What do you think?
Rate this book
New Age Bible Versions: An Exhaustive Documentation of the Message, Men & Manuscripts Moving Mankind to the Antichrist's One World Religion
This book is the result of an exhaustive six year collation of new Bible versions, their underlying Greek manuscripts, editions, and editors. It objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion.
615 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1993
19 people are currently reading
144 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews
November 1, 2011
Incredible book! After seeing the different translations side by side, it was more than obvious the corruption of the "new age" versions. Her study is exhaustive and it opened my eyes. Have thus purchased many more of her books. A lady of intelligence and courage.
October 9, 2017
An astonishing bad book, chockablock with errors, misconceptions, and misdirection.
This book runs 690 pages, which seems impressive, until you realize that much of it is printed in 10 point type that you haven't seen since junior high. Gail Riplinger is a deep-dyed King James Version Onlyist who won't tolerate any other translation of the Scriptures, and to impugn all the other translations she uses arguments that, to be blunt, the KJV couldn't survive. For example, the quality of the source manuscripts -- the modern versions (those starting around 1850) are based on older manuscripts - nearer in time to the original authors and with less opportunity to accumulate copyists' errors, and frequently verified by reference to other ancient sources such as quotations in early Church Fathers and early versions in other languages, which the KJV was based on 16th century printed editions usually based on whatever manuscripts the printers could beg, borrow, or steal from churches - often the most expendible, damaged, fragmentary - and unidentifiable - manuscripts. (And, like most KJVOists, Riplinger has no kind words for the Roman Catholic Church -- but nearly all the Greek manuscripts that underlie the KJV text came from Catholic sources.) In the case of the first printed Greek New Testament, edited by Erasmus in 1516, the great scholar had more than two dozen fragmentary manuscripts, but scarcely any two covering the same verse and some verses not covered at all. Riplinger is eager to tell us of the wear and tear of the famous manuscripts used for modern versions but she glosses over the defects of the manuscripts used for the printed editions that led to the KJV.
Next, she spots tiny individual variants and plays the drama queen. "Lord Jesus Christ" might appear in the KJV a thousand times, but if it appeared in a modern version only 999 times - and that last time as merely "Jesus Christ" on the basis of twenty ancient manuscripts, she behaves like it's the blackest of blasphemy. In point of fact, despite the differences, modern versions preserve every article of faith (except perhaps snake handling - that passage at the very end of Mark is missing in several ancient sources).
Her particular animus is trained on two Anglican Bishops of the late 19th century, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, who worked up a famous and leading edition of the Greek New Testament on what then seemed like a very scientific notion of relying on the two oldest Greek codices with some reference to other ancient manuscripts. Since then their editorial theory has been considerably fine-tuned, but in 1881 it was a quantum leap ahead of the KJV. Riplinger blames every modern version on them, even though only a relative handful of translations (early in the 20th century) - and not the ones mentioned by Riplinger - are based entirely on their Greek text. For supposed insights into their religious thoughts, she avoided reading the 50 or so religious books each man wrote, and instead used private letters they sent friends, mostly while they were students; she very pointedly believes that the opinions and interests they had as teenagers stayed with them into their late maturity. You will not learn from her that, besides being a Biblical scholar, Hort was also a promising botanist.
As an example of her historical precision, on page 423, Riplinger describes a supposed meeting attended by Westcott and Hort, also attended by Lady Emily Lutyens, wife of architect Sir Edward Lutyens (married 1897), also attended by Archbishop Edward White Benson (died 1896) and Bishop Joseph B. Lightfoot (died 1889), and the hot topic of discussion at this meeting is Lady Constance Lytton's third jailing for suffragette agitation (1910).
Riplinger's precision when complaining about the readings in modern Bible versions is no better. For example, on page 285, she complains because, repeatedly in the Gospel of Matthew, where the KJV says "the end of the world" (e.g., Matt. 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20) all the modern versions say "the end of the age"; but the Greek text - even the editions in use when the KJV was worked up - don't use the word for 'world' but use the Greek word 'aion' which the KJV elsewhere translates as 'age' (in the sense of civilizations or vast spans of time), e.g. Ephesians 2:7, Colossians 1:26.
