KJV Onlyism: A Travesty of Bible Understanding

images-5

In 2016, a family friend and I went to the church bookshop. He wanted to buy two Bibles for his children. He scanned through the Bible shelf and picked out a King James Bible. “Why? But they are still children,” I protested.

He didn’t seem to get it, he apparently felt the KJV should be the default version for everyone because of its regular usage by the church’s general overseer.

“These children won’t understand the old English of the KJV. It should be bought for adults,” I opined. “Children need a Bible that they can fluently read and understand as much as what they read in school. If the Bible is too complicated for them in their young ages, they will grow up not studying and understanding it.”

He listened on, so I selected the Contemporary English Version and gave it to him. He’s not a native English speaker, but after reading a few lines from it, he smiled in excitement saying, “Its English is so clear; it’s like the sermon of a modern European evangelist!”

We both laughed and he purchased the Bibles.

It later dawned on me that this man had hitherto not been exposed to reading any English translation except the KJV. He had been locked in the KJV from the start and this has blunted his personal study and knowledge of Scripture.

The fact is: the language of the KJV can make the Bible complicated to a modern reader.

This has to be demonstrated, not merely claimed. But before I get to this, I want to first point one of the dubious arguments that led me to into KJV Onlyism 12 years ago. Here it is:

“It is all a question of authority! If we say that God wrote only one Bible, and for us today it is the Authorized Version – 1611, King James Version, then our problem is solved. But if we say this version is nice, and that version is nice, and it is a matter of preference, then the authority becomes human opinion” (William Schnoebelen, Blood on the Doorposts, Chick Publications, 1994, p. 211).

This is a mendacious rhetoric that illustrates the cognitive dissonance of the KJO belief. Its major flaw is how the writer places Bible authority on a certain translation whereas the Bible’s authority rests on its inspiration – not its translation.

The Bible’s original languages were Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. These are the inspired and authoritative languages. English is merely one of the translations of the originals. God didn’t write the KJV, and history reveals that the roots of fundamentalism rest in the authority of the Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible, not in any English translation.

Second, the idea of God writing “only one Bible” occurs only in the bubble universe of the KJOs. They peddle their beliefs by collapsing Bible inspiration into transmission and translation. God inspired the original autographs but many copies and translations were made from them.

All through history, there have been different translations of the Bible. People who believe that only the KJV should be used, fail to recognize that men like Peter, Paul, and Jesus Himself didn’t always use the same version!

Just a few of many examples from the KJV confirm this point:

When Isaiah 53:7 is quoted in Acts, it says: “…as a sheep before her shearers is dumb” (Acts 8:32). But when we turn to Isaiah 53:7 it says, “…like a lamb dumb before his shearer.” One says her, the other says his.

When the writer of Hebrews refers to Genesis 47:31, he says that as Jacob died, he “worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff” (Heb. 11:21). But when we turn to Genesis 47:31, it says he “bowed himself upon the bed’s head.”

When Paul quoted Isaiah 28:16, he wrote: “Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed” (Rom.10:11). But when we turn to Isaiah 28:16, it says: “He that believeth shall not make haste.”

What is clear here is that New Testament writers did not always use the same version. This is beyond dispute. In these examples, they quoted from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament) whereas the Masoretic text was used for the King James translation of the Old Testament.

I have no problem with people using or loving the KJV, but I have a problem with persons insisting that we must use only the KJV if we are to be in a right standing with God, and then employ all kinds of manipulation, bullying and ad hominem to validate that sectarian position.

When a teacher disseminates wild conspiracy theories and obvious falsehoods all in a bid to bind Christians under a tradition – such as sole usage of a certain bible version – it’s cultic indoctrination and it should be thoroughly rejected.

A KJV Onlyite wrote rather facetiously:

“Readability statistics generated from Grammatik and Word for Windows show why the KJV is 5th grade reading level, while the NKJV and NASB are 6th grade, and the NIV is 8th grade reading level! … According to readability statistics generated by Pro-Scribe, the KJV is easier to read than USA Today, People Magazine and most children’s books.” (Gail RiplingerThe Language of the King James Bible, AV Publications 1998 p. 159 emphasis hers).

