The Dawn of the Age of

Lies is coming to an end with the dawn of the information age…

Fundamentally Changed
Fundamentalists Who Are Fundamentally Changed, Yet Fundamentally The Same

The end: The King James Version is the only true Bible.


The means: Lies, rumors, and misrepresentation. Lie about the fact that the Septuagint didn’t exist before Christ by misrepresenting Old Testament scholar Paul Kahle and continuing the rumor that he said there was no Septuagint. Lie about Wescott and Hort by saying they were in the occult and misrepresenting what was actually said. Spread the rumor that Gnostics and others corrupted the manuscripts without a shred of evidence to back it up. Misrepresent the modern versions by saying they “deny” essential doctrine. Misrepresent years of unbiased history to make King James I look like a Christian hero.

Lies, lies and more lies…can we do evil that grace may abound…

What thinkest thou of lying to promote your beliefs?:slight_smile:

What thinkest St. Paul of this same question?

Someone might argue, “If my falsehood enhances God’s truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?” Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—“Let us do evil that good may result”? Their condemnation is deserved. [Romans 3:7-8]


I discover fundamentalism by the smell, miles away …
And I steer away from it not to see …

That article will probably be responsible for creating a few more thousand “Bible believing” sects. :eek:
Anyone can quote Scripture: just ask Old Nick.
Regardless: Truth will prevail. We have our Lord`s Word for it.


Why would you say that. It appears to me that the article opens the door to examining faulty beliefs.

Multiply the number of faulty beliefs mentioned in that article by the number of possible combinations of faulty beliefs and “unfaulty” beliefs, and you`ll have it. :smiley:

Hilaire Belloc, who called them “Literalists”, made this observation:

There is something very gallant about these Literalists. They never retreated, they never surrendered, they were incapable of manoeuvre, **and the few that remain will die where they stand rather than give way a foot. ** Their simplicity sometimes has a holy quality about it. [Survivals And New Arrivals]

i reckon thats still the case with a great percentage of them. KJV only, indeed! Their creeds are largely false, but theyre still CREEDS, and that`s more than can be said for the majority of Protestantism. :shrug:
Many people want set beliefs, not whatever-you-feel-like-believing.

When Anglicanism is called “a husk without a CREED” and “a theme park: pick your own rides.”, there`s something wrong with it. :eek: Ditto for the other like-“minded” ones.
So much for the spiritual descendants of the so-called “Reformation”!

The problem Protestantism has, from what I have observed, is that without any central authority they tend to end up in two extreme directions:

  1. Liberalism.
  2. Cultic.
    The KJV-onlyists pretty much have both feet in the second. The fact they don’t waver in thier abberant beliefs in immaterial, neither do the JWs.


Why are you a “beaten up” Catholic?

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Pen here weighing in. :wink:

Very interesting article.

I’ve always been a bit puzzled about the King James Bible Only position, even before being confirmed as an Anglican.

The irony of the KJV only stance is that the very fundamentalists who cling to this version may also claim that Anglicanism is “straight from the pits of Hell” as stated on a Fundamentalist website. I won’t link it, because it is also anti-Catholic. However, you can find the site if you search The Episcopal Church Exposed, or The Catholic Religion Exposed, or Lutheranism Exposed, or Church of Christ Exposed, etc.

So, if they believe Anglicanism is “straight from the pits of hell”; why would they want a King James Bible that was authorized by the Anglican Church? This doesn’t make sense.

Also, most King James Bibles, in the hands of Christians today, are not the original 1611 Version.

I think the KJVO proponents might be offended by the Introduction in the 1611 Version which begins: “To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c. . . .”

There is an interesting commentary on regarding the King James Bible. These are some of the errors noted in the early editions:

1716 edition:
John 5.14 said, “sin on more” rather than “sin no more.”

1792 edition:
Luke 22.34 said Philip denied the Lord three times instead of*** Peter***.

**1795: **
Mark 7.27 said, “Let the children first be killed” rather than “Let the children first be filled.”

1807 Oxford edition:
Heb 9.14 said, “Purge your conscience from good works” rather than “Purge your conscience from dead works."

1653 edition:
1 Cor 6.9 said, “the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

1631 edition:
(my personal favorite :wink: )
Rendered the 7th of 10 Commandment as “Thou shalt commit adultery.”

Also, the King James Bible contained the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical Books for nearly 300 years.

How long does it take God to get an “inerrant” version right?


