible. It has almost become a seminary curriculum to deface the sacred text of the KJB these days – are they presenting awards for the best possible attack or something?

The good old conviction of the preserved sacred text of Scripture has almost totally been replaced with the puffed up proclamation (on many a church’s statement of faith) that better scholarship has left them clueless!

It is almost as if their only conviction is that the KJB is not what it claims to be – and like you said Will, they never apply the same rule to the modern versions that contain the same wording!

God bless

PaulB

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

... Here is where the good Doctor Combs goes completely over the edge of reason and flat out LIES to us. It is NOT true that NO Greek manuscript reads as does the King James Bible, and that ALL have “and shall come”. Neither is it an “undisputable error in the KJV.” ...

This combined evidence shows that when the learned Dr. Combs stated in no uncertain terms that “NO Greek manuscript” reads as does the KJB, and that “ALL read ‘and shall be’” he was lying. ...

Are you are forcing literalness and not being the least bit charitable? Do you really KNOW that it was Dr. Combs' intention to decieve? Or could he have been simply mistaken, using hyperbole, or something else? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to be sure? Can you not just stick to the facts? It'll make your posts much shorter.

Betcha wouldn't like the same treatment. [One would have to be omniscient or VERY resourceful to make absolute statements like these: "All King James Bible critics ..."; and "Not one of them ..."; "Notice how all these ...". Wow, you personally know ALL the critics! Exactly how many are there?]

Here is what seems to be an example of you uncharitably projecting your own bias onto what was actually a quite neutral statement --

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

... Notice how he tries to slam and vilify Erasmus as a “Catholic” scholar. Erasmus had strongly criticized many beliefs and practices of the Catholic church of his day and he died with his Protestant friends around him. One might just as accurately describe Martin Luther as “a Catholic monk” when in 1517 he nailed his now famous 99 Theses to that church door.

Mr. Combs berates Erasmus, and yet notes in passing that it was Theodore Beza’s Greek text produced some 82 years later that, in the main, the King James Bible translators used - not that of Erasmus. Helloooo? Is there a disconnect here? ...

All of that comes out of Mr. Combs' single benign factual statement about Erasmus: "Its origins go back to the various editions produced by the Roman Catholic scholar Erasmus beginning in 1516." I don't believe you could get one person out of a 100 objective readers to claim that Mr. Combs slammed or berated Erasmus in the quote you provided.

No, there isn't a "disconnect" here. The paragraph cited was about how the KJV's New Testament translators used the Greek text commonly called the Textus Receptus. It began by explaining the "origins" of the TR (with Erasmus) and concluded with Beza. You know it dimishes your credibility to imply a problem where one does not exist. Being deliberately misleading is dishonest.

Drop the hate. Please stop wasting our time.

[Will Kinney]

[QUOTE=Critical Thinking;23293]Are you are forcing literalness and not being the least bit charitable? Do you really KNOW that it was Dr. Combs' intention to decieve? Or could he have been simply mistaken, using hyperbole, or something else? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to be sure? Can you not just stick to the facts? It'll make your posts much shorter.


Hi CT. I notice you avoided my last question to you about the KJB versus the other versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. Now, you wouldn't be trying fool us into thinking your are actually a Bible believer, would you?

As for your displeasure at calling Mr. Combs a liar, here are some facts about him from his own site. "Dr. William W. Combs has been teaching at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1983. He is currently Professor of New Testament and Chairman of the New Testament department. Dr. Combs also serves as the seminary's Academic Dean. Previously, he was the seminary's Registrar. He graduated from Tennessee Temple University with his B.A. degree and from Temple Baptist Theological Seminary with his M.Div. and Th.M. degrees. His Th.D. degree is from Grace Theological Seminary in the field of New Testament Text and Interpretation. Before coming to DBTS, Dr. Combs taught at Tennessee Temple University for four years. "

Now for a man like this who touts himself as an expert in the New Testament to come out and say that NO Greek texts read like the KJB and that ALL read "and shall be", then the guy is either a liar or he is an idiot and has no business at all teaching in a nursery sunday school class, much less at some seminary.

HE IS WRONG, and so are you, as I will gladly point out in your other post.

Will K

[tonybones2112]

[QUOTE=Will Kinney;23311]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Are you are forcing literalness and not being the least bit charitable? Do you really KNOW that it was Dr. Combs' intention to decieve? Or could he have been simply mistaken, using hyperbole, or something else? Wouldn't you have to be omniscient to be sure? Can you not just stick to the facts? It'll make your posts much shorter.



Hi CT. I notice you avoided my last question to you about the KJB versus the other versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. Now, you wouldn't be trying fool us into thinking your are actually a Bible believer, would you?

As for your displeasure at calling Mr. Combs a liar, here are some facts about him from his own site. "Dr. William W. Combs has been teaching at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary since 1983. He is currently Professor of New Testament and Chairman of the New Testament department. Dr. Combs also serves as the seminary's Academic Dean. Previously, he was the seminary's Registrar. He graduated from Tennessee Temple University with his B.A. degree and from Temple Baptist Theological Seminary with his M.Div. and Th.M. degrees. His Th.D. degree is from Grace Theological Seminary in the field of New Testament Text and Interpretation. Before coming to DBTS, Dr. Combs taught at Tennessee Temple University for four years. "

Now for a man like this who touts himself as an expert in the New Testament to come out and say that NO Greek texts read like the KJB and that ALL read "and shall be", then the guy is either a liar or he is an idiot and has no business at all teaching in a nursery sunday school class, much less at some seminary.

HE IS WRONG, and so are you, as I will gladly point out in your other post.