Below are examples in the KJV refuting her assertions:

In the KJV, it is stated that Ruth went out to glean in the fields, “ears of corn” (Ruth 2:2). A 21st century reader would have maize corn in mind, but the Hebrew word there is se’orah which means “grain” or “ears of grain.” In ancient Israel, it was popular to grow wheat and barley, but not maize corn (Zea mays).

Also, in Mark 2:23 we read that Jesus “went through the corn fields on the sabbath day.” The image conjured up is of Jesus walking through maize fields, but maize was wholly unknown in the Old World, including Palestine until A.D. 1492.

The Greek word there refers to “fields of grain/wheat.” In old English, the word “corn” was generally used to refer to grains, wheat or barley as well as maize. But English language has changed since then.

In the KJV, we read about a person coming into a church wearing “gay clothing” (James 2:3). The Greek word translated “gay” is lampros which (like “lamp”) simply meant bright. In old English, “gay” in this context meant bright or attractive clothing, but today it means a homosexual. A modern reader can end up with a confused interpretation of that text.

In Acts 28:13, Paul and others were on a ship, when the KJV says “they fetched a compass.” Reading this, you would think they used an instrument with a little needle pointing to the cardinal points. But what we call a “compass” had not even been invented at that time! This expression simply meant to circle  around (see Josh. 6:4; 2 Sam. 5:23).

In the KJV we read: “…thou knowest all the travel that has befallen us” (Num. 20:14; cf. Lam. 3:5). The “travel” in the text was an old English word which meant travail or hardship. We use the word differently today.

In the KJV, we read: “Be strong, and quit yourselves like men” (1 Sam. 4:9). An almost identical wording is found in Paul’s admonition of the Corinthian Church: “Stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1Cor. 16:13). The word “quit,” as used here, is obsolete. In modern English we would say: “Conduct yourselves like men” or “be brave like men.”

The Song of Solomon 2:11, 12 in the KJV reads: “The winter is past, the rain is over and done; the flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land.”

Reading this text, one would immediately think of a turtle, a slow-moving reptile with a hard shell. But how does it have a voice, you’d wonder. In the age of the KJV translation, the word turtle meant a turtledove which is known to make a soft purring sound.

In the KJV, we read: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit…” (Col. 2:8). The word “spoil” here evokes images of decay and putrefaction, but the underlying Greek word means “to plunder” or “take as plunder.” To a 17th century English reader, “spoil” or “despoil” conveys that meaning, but not in the 21st century.

In the KJV we read that a delegation of Jewish leaders was sent to prophetess Hulda, who lived “in Jerusalem in the college” (2 Kgs. 22:14). In Elizabethan English, the word college had a different meaning than today.

The Hebrew word so translated means second. That’s why newer versions, including the NKJV, translated it “second quarter” or “second district” of Jerusalem. A modern reader who reads the KJV text would think Hulda was living in a college dorm!

1 Cor. 16:15 “they have addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.” The word “addicted” is now used with negative connotation, like someone addicted to nicotine or drugs. Modern translations have correctly rendered the text as, “devoted themselves” to the ministry of the saints.

In 1 Thess. 4:15 Paul says “by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” In 1611, the word “prevent” doesn’t mean what we today mean by that word, namely, “to stop or hinder.”

That word as used back then meant “to precede” and the reader in 1611 wouldn’t have stumbled over its meaning, but a contemporary reader would stumble. A modern rendering would be, “we who are still alive, who are left till the coming of the Lord, will certainly not precede those who have fallen asleep” (NIV).

Similarly, Psalm 119:147 says “I prevented the dawning of the morning.” In today’s English, the word “prevent” means “precede.” The Psalmist was simply saying he rose before dawn!

Paul wrote, “For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: He who now letteth will let…” (2 Thess. 2:7). When the KJV was translated, “let” meant to hinder as Paul told the Romans, he had intended to come to them “but was let hitherto” (Rom. 1:13). He was hindered in coming to them. But today, the word “let” is used in an opposite sense. It implies allowing a person to do a thing, not hindering him from it!

