Is The King James Bible Masonic Part 3

Video Transcript:

Okay FAQ number 18. The question comes up where the King James Bible translators, were they Bible-believing Christians? And what the whole argument is here that in a King James Bible there's this thing that translators to the reader. Okay I'm gonna show it to you here and there's objections that are raised because of some of the things that are said. We're gonna look at some of this stuff. I'm not gonna look at everything in great detail but there you have this is a Cambridge University Press King James Bible the one I used typically in my preaching. The Pistil dedicatory to King James and then the translators to the reader. And you go through here and where's that one section at the one of the things that is oftentimes brought up. They have translation necessary there. Let me zoom in a little bit so you can read it better. They say now to the latter we answer that we do not deny, nay, we affirm in a vow that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession. For we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet containeth the Word of God. Nay is the Word of God. Okay now what they're saying is not that this King James Bible is mean it's bad it's terrible that's not what they're saying. Mean means just kind of common low type of just like the common people. Low and birth type of a thing if you look it up in a wanting dignity low and rank or birth. Websters 18-28 dictionary if you look that up. So no there's just the translation that was made for the common people is what they're saying and they're saying that you know we don't doubt that it's the Word of God. And of course there are other places where they say about translation we could have translated this word differently or we could have translated that word differently. These men are scholars that's the whole point. But this this argument comes that because they were not saying this is the inspired word of God we did a perfect job on this thing and everything else because of that and because some of the translators were Church of England some were Puritan they say that see they you know that the King James translators would not have been King James only. So therefore that throws off the King James Bible. No because just like this argument against a Rasmus being a Roman Catholic or King James they claim he was a Sodomite and all this stuff. See what they try to do what these new versionists try to do is they try to say these people connected with the translation of the King James Bible were not Bible believing Christians so therefore that dissonals the King James Bible being perfect and the inspired word of God. Again they need to be reminded of the fact that those men irasmus King James and the translators they didn't write this out of their own minds okay they were making a translation you say well you know translation of ancient manuscripts you say but but how do we know how can we really say for sure that their beliefs did not make it into the King James Bible well let's see a Rasmus was a kind of a Catholic scholar but his works were never accepted by Catholicism he kind of when he died he wasn't even really officially a Catholic anymore but you look at his beliefs and the beliefs of Catholicism they're condemned in this book what about King James King James Church of England and they said he was a Sodomite he wasn't a Sodomite I mean I was married had eight children I don't think he was a Sodomite you know but if he was somehow some kind of a secret Sodomite or something like this then why does this King James Bible condemn Sodomite see if he controlled the thing or something like this you know and I talked about before this thing the stupid thing of Francis Bacon you know that he had the finished text and he he edited it and changed it and things like this which again it's really stupid because there were translators of the King James Bible that later coming out and revising it and things as the English language was changing so again stupid line of reasoning but if Francis Bacon somehow changed the King James Bible then why does it condemn the New Age movement and the Masonic system and all that other stuff and what about these 54 later 47 you know translators of the King James Bible if they translated it in a way to suit their own beliefs then why does the King James Bible condemn the Church of England and the Puritan system the system of Calvinism see the King James Bible is a faithful translation and again you know this this whole of the best you know manuscripts that are out there by the way this whole argument though it all stems from this thing of the new versionist saying we'll see the King James translators were making translations and they were making a new translation of the ones that were currently available so that's all that the NIV is or the New American Standard or whatever else and what they fail to mention is the fact that no the new versions NIV and ESV ESV NLT all that junk all that stuff comes from a completely different set of Greek manuscripts that was rejected by the King James translators okay and there you know there are parts of Vaticanus and Sinne Atticus will get it right I'm not saying that 100% of them that they're corrupt in 100% of the places but that's not the point the point is they have messed up scriptures that you can clearly see they're taking verses out they're taking words out they're changing words and things like that they are Satanic corrupt copies that's the issue here the King James Bible is a is the final Bible you know in a line of Bibles that come up through using what is known today as the Texas Receptus the Greek Texas Receptus in the English language there are other translations and other languages that come from that same text type the new versions on the other hand are coming from the Alexandrian all the hundreds of new versions that are out there anything after 1881 in the English language they're all coming from this corrupted text so to try and say that the King James is a new version in its day and so let's not be against the new versions in our day no no no because the new versions are from different if it's from a different Greek text less than 1% of the extent Greek manuscripts so you know this is again another stupid argument against the King James Bible the King James translators did not have to be Bible-believing Christians okay you look at the work that was done you look at what the Bible says compare it with the new versions compare look at the fruit of the new versions look at the fruit of the King James Bible again I can testify 25 years of my life I used a new version new versions new American standard and IV and only just for last I'm gonna be 40 years old here this year so you know not even 15 years yet I've been using a King James Bible my whole life changed and I became saved I got saved when I started to use this book okay why because I was in a false system a very false wicked system that never really preached the true gospel to me that never really told me that I was a sinner and that I was going to hell and then I needed to to come to the Lord in a repentant state okay they didn't tell me that and that new version if I had a state with that I'd end it up in hell so don't fall for the argument that people trying to use the what the translator to the reader thing trying to use that to attack the Bible-believing position it doesn't hold any water