Bible Preference

By Prophet Jacob R. Blandford

(In regards to my references to the Holy Bible, Ruckman books, and a Chick tract in this article: I cite Proverbs 22:12.)

I remember reading in Dr. Peter S. Ruckman's 'The "Errors" in the King James Bible' book (page 449) the current Bible version issue/controversy is simply a preference of modern scholars, seminaries, and Laodiceans churches of a Roman Catholic bible over a Protestant Bible. And that statement is very true. There are really only two kinds of Bibles: (#1) the God-preserved, Holy Ghost-inspired, reliable, inerrant, infallible, accurate, precise, and plenary Bibles; and (#2) the corrupted, depleted, Gnostic, philosophic (see Col. 2:8), and antichrist (see 1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3; 2 John 7) versions. If you prefer a modern or catholic bible over the jewel of the Protestant reformation (the AV 1611), you are basically saying you believe that Romanism is the truer way of religion; and the scriptural beliefs of Protestantism and Evangelical Bible-believing churches are heretical (see Is. 5:20). Hort made that exact statement (no marvel), he said, quote, ‘The pure Romish view seems to me nearer, and more likely to lead to, the truth than the Evangelical.’ (‘Final Authority’ by William Grady, page 229.) But we know that religion without the Bible is false religion. And corruption of the Bible produces 'Christian' cults like Roman Catholicism, Mormonism, and the Jehovah's Witnesses. That's exactly how you produce a cult: make a religion without the Bible or a corruption of the Bible.

Are we really to believe that the apostle Paul omitted "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14? Why would Paul include the phrase in his epistle to the Ephesians (1:7), yet exclude it in Colossians 1:14? The doctrine of Jesus Christ's blood atonement is arguably the most important doctrine (especially when it comes to the salvation of sinners) in the New Testament. Do you think the apostle was so negligent and careless? I trow not. Moreover if you accept the Alexandrian reading of Col. 1:14 you are introducing a gross heresy: because forgiveness is not redemption and redemption is not forgiveness (see Rom. 3:25; Heb. 9:15). You do not have the redemption without the divine payment (Christ's blood) for our sin debt. If you say that forgiveness is redemption you are basically saying the new covenant is no better than the old covenant, when the word of God clearly states it is a "better covenant" (Heb. 8:6). You are also saying the blood of God (see Acts 20:28 KJV) is no better than the blood of goats and calves, when the word clearly states that the Old Testament sacrifices could not take away sins (see Heb. 10:4). [See also Bro. Ruckman’s similar comments in his book ‘The “Errors” in the King James Bible’, page 436.] So you are going to accept a bible that promotes heresy and denies sinners salvation, over a Bible that promotes truth and piety and offers sinners salvation: and you think you’re smart? I'd say you've been deceived by Satan (his favorite attack is to mess with God's words [see Gen. 3:1]). Quote, "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just." (Rom. 3:4-8)

Also, the RSV and NRSV deny the second fundamental of the Christian faith (the virgin birth of Christ) in Isaiah 7:14. The KJV 1611 however, has the correct reading “virgin” in Isaiah 7:14 because when Matthew quotes the verse in Matt. 1:23, the Holy Spirit uses the Greek word equivalent to “virgin” again! Moreover, Mark 1:2 in the new versions is a joke because Malachi AND Isaiah are quoted. The King James is again correct with “prophets”, yet the RSV, NRSV, and NIV are wrong! Those are satanic bibles that teach lies because the father of lies influenced them. (see John 8:44) Your new bibles refuse show the Holy Incarnation (the FIRST fundamental of the Christian faith) in 1 Timothy 3:16—that means they are ANTICHRIST according to the apostle of love in 1 John 4:3 and 2 John 7.