In the KJV, we read that when Paul came to Jerusalem “he assayed to join himself to the apostles” (Acts 9:26). The word “assay” in modern English means substances being tested in the lab, but here it means Paul attempted to join the apostles.

Rom. 1:28 “…God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.

Some ungodly things people do are actually convenient. In 14th century English, “convenient” was used to refer to what is proper and appropriate. So the text is referring to things that are indecent.

How does a contemporary reader without the Greek text, a foreign version or a modern translation understand 2 Cor. 6:11-13?

“O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense (I speak as unto my children), be ye also enlarged.”

Now compare this with the NIV:

“We have spoken freely to you, O Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts. We are not withholding our affections from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange–I speak as to my children–open wide your hearts also.”

In the light of these examples, no one with a modicum of fairness and honesty would argue that the language of the KJV is clearer than USA Today, People Magazine and most children’s books.

Obsolete Words

Isa. 8:21, “And they shall pass through it, hardly bestead and hungry.” Today we would say hard-pressed or greatly distressed.

Isa. 14:23 “…I will sweep it with the besom of destruction.” We now call it broom.

1 Cor. 12:13 “but by the Holy Ghost.” Due to different translation companies, there were inconsistencies in the KJV renderings of the Hebrew word “ruach” and Greek word “pneuma” in reference to the Holy Spirit. Some resorted to the old English use of “ghost” for all spirits. (Same for “Sodoma” in Rom. 9:29 instead of “Sodom”).

John 2:6 “…after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece.” Today we would say three gallons.

Isa. 3:22 “The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins.” In today’s expressions, the items listed are fine robes, capes, cloaks and purses!

Gen. 8:1 after the flood “the waters assuaged.” In modern expression, we would say, “the waters subsided.”

Isa. 19:8 “all they that cast angle into the brooks.” Now we call them “hooks” instead of angles.

Job 41:18 “By his neesings a light doth shine.” This is an obsolete word that puzzles a contemporary reader. The right word is sneezing.

Jer. 4:22 “For my people is foolish … they are sottish children.” Now we say stupid or senseless children.

There’s no child in the 5th grade or primary school that would have a grasp of the KJV than the NIV.

Grammatical inaccuracies

English, like most other languages, has evolved over a period of 400 years, therefore, many words in the KJV that were grammatically correct in 1611, are now awkward and flat out wrong today:

Phil. 1:23 “betwist” [between]
1 Thess. 1:8 “God-ward” [toward God]
Matt. 25:44 “athirst” [thirsty]
John 21:3 “I go a fishing” [I am going fishing]
Matt. 25:35 “for I was an hungred” [for I was hungry]
Gen.26:31 “betimes” [early]
Ruth 4:4 “to advertise thee” [to advise you]
James 1:25 “whoso” [whosoever]
1Cor. 7:28 “but and if thou marry” [but if you marry]
Matt. 13:21 “dureth” [endure].

Embarrassing/Vulgar words

The socio-cultural expression of 17th century England is not the same as today. There are some words that were acceptable back then that would be outright rude, embarrassing and even vulgar by modern standards. Here are some examples:

1 Kings 21:21 “him that pisseth against the wall.” Instead of using such an embarrassing description, newer translations use an euphemistic term: “male.”

Song of Solomon 5:4 “My beloved put in his hand by the hole of the door, and my bowels were moved for him.”

An American lady once quoted this in a forum some years ago and wrote, “See, there’s fisting (a sexually perverse act) in the Bible.” If she had read this verse in any newer version, she would have been cleared of her ignorance that bowels was used of the heart in old English.

Gen. 12:16 “and he asses … and she asses.” If you read this out to a teenage or youth group, it will be met with snickers due to the urban usage of “asses.” Newer translations render it as male and female donkeys.

Hebrew 12:8 “then are ye bastards…” This is a strong word. So for proper decorum, “illegitimate” is used in modern translations.

2 Peter 2:16 “the dumb ass speaking with man’s voice.” This is also a strong word which for the avoidance of unnecessary distraction is now rendered as “mute donkey.”

