The
inclusion of the name of the pagan sun goddess Easter in the King
James Version of the Bible has caused millions of unsuspecting
believers to disregard the Biblical feast of Passover, and, instead
follow the inventions of men.
There
is no justification for the use of the word Easter in the Bible
COMMON SENSE MUST NOT BE ABANDONED
IN DEFENSE OF
THE KING JAMES
TRANSLATION
The King James version of the Bible is an excellent translation.
It is based on thousands of manuscripts that
agree with each other, rather than on the corrupt manuscripts, which
are the basis of most of the modern versions of the Bible.
In
my opinion, it is the best, widely available, English version of the
scriptures. It is the
English translation that I use and that I recommend to others.
However, it is not perfect.
Few
people know that the translators of the King James version of the
Bible were working under constraints.
The translators had to agree to certain rules.
One of which was that the names used in earlier English
versions of the Bible were not to be changed.
The translation or transliteration of many proper names used
in the King James version are easily proven to be far from the
actual names of Biblical characters.
In addition, King James translators were required not to
change many disputed words. One
example is the fact that the word “church,” based on the Old
English word “cirice” (the house of a god) could not be
changed to the word “congregation” (an assembly of believers).
Because of that, many people today, when the scriptures are
speaking of “the body
of Christ” think that it is referring to a place that one goes.
There
are many well meaning people, knowing of the corruption in the
modern versions of the Bible, who insist that the King James version
of the Bible is perfect. Not
having had the opportunity to examine the all of the details
regarding the translation, they add fuel to the fire of those
attempting to discredit the King James version of the Bible.
Through the selection of isolated instances, easily proven to
have minor imperfections, those
who would like to set aside the King James attempt to make King
James advocates, who say that it is perfect, look foolish.
In many instances they have successfully done so; persuading
many that adherence to the time tested King James version is totally
unfounded.
This is
tragic.
The King
James version must be defended only to the extent that it can be
defended, not allowing others to make it’s advocates look foolish;
for it is the best widely available English version of the
scriptures that we have.
END