If you actually study the doctrines of Catholicism and compare them with a Holy Bible (in any language) you will clearly see that their 'doctrines' are “doctrines of devils” (1 Tim. 4:1). And the risen Christ called their mass nothing but pagan sacrifices and spiritual fornication in Rev. Chapter 2. That's not my opinion or 'prejudice': that's Bible. Are we really to believe that the Bible was lost until the Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus (א Aleph) manuscripts were discovered and used by Westcott and Hort to create the ERV (1881)? So the assumption is that the Philadelphian church of the Protestant Reformation, worldwide evangelism, and the Great Awakenings in colonial and early America DIDN'T have the Bible; but the Laodicean church (the worst and last stage of the church age) REDISCOVERED the bible, even though Christ and His apostles said it would be a time of apostasy, deception, lukewarmness, and high levels of demonic activity. (See Dr. Peter S. Ruckman’s ‘The History of the New Testament Church Volume 1’, pages 191-192.)

If you've ever studied the book of Acts you'll see that every powerful movement of God is always followed by a satanic attack. In new testament church history Satan's main vehicle of attack used against the body of Christ has always been with the whorish reprobate bride of Christ: the Roman Catholic church. Consider the following time line as Protestant England resisted Rome... The following is from 'The Attack' a tract published by Chick Publications: [The following timeline represents the battle between the Vatican and Protestant England for the destruction of the Bible (the word of God). 1534 The Anglican church is established. 1540 The Jesuit order is established. 1545 The Council of Trent is formed to crush Protestantism and strengthen the laws of Roman Catholic doctrine. 1533 A Roman Catholic queen takes the throne in England. Queen Mary murders the leaders of the Anglican church and reinstates Catholicism. 1558 Elizabeth takes the throne, denounces Catholicism and reinstates the Anglican church. 1560 Reformation sweeps Scotland and they join Protestant England. 1588 King Phillip II of Catholic Spain sends the Spanish Armada to destroy Protestant England. It failed. 1604 King James authorizes a translation of the Bible for England. 1605 The Jesuit plot to blow up James' parliament is exposed.]

The AV 1611 strongly upholds the first fundamental of the Christian faith (the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ) [e.g. 1 Tim. 3:16; 1 John 5:7], while the modern/Alexandrian versions deny it (see ‘The “Errors” in the King James Bible’ by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, page 332.) The pope’s college of cardinals and the faculty members of Christian schools are two false final authorities (see ‘The “Errors” in the King James Bible’ page 356): they both attempt to usurp the authority the Holy Spirit placed upon the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible (1611). THE AV 1611 IS ALWAYS THE REAL FINAL AUTHORITY. The following is a good quotation from Bro. Ruckman about the mindset of ‘Christian’ scholars throughout church history, starting with Origen, they say: ‘The Bible believers are not serious students of the Scriptures: we destructive critics are.’ (See ‘The Mythological Septuagint’ by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman, page 89.) (Note: the risen Lord Jesus Christ said He HATES the deeds and doctrines of the Nicolaitans [see Rev. 2:6, 15].)

When comparing the modern versions with the 1611 you come to a stunning and profound realization: the doctrinal words crucial to understanding proper theology have been vastly altered by Satan’s hordes! As a matter of fact, you can’t even find the word “doctrine” in the Alexandrian bibles. I don’t have time to go in all of the Biblical English words which Satan’s henchmen have destroyed, but you can checkout ‘New Age Versions’ by Gail Riplinger to get a good idea. I’ll give you one good example: the words “immutability” and “immutable” in Hebrews 6:17-18 have been changed in the RSV, NRSV, and NIV to “unchangeable”. That’s a lie, because they “changed” (Ps. 106:20; Jer. 2:11; Ezek. 5:6; Rom. 1:25) the holy and true text! Moreover, concerning vocabulary, “immutable” is a much more academic and scholarly word than “unchangeable”; so from this brief example here you can see the new versions make you stupid.

In closing, I’d like to simply say that when choosing a Bible to read, study, believe, and obey you don’t get to form your own private opinion or personal preference. If you’re a born-again Christian, the Lord saved you from Satan’s slavery of sin, and now Jesus Christ is your Lord and Master. Your ideas and opinions about theology aren’t your own, but His: quote, “Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 2:5). So you better pray to God and do an honest search, study, and comparison of the bible versions and find out which one is truly your Lord’s: and then OBEY its commandments and precepts because that’s your Christian duty. I pray you find the right answer, in Jesus Christ’s name.