Will K

Loyola bless us! To say Will Kenney has "hate" is the worst form of lying , unlearned exaggeration and hyperbole that would strike the members of FFF dumb. You "critical thinkers" don't know what "hate" is till you've dealt with me, my Jesuit friend.

As usual Will, the Original Manuscript Fraud ignores the real test: internal evidence and the cross-reference method of doctrinal study as found in Hosea 12:10 and Isaiah 28:9-13. The whole purpose in changing the readings and wording of the KJV is to lose the cross references that teach us doctrine.

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
Re 17:11 And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

John wrote as a prophecy, looking ahead, and said the Beast "was"(once alive prior to this writing), "is not"(dead at the time of this writing, and "shall" acsend and "is"(returns during the Tribulation). Paul gives the first hint as to his identity, Christ praying for the apostles in John 17 nails him down::

2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;

Joh 17:12 While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.

Thus Paul and Jesus Christ name the Anti-Christ as being Judas Iscariot:

Joh 6:70 Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil?

Peter fills us in a little more:

Acts 1:13 And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas the brother of James.
14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
15 And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,)
16 Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.
17 For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.
18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.
19 And it was known unto all the dwellers at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.
20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.
21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,
22 Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.
23 And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.
24 And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen,
25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.

We return to the contested passage for anothe hint:

Re 17:8 The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

So Judas is identified as being "yet is". His body is dead and his soul is in a "bottomless pit", a pit that is spherical and has no "bottom" because a sphere has no sides, such as the Scriptural location of hell, the center of the Earth.

We return to Paul for some further clues:

II Thes. 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Further clues are found in Ezekiel as to Judas claiming to be "God"

Eze 28:2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God:
Eze 28:12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty.

This "prince" of Tyrus clearly has a king, who is Satan:

Eze. 28:14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.

We see so far the unholy "trinity" of the spirit of Satan, the soul of Judas Iscariot, and the body of a cardinal or bishop of the Maronite Catholic Church of Lebanon who is half Jewish and half Gentile as Judas was, stepping forward to mediate the eternal and ongoing war in the Middle East. He will be declared to be the reincarnation of Jesus Christ by the Pope(the False Prophet).

Re 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Re 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.

Zechariah tells us the nature of this wound, which is a sword wound:

Zec 11:17 Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.

The Anti-Christ is killed by a cut from a sword, his arm is raised to ward off the blow and it almost severs the arm and at the same time puts his eye out. (90 percent of the world is right-handed, he is approached from his left, the left arm would be thrown up and the right eye cut. The only sword that inflicts such a wound is a scimitar with the curved blade. Only the Muslim world uses the scimitar today in public execution/beheadings or for ceremonial/honor guards.

The Koran teaches that it is an abomination to say Allah would have a Son.
The Koran teaches that it is an abomination to say Allah would be "manifest in the flesh".

The conclusion? The Anti-Christ is killed in the Temple by one of his own ceremonial Muslim honor guards, who is an Islamic extremist. The Scripture?

Eze 28:9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee.

So "Critical Thinker", is there anything else you'd like to know? Would you like to know from the Scriptures what the "star" of Bethlehem was(an angel)? Would you like to know how the apostle Paul really died(pneumonia)? Would you like to know what Jesus wrote in the dust in John 8(Deut. 22:22)? Are there any more words in the KJV you'd like to "retranslate"? are you and a hyperfundamentalist pastor in Detroit smart enough to correct the inspired Scriptures in English?

Grace and peace, you're going to need both at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Tony

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

... I] Are there any more words in the KJV you'd like to "retranslate"? are you and a hyperfundamentalist pastor in Detroit smart enough to correct the inspired Scriptures in English?...

Please show me where I "retranslated" or "correct" the Scriptures.

You guys don't get it. I never said I disagreed with the KJB reading.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

... I notice you avoided my last question to you about the KJB versus the other versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. Now, you wouldn't be trying fool us into thinking your are actually a Bible believer, would you? ...

I was not avoiding your question. If you observe the time stamps on my posts you will notice I was writing in another thread up until I had to leave for evening church. I obliged you with one answer. I will not reward bully tactics.

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by Will Kinney
... I notice you avoided my last question to you about the KJB versus the other versions out there like the NASB, NIV, ESV, etc. Now, you wouldn't be trying fool us into thinking your are actually a Bible believer, would you? ...

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

I was not avoiding your question. If you observe the time stamps on my posts you will notice I was writing in another thread up until I had to leave for evening church. I obliged you with one answer. I will not reward bully tactics.

Hi Critical. You certainly seem to be an interesting case study in Jesuit gymnastics. I ask you a direct question and you avoid it. Then I ask it again and you come back with "I was not avoiding your question", but what do you do? You avoid it again! Simply amazing. So I will try again one more time.

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

But let this be sufficient for now: I think the KJV which exists right now is the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible!

Forgive me if I am assuming something that is not true, but as a result of discussions on many other forums and with lots of different Christians, I have often found that people cloak what they really believe by using ambiguous or unclear phrases. If you really think the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired and 100% true Holy Bible, then are you equally prepared to state the only logical alternative in regard to versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman Standard, etc? Because these multi-choice versions differ from the 100% true KJB by literally thousand of words omitted (anywhere from 17 to 45 entire verses in the N.T. alone) and often reject the Hebrew texts and have completely different meanings in hundreds of verses, are you then willing to take the stand that these other versions are NOT the complete, inspired and 100% Holy Bible?

This is not a rhetorical question. I really would like for you to give us a straight up and honest answer to it.

Thank you,

Will K

[bibleprotector]

Originally Posted by Critical Thinking

Drop the hate. Please stop wasting our time.

Mt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

If Will Kinney's work contains faults, would it not be better to improve, and to make assertions with better logic, evidence and in more eloquent manner, to produce much more, rather than to be an agent of inquisition?