Add to this, this book pretends to be a textbook and a reference book but it's got a flimsy glue binding, and no index at all - not for names or topics, not even for Bible verses.
Gail Ann Riplinger was accused of deliberately concealing her gender by using her initials on this book and writing a very coyly phrased biographical blurb in order to sell her book to ultra-patriarchal conservatives. She denied this charge and said she used the name "G.A. Riplinger" because she felt she had a co-author, "God And Riplinger". I have heard God blamed for worse things, but my experience tells me that God was writing better stuff before this collaboration was formed.
There are MANY books on the topic of the development and editing of the Biblical text, which is technically referred to as textual criticism, and virtually any of those other books is better than this one.
This book runs 690 pages, which seems impressive, until you realize that much of it is printed in 10 point type that you haven't seen since junior high. Gail Riplinger is a deep-dyed King James Version Onlyist who won't tolerate any other translation of the Scriptures, and to impugn all the other translations she uses arguments that, to be blunt, the KJV couldn't survive. For example, the quality of the source manuscripts -- the modern versions (those starting around 1850) are based on older manuscripts - nearer in time to the original authors and with less opportunity to accumulate copyists' errors, and frequently verified by reference to other ancient sources such as quotations in early Church Fathers and early versions in other languages, which the KJV was based on 16th century printed editions usually based on whatever manuscripts the printers could beg, borrow, or steal from churches - often the most expendible, damaged, fragmentary - and unidentifiable - manuscripts. (And, like most KJVOists, Riplinger has no kind words for the Roman Catholic Church -- but nearly all the Greek manuscripts that underlie the KJV text came from Catholic sources.) In the case of the first printed Greek New Testament, edited by Erasmus in 1516, the great scholar had more than two dozen fragmentary manuscripts, but scarcely any two covering the same verse and some verses not covered at all. Riplinger is eager to tell us of the wear and tear of the famous manuscripts used for modern versions but she glosses over the defects of the manuscripts used for the printed editions that led to the KJV.
Next, she spots tiny individual variants and plays the drama queen. "Lord Jesus Christ" might appear in the KJV a thousand times, but if it appeared in a modern version only 999 times - and that last time as merely "Jesus Christ" on the basis of twenty ancient manuscripts, she behaves like it's the blackest of blasphemy. In point of fact, despite the differences, modern versions preserve every article of faith (except perhaps snake handling - that passage at the very end of Mark is missing in several ancient sources).
Her particular animus is trained on two Anglican Bishops of the late 19th century, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, who worked up a famous and leading edition of the Greek New Testament on what then seemed like a very scientific notion of relying on the two oldest Greek codices with some reference to other ancient manuscripts. Since then their editorial theory has been considerably fine-tuned, but in 1881 it was a quantum leap ahead of the KJV. Riplinger blames every modern version on them, even though only a relative handful of translations (early in the 20th century) - and not the ones mentioned by Riplinger - are based entirely on their Greek text. For supposed insights into their religious thoughts, she avoided reading the 50 or so religious books each man wrote, and instead used private letters they sent friends, mostly while they were students; she very pointedly believes that the opinions and interests they had as teenagers stayed with them into their late maturity. You will not learn from her that, besides being a Biblical scholar, Hort was also a promising botanist.
As an example of her historical precision, on page 423, Riplinger describes a supposed meeting attended by Westcott and Hort, also attended by Lady Emily Lutyens, wife of architect Sir Edward Lutyens (married 1897), also attended by Archbishop Edward White Benson (died 1896) and Bishop Joseph B. Lightfoot (died 1889), and the hot topic of discussion at this meeting is Lady Constance Lytton's third jailing for suffragette agitation (1910).
Riplinger's precision when complaining about the readings in modern Bible versions is no better. For example, on page 285, she complains because, repeatedly in the Gospel of Matthew, where the KJV says "the end of the world" (e.g., Matt. 13:39, 13:40, 13:49, 24:3, 28:20) all the modern versions say "the end of the age"; but the Greek text - even the editions in use when the KJV was worked up - don't use the word for 'world' but use the Greek word 'aion' which the KJV elsewhere translates as 'age' (in the sense of civilizations or vast spans of time), e.g. Ephesians 2:7, Colossians 1:26.
