DISCUSSING THE IMPORTANCE OF CORRECT PRONOUNS IN THE BIBLE (Among other things)
John Doer discusses pronouns in the 1611 AKJB and changes to many pronouns in modern Bibles. Many of those changes affect doctrine and meaning. He lays out the background of Bible translations from the Confessors through the Reformation and to the present.
Comments (4)
AMEN! So very vital and so many are caught in the Varican's corrupt web of deception, failing God's test!
Seemingly minor changes often change meaning, in some cases, radically.
Matthew 13:24-30 . . . ...................................................................................... "24Another parable put he forth vnto them, saying; The kingdome of heauen is likened vnto a man which sowed good seed [1611 KING JAMES] in his field: 25But while men slept [SYNCRETIC PROTESTANT CHURCH LEADERS], his enemy [ROMAN CHURCH/JESUITS] came & sowed tares [PURPOSELY DECEPTIVE WORD AND GRAMMATICAL CHANGES] among the wheat, and went his way. 26But when the blade was sprung vp, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also [ANITCHRIST WORSHIP, FUTURISM/RAPTURE, PRETERISM, PROSPERITY DOCTRINE, EUCHARIST WORSHIP, OTHER PAGAN RITUALISM, ETC.] 27So the seruants of the housholder came, and said vnto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seede in thy field? from whence then hath it tares? 28He said vnto them, An enemy hath done this. The seruants said vnto him, Wilt thou then that we goe and gather them vp? 29But he said, Nay: lest while yee gather vp the tares, ye root vp also the wheat with them. 30Let both grow together vntil the haruest [CHRIST'S RETURN]: and in the time of haruest, I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and binde them in bundels to burne them: but gather the wheat into my barne." .................................................................................................................... I share John's hope and I think it's true that some will be saved from corrupted bibles/churches, but they are surrounded by tares that threaten to destroy them. I have many friends that are entangled with the tares that I hope eventually are gathered to the barn. I walk a fine line discussing true biblical doctrine with them trying to maintain a constructive dialogue while defending the true interpretation of the Word in the Auth 1611 KJV. As John says, these folks have a "spirit of slumber" and don't want to work through the older English to gain the full truth.
An additional observation here . . . John alludes to the life and reign of Oliver Cromwell, by whose authority Charles was executed and who is a compelling historical figure to me. Cromwell is one of the few world leaders of any positive spiritual significance in my view. Cromwell did not want to execute Charles, but only did so after uncovering Charles' ongoing treason and refusal to relent to Parlaiment. Initially, Cromwell was fed up with England and sought to leave for the New World in North America. But he stayed and tried to reform the secular government of England on a Biblical foundation which he did with great popular support and success (at least for a while.) Like King David, he was not without his personal failings and sin, but I am convinced he tried to do God's will. Many men like him left England and set up sound government in America PRIOR to the creation of the United States. It has caused me to question the narrative of the creation of the "United States" (led by Deists and Freemasons and funded by Jesuits like the Carrolls-see "Rulers of Evil" by Saussy) and whether it improved in any way on the pre-existing local Protestant governments and cultures. Specifically, the notion of the "free exercise of religion", established by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, has been the Trojan Horse by which the Church of Rome gained a foothold and has ruthlessly built its dominance of political power in the US. Certainly, the Roman church itself has never tolerated the "free exercise of religion", and has sought to destroy such exercise by its continuing Inquisition. In Roman Catholic dogma, "freedom of religion" means that an individual is "free" to practice Roman Catholicism, i.e. the only religion Rome tolerates, or they are "free" to roam the earth a heretic and legally persecuted to the point of death (see Luther's trial at Wittenberg). Convert or die. I wonder if this has been the secret definition of this First Amendment concept from its inception and will be the eventual definition Rome seeks openly in the US.