Does it matter which translation of the Bible you read? I mean, surely picking the "easiest to read" version is okay, right? Again, in today's world, we have to be VERY careful about what information we subject ourselves to. All throughout the Middle Ages and the Dark Ages, the Papacy has continuously sought to destroy the pure undefiled Word of God. They knew that if people kept reading the true unaltered scriptures, the people would eventually be led by the Holy Spirit to clearly identifying the Papal system as the Antichrist.
You will hear many scoffers today try to insist that the scriptures of today are all completely corrupt, that it doesn't matter which translation you pick - "Just pick the easiest one to understand and you'll be fine."
Even though the Original Text writings are no longer preserved today, the early Christians shortly after Christ made sure that they preserved and copied the pure writings while avoiding errors.
Over the course of an additional century of time, two different perspectives began emerging:
The Western Stream coming out of Alexandria and Rome, which incorporated many intentional and careless errors.
The Eastern Stream coming out of Syria and Constantinople, which kept fully accurate with the original teachings and writings of the apostles.
In the 4th Century, Eusebius of Caesarea, who was a follower of Origen, was commissioned by Emperor Constantine in 331 AD to begin copying 50 copies of the New Testament, otherwise known as "The 50 Bibles of Constantine." Of course, Eusebius chose to ignore the accurate Eastern manuscripts and kept to the grossly corrupted Western manuscripts to create these 50 copies.
Most scholars say that 2 of Eusebius' Western stream-influenced copies, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus, came about as 2 of his 50 copies for Constantine.
Remember: The true early Christians trained by the apostles completely rejected these false imposter manuscripts, which forced them to be hidden in secret places, later to be dug up and introduced as "ancient" artifacts and manuscripts. Does a manuscript being "ancient" automatically make it accurate? We have to be very cautious when we hear of recent archeological discoveries uncovering "ancient Biblical" script, which we have seen cases of in the last few years.
Even though many scribes tried to correct the many mistakes of the Western manuscripts, they were not able to get them even close to the pristine accuracy of the Eastern manuscripts. Jerome, a Roman Catholic priest, still used the faulty Western manuscripts to serve as the foundation for the Latin Vulgate, which became the official Scripture of the Roman Catholic Church. Conveniently, the Catholic Church erroneously declared the Latin Vulgate to be completely "free of any type of error" in the 16th Century at the Council of Trent.
This Council of Trent was convened in 1545 by the Papacy for the very means of finding a great way to stop the progression of Protestantism.
The Catholic Church would have loved nothing more than to use brute force to openly destroy every single true Bible as they had been doing beforehand. However, their iron grip of forceful influence had already started losing its steam by this time, so they were forced yet again - to use subtle methods of deceit, their speciality.
Who would they ask to create some additional deceit? The Jesuits.
The Jesuits actually controlled the direction of the Council of Trent. Through their spokesman, the Archbishop of Reggio, they sought to completely reinstate the authority of the Church above the Word of God. Read this part of the Archbishop's speech on January 18, 1562 to also see something very interesting he states:
[col. 529] Such is the condition of the heretics of this age that on nothing do they rely more than that, under the pretense of the word of God, they overthrow the authority of the church; as though the church, His body, could be opposed to the word of Christ, or the head to the body. On the contrary, the authority of the church, then, is illustrated most clearly by the Scriptures; for while on the one hand she recommends them, declares them to be divine, [col. 530] offers them to us to be read, in doubtful matters explains them faithfully, and condemns whatever is contrary to them; on the other hand, the legal precepts in the Scriptures taught by the Lord have ceased by virtue of the same authority. The Sabbath, the most glorious day in the law, has been changed into the Lord's day. Circumcision, enjoined upon Abraham and his seed under such threatening that he who had not been circumcised would be destroyed from among his people, has been so abrogated that the apostle asserts: "If ye be circumcised, ye have fallen from grace, and Christ shall profit you nothing." These and other similar matters have not ceased by virtue of Christ's teaching (for He says He has come to fulfill the law, not to destroy it), but they have been changed by the authority of the church. Indeed, if she should be removed (since there must be heresies), who would set forth truth, and confound the obstinacy of heretics? All things will be confused, and soon heresies condemned by her authority will spring up again. [See No. 1444.]
Not only was the Papacy able to elevate church tradition above the Scriptures, but he also convinced the council that "the Lord's Day" (Sunday) should still be the official day of Christians! Furthermore, the Jesuits pressed on, going to Douay and Rheims in France and had the Bible translated into the English language under the guise of the corrupt Latin Vulgate. Corrupting God's Word would allow them to corrupt the Christian faith.
With every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction. Through God's merciful guidance, the Reformers' inspiration led to the completion of the King James Version of the Bible, which was completed in 1611.
The Devil could not allow the KJV to remain as the primary Bible for Christians, especially for the end times. Thus, the Archbishop of Canterbury also began a revision of the KJV in the 1870s. Two important Jesuit-inspired figures were the writers of this revision - Doctors Brooke Westcott and Fenton Hort. These two men made sure than the translators of this new "revised" version completely avoided and ignored the correct Eastern manuscripts upon which the KJV was based, and they incorporated the ever-perverted Western ones, which had already been proven to remove the deity of Jesus Christ and supported the initiatives of the Papacy.
From this work, the Revised Version of 1881 was born! At first, it merely attempted to rival the KJV. However, by the mid-20th Century, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) became the most popular version in modern Christendom. This effect saw the Jesuits' hard work come to complete fruition!
Friends, for proper Bible study, avoid using any of these "newer" versions such as:
- New International Version (NIV)
- New English Bible
- New Life Version
- New Living Translation
- The Message
- New Century Version
- Revised Standard Version (RSV)
- Easy-To-Read Version
There are so many others to avoid, but these are just a few of the Jesuit creations. If you truly want to keep closely to the REAL God-inspired text, PLEASE stick with the King James Version (KJV), I implore you.
Luke 8:11,12 ..."Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved." ... The truth in God's Word is a sharp two-edged sword. The Papacy knows that if people are given the undefiled Bread of Life, it will lead them to be saved. Briefly, I will show you only some shocking differences between the true KJV and the inaccuracies and heresies contained within just the NIV and the RSV.
|King James Version
||New International Version
||Revised Standard Version
Luke 4:4 .."But Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
John 1:10 .."He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not."
Matthew 18:11 .."For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost."
Mark 13:14 .."So when you see the 'abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not. (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Luke 4:4 .."Jesus answered, It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone."
Notice how "but by every word of God" is removed in NIV and RSV.
John 1:10 .."He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him."
The world was made BY Jesus, but the NIV and RSV change it to being made through Him.
NIV and RSV completely remove this verse in Matthew 18:11
Mark 13:14 .."When you see 'the abomination that causes desolation' standing where it does not belong-let the reader understand, then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
Of course the Jesuits don't want you to study the book of Daniel, so they take that reference to Daniel out!
Luke 4:4 .."And Jesus answered him, It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone."
John 1:10 .."He was in the world, and the world was made through him, yet the world knew him not."
Mark 13:14 .."But when you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains."
The list goes on and on, my friends. These comparisons only barely scratch the surface as to how much the Jesuits have attempted to create corrupted, false versions of the Bible so that the world will remain in darkness. Oddly enough, the very two things attacked the most in the false versions are: The Commandments of God and the deity/authority of our Lord Jesus.
Fact: These two versions above (NIV, RSV) remove and/or change 60,000 words from the true text!! That would be equivalent to starting at Acts 1:1 and removing ALL of the scripture from that point through Revelation 22:21!