Scholars in linguistics and philosophy of language would agree that language has the dual roles of communication and representation. It is a receptacle of human thoughts and the medium through which we give expression to our subjectivities.

Thus, the central purpose for having a Bible translation is to convey the meaning of words (in the Hebrew and Greek originals) to people in such a way that they can understand it as clear as tomorrow’s newspaper.

The KJV may have served this purpose over 400 years ago, but by modern English and translational standards, it can at best, puzzle and at worst, mislead many a reader.

The rigid insistence that Christians must stick to a less clear, obsolete and rather complex translation – which is difficult for common people to grasp – is similar to the dogma of Rome that made the Latin Vulgate the only “authorized text” in Europe, leading to the dark ages of ignorance and deception.

The Word of God is meant to be lucid even to a child, otherwise it would be a travesty of the Gospel that is being preached from it which should give light to everyone.

New Age Bible Versions?

download

“KJV Onlyism” is a relatively new movement among Christians. It affirms that the King James bible version of 1611 is the only inspired, true and perfect Bible in the world today.

Thus, they reject the NIV, NLT, RSV, NASB, and all other modern Bible translations (even the NKJV) because they were allegedly drawn from “corrupted” Egyptian manuscripts.

As a former KJV onlyite who used to view fellow Christians using modern Bible versions as “apostates”, it was the ill-logic, fanaticism and intellectual dishonesty that mare this position that ultimately led me out of it.

In the early 90’s, a KJV-only theory came up that all Bible versions except the KJV were textually laced with New Age ideas by two scholars – Fenton Hort and Brooke Westcott.

This idea came from a woman named Gail Riplinger, through her book, New Age Bible Versions (published in 1993). Her theories are still adhered to by a number of King James onlyites.

Although I can’t endorse some very flawed Bible translations (e.g. New World Translation, the Clear Word bible etc.) and I have some reservations toward liberal paraphrases like the Message bible, I consider it destructive for a Christian to regard all English Bible versions except the KJV as “the devil’s bibles.”

Riplinger claims that the purpose of her book is to prove that there is “an alliance between the new versions of the Bible (NIV, NASB, Living Bible and others) and the chief conspirators in the New Age Movement’s push for a One World Religion” (p. 1).

This statement indicates that her approach wasn’t objective, because she had already decided on her conclusion. The book is actually based on a conspiracy theory – an attempt to find New Age philosophies behind every bush and shadow.

Most of what she did in the book was to collect New Age concepts, teachings and strategies and impose them upon modern Bible translations, while at the same time rationalizing away the KJV’s similar vulnerability.

Anyone who knows about New Age spirituality will find the claim of the New Age movement forming an alliance with Bible translators to create a one world religion to be quite outlandish and in fact, a leap in the dark.

For one, the New Age movement doesn’t see (or use) the Bible as their final authority. The conspiracy theory appended to them by KJVOs appears to be a convenient rationale to evade the scholarly reasons for the differences between the KJV and modern English translations.

There are other problems with Riplinger’s book:

I. On page 2 she quotes Edwin Palmer, an editor of the NIV, who said: “[F]ew clear and decisive texts say that Jesus is God.”

There is nothing “New Age” about this statement, it’s a fact. No matter which Bible version you use, there are fewer than 10 places in the New Testament that explicitly say that Jesus is God, though hundreds more verses implicitly reinforce this basic truth.

2. On page 318 she said: “Real references to Jesus as ‘the Christ’ are rare; however the NKJV and new versions literally paint their pages with this pawn.” (p. 318)

The term ‘the Christ’ doesn’t imply a New Age connection. In 1 John 2:22, the KJV has the word ‘the Christ,’ does this also makes it New Age?

The word ‘the Christ’ occurs in the KJV 19 times and 3 times in the New Revised Standard Version, so using Riplinger’s weird logic, then the KJV would be more New Age than the NRSV.

‘The Christ’ occurs in these passages because in Greek, the word (Cristov) has a definite article (“the”). The only exception is 2 Cor. 13:3 which many modern translations didn’t render as ‘the Christ.’