Pen name Anna,

This is a good point that I shall reserve when I speak to the KJV only group. I don’t often however it is a good point of reference. It would make for a good mind trap.:slight_smile:

My brother and I were once Anglicans (Eric is also active on CAF).

Back in those days, he would have discussions with fundamentalists. He would ask them, “Which Bible do you use?” And they would invariably reply, “The King James Bible.”

And Eric would reply, “Ahh - King James [the Second] was an Anglican, and the “Authorized Version” was authorized by the Anglican Church. We’re glad you like our Bible.”

The King James Bible gives some protestants a sense of historical authenticity. There are actually people who will say, “if the King James Bible was good enough for Jesus, it’s good enough for me!”

The whole thing shows that cut loose from the interpreting and teaching authority of the Church, the Bible is one of the most dangerous pieces of literature ever compiled.

The fact they don’t waver in thier abberant beliefs is immaterial, neither do the JWs.

To some its a telling point, though. An uninformed outsider could consider the fact that they dont waver means that their beliefs are set in granite, rather than on constantly shifting sand which is the case for mainstream Protestantism. Actually, the shifting sand is in the form of a whirlpool - down into the Abyss! :eek:

Perversely, the mainstream Protestants believe the exact opposite of the two pillars of the “Reformation”: “Scripture alone” and “Faith alone”. They spend their time tearing Scripture apart and reducing most or all of it to myth, and say that as long as youre a nice person and do a bit of good, it doesnt matter what you believe. So much for the legacy of Luther and Calvin!:shrug:
[There are Lutherans and Calvinists who “hold firm” of course, but they`re very much a minority.]

I’ve heard that too. It doesn’t make sense.

The thing is, even we, Anglicans, know the KJV has many flaws. We use it at times in our liturgy, because of the beauty of language. Many Anglicans use the RSV and NRSV. I have both of these. My NRSV includes the Deuterocanonical Books.These are ecumenical translations that are even used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. There are Catholic versions of both.


Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

Mind trap??? Do you have others. :smiley: I’m going to have to keep a closer eye on you. :wink:

Anna (I know. pen name Anna Scott)

Coptic, Coptic, Coptic,

This age of information does help many people if they are willing to question what they hear from the pulpits.

The problem is that pastors of some of these fundamentalist groups have such a hold on their congregations. Congregants wouldn’t dare read something written by Catholics or Anglicans, etc., because they have been convinced they would be reading lies. There is a element of fear.

One of my long time friends visited me years ago, when I was doing so much study about the history of Judaism and Christianity. My friend was so upset and offended by the books I was reading.

Also, she couldn’t believe I had a Catholic Comparative New Testament. She used the King James, and didn’t believe Catholics are Christians. There is no way she would read anything by a Catholic author.

She had been very supportive of Jews returning to Israel, and sent donations to help them settle. So, I told her I had been studying Jewish history written by Jewish authors. I bought her a book called, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus. I had read the book and found it very interesting and helpful in understanding the Jewish viewpoint. My friend was so offended by this book. She read a few pages and that was the end of it. Instead of handing the book back to me, she through it away. Not sure where she disposed of it; but it ended up in the trash somewhere.

My point is that even with all the information available, some people will yield to the censure of their religious leaders.

And----there are many lies coming from pulpits. I don’t believe the means justifies the end. It is not OK to lie to promote religious beliefs.


The point I am making is that even though information is available,

Yeah, as an Anglican this was my response to certain Protestants who claimed that Anglicans were not “biblical enough”. As a side note, I’m guessing that the accusation of not being “biblical enough” was just another way of saying “too Catholic” (and we got those specific accusations as well).

I know what you mean about the beauty of the the KJV’s language. Regardless of ones religious/faith background, the KJV is universally considered one of the most beautiful examples of English language in existence. Also, when I was an Anglican, I too used both the KJV and the RSV. I primarily use the RSV these days as a Catholic, but I still keep and occasionally read the KJV. I am thankful that my Anglican upbringings made me accustomed to the wording of the KJV, because (among other reasons) it is the translation used in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

I discover fundamentalism by the smell, miles away …


When I first visited an Anglican Parish, I was shocked by the amount of Holy Scripture read during every service.

I was accustomed to Southern Baptist ministers’ building an entire sermon from a few lines of Scripture.

So, the claim of not being “biblical enough” is rather ironic. I’ve had more exposure to Holy Scripture in the Anglican Church than I ever did in the Baptist Church.

This is not meant to be a criticism, just an observation. :slight_smile:


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit