The Bloodline Bible
First off before I even get started I want to tell you we are King James believers of both the King James 1769, and King James 1611, but also Bibles that predate these Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva. I know a lot of people may argue against the King James 1769 but so do readers of the 1560 Geneva Bible argue against the King James 1611.
You may not see these Bibles as your desire so if you are just getting started we recommend the ESV Bible, or the New King James Bible NKJV.
(Psa 12:6-7) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
See there is a "blood line" to the King James 1611. It all started with the first complete English Bible finished in 1388 which was translated from the Latin Vulgate. Next came the Tyndale of 1525, then the Coverdale of 1535, to the Matthews of 1537 and, the Great Bible of 1539, to the 1560 Geneva, to the Bishops of 1568 and then to the King James 1611. This is the seven fold bloodline leading to the eight and perfected King James 1611. All of the translators looked to previous versions for guidance to the Bible they were working on at present. With modern Bibles, however, anything goes. There is no guidance only feelings, emotions, and commitment to change a Bible to fit any certain religion. You cannot do this for the Bible warns us:
(Pro 30:5) Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. (Pro 30:6) Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.
Here "word" in the Greek Septuagint in verse 5 is logos or often used as Jesus. You can put your trust in this word or Word as it is referring to the Bible. Here again verse 5 is Strong's H433 for God.
(The second form is rare); probably prolonged (emphatically) from H410; a deity or the deity: - God, god. See H430.
In the Latin Vulgate this word is "Dei" for God which we really don't know if the definition fits the godhead or not. Either way it is fitting that God's words are pure as God intended them to be. Verse 6 seems to be a serious warning to amplified and paraphrased Bibles. Toward the end of the Bible we see a completed warning in Revelation chapter 22.
(Rev 22:18) For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
(Rev 22:19) And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
See the authors of long ago were holy men and they were not swayed by religion though some say they were but I have to argue with them. It is like money; if you study the true dollar all the time when you see a phony you can easily catch it. If you study New Age Bibles you will not spot a lie and you can easily be swayed by a certain religion. I kept with the King James and spotted the lies in the Jehovah's Witnesses' religion and the Seventh Day Adventist and Even Bethel Church here in Redding California. Other non-denominational, and New Age churches I can spot lies in their churches as well. I easily spot lies in incorrect Bibles too. As one example your Bible is probably missing the following verse:
(Act 8:37) And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
Underlining my emphasis added. Note that for baptisms to happen on must believe on Jesus with all thy heart. Doesn't this sound important; well not one modern Bible I have looked at other than the New King James which is not a good Bible either, but at least that verse is included. If you take a look in Zechariah 3 a fair miter is placed on Joshua (It is Jesus in the 1388 Wycliffe.) in the King James. In the New King James it is a turban which is not the correct translation. In the New King James the devourer is all the same but in the King James of 1769 and 1611 (We will look at the King James Bible of 1611.) separates each devouring creature separately. [Which by the way all destroy a different part of the plant.] The New King James defines each devouring creature as the locust but by looking at a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance or Strongest Strong's you will find there are four separate devourers.
(Joe 2:25) And I will restore to you the yeeres that the locust hath eaten, the canker worme, and the caterpiller, and the palmer worme, my great armie which I sent among you.
King James 1611
(Joe 2:25) And I will restore to you the years that the locust hath eaten, the cankerworm, and the caterpiller, and the palmerworm, my great army which I sent among you.
King James 1769
Now here is where King James 1611 fans will call me out. I have received an email from Greatsite.com which by the way is connected to Bibles-online.net anyhow they pointed out some of the major differences between the KJV 1611 and the KJV 1769 which you find on bookshelves. Yes there are differences, and I don't know all of them, but on the changes I saw I don't think they were on purpose but rather a God thing. I have a certain knowledge on the Bible because I asked for it in prison, but for now I will retain these things for myself knowing in my heart what they mean. In my personal studies I study ancient Bibles including the ones I mentioned above. In addition to this I study the Erasmus 1519 New Testament and I am looking to one day buy the Gutenberg Bible when I get a better place to live that the roof won't leak and when I can make enough money to afford this Bible. I have learned to live without it so perhaps I won't need it after all but something tells me this is worth the money. I actually want to buy two of them one for me and one for my professor friend in Maine since he majored in Latin. I don't speak Latin I just have worked hard enough in the Bible I can spot word changes and translations. I also study ancient Spanish through the Spanish Bear of 1569. Again I don't speak Spanish well but I understand enough to figure out most word changes. I don't use it a lot but it is the only Spanish Bible I truly trust. I have a copy of the King James 1611, and copy of the 1560 Geneva, a copy of the 1388 Wycliffe, three Strong's Concordances, and a multitude of King James 1769 Bibles. I hope I remember that correctly that the 1769 is the King James Bible we find in stores.
In addition to this I study the Greek Septuagint, Hebrew New Testament, Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures including ancient Latin. While I am not super skilled nor do I have a lot of what it takes I have love and that is all that matters. Amen.
If you are still having problems with the King James over your modern Bible click here! While we strongly recommend the King James Bible we realize that not everyone can read it. In this case we recommend a few other sites one of which is as follows: Click here! Another site is Bible Gateway click here!