3. The NIV for instance, is accused of removing up to 64,000 words from the Bible. Actually, no words are “removed.” The problem is that KJV onlyists are using the KJV as the standard by which all other Bible versions are to be judged. But the KJV is not the standard and cannot be the standard.

There were several English translations of the Bible – Wycliffe Bible, Tyndale Bible, Geneva Bible, The Bishop’s Bible – before the KJV of 1611. So why not choose one of these as the “standard”?

The Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts should be the real standard of determining if words were or weren’t added to the text, not a 17th century English translation.

One can as well use the NIV as the standard and say “The KJV has 64,000 words added to the Bible.” Is that reasonable?

To an unbiased mind, the areas of differences between both translations are minimal and do not affect any doctrine. There is no “conspiracy” on the part of newer versions to hide the deity of Christ or any essential doctrine.

For example, let’s compare Galatians 4:7 in the KJV and NIV.

The former has the phrase “through Christ” (though it’s not found in the more ancient manuscripts) while the latter doesn’t.

Using Riplinger’s logic, we would conclude that, “The new versions deny the centrality of Christ in salvation.” But this is untrue because in Romans 5:1, 11  and other places in the NIV, we are shown the role of “our Lord Jesus Christ” in saving us.

If the NIV or modern translations wanted to hide the role of Christ, such words wouldn’t have appeared in them at all.

On the other hand, there are places in the NIV/NASB/ASV etc.  where the Lord Jesus Christ is mentioned but the KJV curiously omits it. Jude 1:25 in the NIV reads :

“To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen.”

But the KJV says: “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.”

Romans 1:4 in the NASB reads: “who was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead, according to the Spirit of holiness, Jesus Christ our Lord,

But the KJV reads: “And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”

Using the logic of KJV onlyites, we would say: “The KJV has denied the Lordship of Christ!”

4. On page 81, she wrote: “Luke 4:34 reveals that only the devils call Jesus the ‘Holy One of God“.

This argument is banal. Jesus is called the “Holy One” in Acts 2:27 (KJV). Does this mean the KJV is New Age?

5. The NIV is attacked for replacing the word “God” with “He” in 1 Timothy 3:16. This is somewhat questionable, but the NIV does indicates “God” in its textual footnote, so I fail to see a New Age conspiracy there.

On the other hand, there are places where the NIV has the name of “Jesus” but the KJV has “he” instead e.g Matt. 4:19

NIV: “Come, follow me,”Jesus said, “and I will send you out to fish for people.” 

KJV: “And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

Again, in Acts 4:25, the KJV omitted the word “by the Holy Spirit” while modern translations did not.

NLT: “You spoke long ago by the Holy Spirit through our ancestor David, your servant, saying,‘Why were the nations so angry? Why did they waste their time with futile plans?”

KJV: “Who by the mouth of thy servant David hast said, Why did the heathen rage, and the people imagine vain things?”

If the case were to be in reverse, that the NIV, NLT and ESV omitted “the Holy Spirit” in one single text, we will never hear the end of it, how “mutant versions are pushing the Holy Spirit into the closet.”

But to attack modern translations at one point while ignoring the KJV when it fails on that same point is intellectual suicide, inconsistency and rank prejudice. A sound argument is always consistent.

6. It is claimed that the name Lucifer was “removed” from Isaiah 14 of modern versions (by New Age translators?) and replaced with the title “morning star” so as to make the passage refer to Jesus.

This is where the research and competence of the author should be doubted by every reasonable believer. The Hebrew word in the text is llyh which means “shinning one” or “morning star.”

The Brown Driver and Briggs Hebrew lexicon states that llyh means “shinning one, epith of king of Babylon” (“How are thou fallen, shinning one, son of dawn!” i.e. star of the morning). The Liddel and Scott Lexicon defines llyh as “bringer of the morn, morning star.”

The term “Lucifer” doesn’t appear in modern translations because it only appeared in Jerome’s Catholic Vulgate which the KJV translators used. (It was the Bible of Western Europe for more than 1000 years). Jerome translated llyh as “Lucifer” which according to Cassell Latin Dictionary means “light-bearing, light-bringing.”

The Septuagint, Targum Jonathan and the Peshitta, which are all ancient versions of the OT, do not have the word “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12.

Just because modern Bible versions do not follow Jerome’s translation doesn’t mean they are identifying Jesus with Lucifer!

7. Mark 10:21 in both KJV and NIV were compared and it was stated that “New Versions” delete the word “take up the cross” (p. 22)

The omitted word didn’t appear in the NIV because the early Greek texts (Nestle Aland) used didn’t contain it.

The word “take up the cross” occurs in all other places such as in Mark 8:34, Luke 9:23 and Matthew 16:24, referring to the same story. The command doesn’t become less important because it wasn’t contained in the same number of times as the KJV.

8. The NIV is said to be “New Age” because it deletes 13 words from 1 John 4:3, thus “denying that Jesus is the Christ.”

On comparison, the only part that seems to be missing is “Christ has come in the flesh.” Though the reason for its removal here is unknown, on a closer look, we see that the phrase actually appears in verse 2! This is it:

“This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God. Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God“.

So the NIV actually contains the very word KJV onlyists accuse it of trying to remove! New Age conspiracy? Nope.

9. The NIV and NASB rendering of Romans 1:20 was labelled New Age for not containing the term “Godhead” (p. 184)

The KJV used the term “Godhead” in Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. But the KJV translators rendered different Greek words in Rom. 1:20 and Col. 2:9 as the same English word.

In Romans 1:20, the word there is qeiothj meaning “divinity” or “divine nature” whereas in Colossians 2:9, it’s qeothj which means “deity” (the state of being God). Yet, due to ignorance misinformed individuals have been roused to slander a more accurate rendition.

10. Several tables are presented in this book comparing the KJV with modern versions.

On pg. 1, a table is titled “Do You Have a “holy bible?” It lists out 10 Bible verses in the KJV and NIV where the word “holy” wasn’t used in the latter.

In one of these 10 verses, Matt. 12:31 (KJV), the word “holy” was in italics because it wasn’t in the original text; it was supplied by the translators. Yet Riplinger found it convenient to include it as example of modern versions being “unholy.” She’s using the KJV to judge the Greek text of the NT! How preposterous.

Now, if this criteria is valid, then the NKJV meets up as a holy Bible and it shouldn’t be attacked, yet Riplinger says that the New King James Version is also of the Antichrist! (pp. 101-2). This is highly irrational.

Now, does it mean it’s a sin for the KJV to have “the book of life” in Rev. 22:19 when every Greek manuscript has the “tree of life”? What of Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 which have very slim manuscript support?

If one wants to use this same methodology, one can also make a table titled “Do you have a spooky Bible?” and list out 10 places where the KJV uses the word “ghost” instead of “Spirit”?

Or how about we compare the KJV and other English translations and point out places where the KJV uses “it” rather than “he” for the Holy Spirit (John 1:32, Romans 8:16, 26 and 1 Peter 2:11)? What will these prove? It would rather prove that no translation is perfect!

11. On pg. 2 Riplinger wrote:

The Greek text used to translate the NIV, NASB and others was an edition drastically altered by a Spiritualist (one who seeks contact with the dead through séances), who believed he was in the ‘new age‘.”

This is another rhetoric meant to poison the well. There was an end note there referring the reader to The Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, Volume II (London, 1903), p. 252 which actually says: “…the Son of Man will vindicate His sovereignty by showing that He satisfies every need and every capacity which the struggles of a new age have disclosed.”

Riplinger took this man’s words out of context in order to link all modern Bible versions with the occult – and this deceitful trend reverberates all through her book.

Several Christian scholars, including KJV defenders like David Cloud have also pointed out the many holes in this absurd “New Age bible” theory.

KJV onlyism thrives on lies and sensationalism and even worse, such falsehoods have done much spiritual damage to Christians who were saved by reading these Bible translations.

It bears the bad fruitage of divisions, fear and false accusations within the church. But I will say this: don’t let anyone destroy your faith in God’s Word with cunningly devised fables.