Add to this, this book pretends to be a textbook and a reference book but it's got a flimsy glue binding, and no index at all - not for names or topics, not even for Bible verses.
Gail Ann Riplinger was accused of deliberately concealing her gender by using her initials on this book and writing a very coyly phrased biographical blurb in order to sell her book to ultra-patriarchal conservatives. She denied this charge and said she used the name "G.A. Riplinger" because she felt she had a co-author, "God And Riplinger". I have heard God blamed for worse things, but my experience tells me that God was writing better stuff before this collaboration was formed.
There are MANY books on the topic of the development and editing of the Biblical text, which is technically referred to as textual criticism, and virtually any of those other books is better than this one.
October 31, 2014
Terrible book. Not only is the author unconvincing, but her "evidence" is almost entirely fabricated. At least 90% of her quotations are out of context and misrepresented (take the time to look them up if you are reading the book; the meaning is different in almost every case). The author is either ignorant or willfully deceptive, I don't know which, but I'd like to believe she just doesn't know what she's talking about.
February 6, 2016
This is truly one of the worst titles on this topic. Riplinger has no training in history, the Bible languages, textual transmission, etc. Basically she relies on the ideas of other, in great part the raging demagogue Dean Burgon of the 19th century. Riplinger propounds a conspiracy theory that the New Agers are trying to corrupt the church for the antichrist by correcting the King James Version of 1611. She is of a kind with Jack Chick and Peter Ruckman for their strange paranoid theories.
Fee and Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions, is much better, and is written by two experts in the field.
Fee and Strauss, How to Choose a Translation for All Its Worth: A Guide to Understanding and Using Bible Versions, is much better, and is written by two experts in the field.
January 2, 2014
This book was the beginning of the end of my subscribing to this extremist conspiracy theory. This is one of the most inaccurate, irresponsible and dishonest books ever written.
April 10, 2016
This book is full of lies and shows an unfair point of view. I recommend the kjv controversy, by Dr.James White after reading this before making a judgement or preferably before reading this nonsense. The kjv is only a translation of the original manuscripts. Its an interpretation of those manuscripts not the only inspired source as the author erroneously believes. I am not against the kjv as ones preference of a bible, but having escaped a cult that was kjv only, as well as other things and though it is beautiful in its old English, It has it's errors as well. The things the author has written would not hold up in a true debate and from my personal research has not, unless one wants to make the claim that every manuscript is in error and must be rewritten to fit with what the kjv says.
September 3, 2011
One of the great Bible manuscript conspiracy books. The problem is, nothing is of any value. Lies, weird maths and all kinds of fanciful thinking make this rather a comedy of errors.
In other words, not recommended. Rather read "The King James only Controversy" by James R White for the real deal.
In other words, not recommended. Rather read "The King James only Controversy" by James R White for the real deal.
June 30, 2014
Appallingly poorly researched, overladen with deplorable misinformation, all the guide the reader into a comfortable gnostic dogmatism. This is a dangerous work, which if believed will draw the reader into a dangerous form of spiritual arrogance.
May 10, 2019
I am very grateful and thankful to Gail Riplinger for this work, I think she has done an important and great Job with this book. It is a very useful tool in deciphering which bibles are trust worthy and which ones are not.
May 21, 2025
No matter which side of the spectrum you’re on, I highly recommend reading this book only if you are also willing to read “The King James Only Controversy” by Dr. James White. Between the two books, I think you’ll get at least a more balanced understanding of the types of discussions we should be having when it comes to KJV-onlyism.
While the last 300 pages of this book were fairly interesting, the first 300-400 pages were full of numerous claims and quotes that lacked proper context. Because of this, I really struggled with how well I could actually trust what this author was saying.
For my own notes:
Page 28 - “The NIV has 64,098 less words than the KJV.”
Page 41 - Riplinger actually wrote this: “Historically, Isaiah 14 has been used as the singular biography of Lucifer, shedding unique light upon the "mystery of iniquity." In verse twelve Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell. The intervening verses expose his pride in the five "I wills," each a rung in his descent into hell. ("I will," is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.)”
Page 42 - Riplinger accuses modern translations of removing the name “Lucifer” from Isaiah 14:12 and replacing it with “morning star”, “day star”, or “shining one”. All the while, Riplinger failed to explain what the Latin word, “lucifer”, means in English: “morning star”, “light bringer”, “shining one”. Interestingly, Riplinger later provided the definition of Lucifer as “light bearer” on page 114. This would have been relevant information back on page 42. Conveniently, Riplinger chose to not comment on the fact that Christ is referred to as “lucifer” in the Latin translation of 2 Peter 1:19, because the Latin word, “lucifer” means “morning star” in English, and Christ is referred to as the morning star in that verse.
Page 57 - Riplinger says the modern versions remove “Our Father”, “thy will be done”, and “deliver us from evil” in Luke 11:2-4. She then concludes that the “removal of these words” is what distinguishes the prayers within the KJV of going to “Our Father” versus the modern version prayers going to “your father the devil”. Yet Riplinger failed to mention that each of the words she said were “removed” are actually still in the NIV and NASB in Matthew Ch. 6. If the translators for the modern versions were hoping to remove these sections from the Bible, they certainly had a huge oversight be including these phrases within the book of Matthew.
Page 61 - Riplinger says the new versions of the Bible attack the concept of “Our Father”. Yet in the NIV, with just a brief search, I was able to find that God is described as “Our Father” in Matthew 6:9 and Philippians 4:20. Once again, if the new translations were hoping to stamp this doctrine entirely out of the Bible, they did a very poor job of it. What is of a bigger concern is that Riplinger did not provide any type of analysis of the Greek texts to prove which translation of the Greek words and phrases is accurate. She simply claimed that the KJV was accurate and the newer translations were perversions of the truth.
Page 92 - Riplinger claims that all references to martyrs have been “removed” by the modern translations, and she says that the KJV accurately renders the Greek word “martys” as “martyr” in Rev. 2:13 and Rev. 17:6, yet she fails to mention that the KJV renders that exact same Greek word as “witnesses” in Acts 22:15, Romans 1:9, 1 Thess. 2:5, 1 Peter 5:1, AND EVEN IN THE CHAPTER RIGHT BEFORE AND RIGHT AFTER REVELATION CH. 3 - Rev. 1:5, and Rev. 3:14. Riplinger was upset that modern versions translate the Greek word “martys” as “witnesses” in Rev. 17:6, yet the KJV does the exact same thing in numerous spots throughout the New Testament.
Page 107 - Riplinger implies that a lesbian (Virginia Mollenkott) being part of the NIV Bible was a problem. Upon further review, Virginia did not participate in any translation work for the NIV, and she was only used as a literary consultant. Riplinger did not explain this to her readers.
Page 149 - This level of conspiracy theory adherence was utterly shocking…building a math problem based on the letters in Bible translations, inserting random rules into the math problem, and coming up with the letters S-I-N. I simply could not believe I was actually reading this. Also, throughout the book, Riplinger referred to the New American Standard Bible as the NASB, yet for the purposes of her conspiratorial math problem, she changed the letters to NASV.
Page 158 - Riplinger claims that the modern translations “remove” the necessity of taking up our cross to follow Jesus in Mark 10:21, yet she fails to explain that this exact phrase is included in the modern translations in Matthew 16:24 and Luke 9:23. If the modern translations were actually trying to remove the idea that taking up the cross is a necessity when it comes to following Christ, surely they would have refrained from including the phrase within two other gospel accounts…
Page 167 - “The Occult Encyclopedia says:
It has been said that religion consists of an appeal to the gods, whereas magic is the attempt to force their compliance.”
Page 171 - Riplinger claims that the KJV is the only version without a copyright. However, this is not entirely true. In the UK, where the KJV originated, Cambridge Press University holds the sole right to print and publish the KJV because the KJV rights are owned by the Crown.
Page 196 - Riplinger uses a study that leads her to conclude that the KJV is “easier” to understand than modern versions because the KJV uses less words per sentence, on average, and less syllables per word, on average. While this may be true, the length of words and sentences isn’t what determines one’s ability to understand something. For example, the phrase “fetch a compass” in the KJV (2 Sam. 5:23), might have less words than “circle around behind them” in the NIV, but I would say the vast majority of readers would much more easily understand what the phrase means in the NIV verses than an archaic phrase that is rarely ever used in modern English: “fetch a compass”. Riplinger’s cited study did not at all factor in the difficulty of reading archaic words that are no longer used or words for which the modern definition is significantly different than the definition of the words at the time they were originally translated.
Page 204 - Fascinatingly, Riplinger spends a a good portion of the book claiming that the “new Bible versions” have “removed” or “omitted” numerous verses from the Bible. But then she claims that an issue with the new versions is that they “add” too many words and make scripture memorization more difficult.
Pages 221-225 - Riplinger is upset with modern Bible translations translating the Greek word, “doulos”, as “slaves” instead of “servants”, yet she gives no reason as to why that particular Greek word should be translated as “servants” other than her own preconceived notion that “servants” makes more sense within her own theological framework than the word “slaves”. This is an important distinction because we should be discussing these types of topics with a desire to actually discern what Paul, Peter, John, etc. actually wrote in the Greek and what that word meant in that time period, not what we WANT it to mean now. Riplinger might have made a stronger case if she had dove into the topic from the point of view of the Greek word itself, rather than throwing in the Greek word at the end of the section, almost as an afterthought.
Page 229 - Riplinger implies that modern translations are preaching “another gospel” because the translation is different in Mark 10:24, yet the NIV clearly says that Jesus is referring to “the rich” in these verses if we simply read verse 23 and 25 in the NIV. There was an enormous number of instances in this book in which “issues” were presented, and yet all it took was checking the context surrounding the topic to determine that there was actually no “issue” at all.
Page 232 - In typical conspiracy theory fashion, Riplinger implies that since the modern translations follow the Greek manuscript tradition than includes an additional letter “s” in the word “eudokios”, we should all “watch out for the letter “s” - sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul. The added “s” here is the hiss of the serpent.”)
Following this logic, couldn’t the letter “s” also be linked to salvation, sabbath, sanctification, and the Second Coming of Christ?
Pages 255-258 - Riplinger claims that modern translations are “attempting to present a works-based salvation”. Interestingly, she didn’t quote the following verse from the NIV, which CLEARLY teaches that salvation is by faith alone (NOT based on works). Ephesians 2:8-9 - ““For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Page 259 - Riplinger quotes 1 John 4:14 in the KJV to claim that the KJV represents Christ as THE savior, while newer versions paint Christ as “A savior” (one of many potential saviors). However, all I had to do was look up 1 John 4:14 in the NIV, and it clearly states that “God sent His Son to be THE savior of THE world”.
Page 268 - Riplinger claims that the new versions of the Bible are “bloodless Bibles”, yet 1 Peter 1:19 in the NIV explicitly claims that we were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”
Page 294 - Riplinger was upset that modern Bible translations often leave the original words “Sheol” and “Hades” “untranslated into English. Yet she wasn’t upset that the KJV leaves a LATIN word that was translated from the original Hebrew in the KJV in Isaiah 14:12 (Lucifer). Instead of translating the Hebrew word into English, the KJV translators left the Latin translation in the English version.
Page 298 - Riplinger claims that the new versions are diminishing the deity of Christ by not translating the name of Jesus in all caps in Luke 2:21, Matt. 1:25, and Luke 1:31. Riplinger failed to mention that the original 1611 KJV did NOT list Jesus’ name in all caps in these verses. And the Greek manuscripts were originally written ONLY using upper-case letters, so there was no distinction between capitalized letters and lower-case letters.
Around page 304, Riplinger began making the claim that Christ’s deity is attacked in modern translations. Yet she failed to discuss the many verses in the modern translations that MORE clearly articulate the deity of Christ when compared with the KJV, such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, just to name a few.
Page 310 - Riplinger claims that the newer Bible translations are “ashamed of the gospel of Christ” because there are a few verses in the Bible in which Jesus is referred to as Lord Jesus instead of Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of having a discussion about the Greek manuscripts and why this might be the case in the newer versions, Riplinger concludes that the newer translations have a diabolical plan to strip Jesus of His title as the Christ…which is ironic because the NIV refers to Jesus as “Christ” OVER 500 TIMES.
Page 330 - Riplinger says the newer Bible versions “take the bite out of Christianity” by removing “Lord” from Jesus’ title. To start this chapter, Riplinger stresses the importance of Jesus being called Lord by including 5 different verses from the KJV that show how essential it is to believe that Jesus is Lord. Ironically, the NIV calls Jesus “Lord” in every single one of these verses, just like the KJV does (Acts 2:36, 2 Thess. 1:12, Romans 10:9, Jude 1:4, and 1 Corinthians 12:3). If the NIV actually wanted to trick its readers into thinking that Jesus isn’t actually “Lord”, perhaps it wouldn’t have referred to Jesus as “Lord” around 700 TIMES in the New Testament!
Pages 351-354 - Riplinger claims that new Bible versions reinforce “their denial that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh”. Yet the NIV clearly states in John 1:1 that “Jesus (the Word) was God”, and in John 1:14, it clearly says, “Jesus (the Word) became flesh and made his dwelling among us”. If the NIV actually wanted its readers to think that Jesus wasn’t God in the flesh, they sure did a poor job of it by deciding to leave these clear verses in their translation.
Page 376 - “The KJV is also the only bible that always distinguishes between the Hebrew Adonai and JHVH, using 'Lord' for the former and LORD' for the latter.”
Page 452 - “The word psychology means 'study of the soul' in Greek.”
Page 529 - “The church declared Origen a heretic because he held the
following beliefs:
1. The Logos is subordinate to the Father and has some characteristics similar to the Logos of the Gnostics.
2. The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.
3. There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.
4. Hell is nonexistent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.
5. All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.
6. The sun, moon and stars are living creatures.
7. Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for for
males.”
Pages 539 - 544 - Riplinger made numerous claims regarding what the “New Versions” teach that could so easily be refuted by direct quotations from the “New Versions” themselves. There is not sufficient room within this review to reply to all the inaccurate assertions made within these 6 pages.
Page 559 - Riplinger argues that since some of the most ancient manuscripts that we have today included apocryphal writings, they are therefore untrustworthy and corrupt, yet she did not mention that the original 1611 King James Version actually included the Apocrypha.
Page 588 - Riplinger seems to imply that modern Bible versions are racist.
Page 596 - Riplinger wrote, “Foreshadowing the final false prophet, Kittel promoted a
'New' bible version for Hitler's 'New' church, to replace Luther's traditional German Bible, Die Heilige Schrift, based on the Majority Text. Luther's bible was about 400 years old during Hitler's generation. 'Archaic'...Kittel said. (The KJV will be 400 years old during our generation. Archaic.. some say. Is it a coincidence that God closed the Old Testament canon 389 years before Christ's first coming. And now, he gives us the 1611 KJV in these last days', in the world's universal language, 389 years before his second coming in the 6000th year. The 4000th year Christ came the first time. The fourth day he created the sun, a type of Christ. The 7th day God rested, prefiguring his millenial reign during the 7000th year.)”
Page 609 - I’m not sure if Riplinger meant for it to come across this way, but it seems that she views any end-times perspective other than “premillenial” as dangerous heresies (such as “amillenial” and “postmillennial”).
Although I truly struggled to find this book to be trustworthy, I’ll certainly be keeping a copy of it to refer to since it is quite popular with KJV-onlyists.
While the last 300 pages of this book were fairly interesting, the first 300-400 pages were full of numerous claims and quotes that lacked proper context. Because of this, I really struggled with how well I could actually trust what this author was saying.
For my own notes:
Page 28 - “The NIV has 64,098 less words than the KJV.”
Page 41 - Riplinger actually wrote this: “Historically, Isaiah 14 has been used as the singular biography of Lucifer, shedding unique light upon the "mystery of iniquity." In verse twelve Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell. The intervening verses expose his pride in the five "I wills," each a rung in his descent into hell. ("I will," is also the official motto of the U.S. city sporting zip code 60606. In 1966, this same city hatched the NIV.)”
Page 42 - Riplinger accuses modern translations of removing the name “Lucifer” from Isaiah 14:12 and replacing it with “morning star”, “day star”, or “shining one”. All the while, Riplinger failed to explain what the Latin word, “lucifer”, means in English: “morning star”, “light bringer”, “shining one”. Interestingly, Riplinger later provided the definition of Lucifer as “light bearer” on page 114. This would have been relevant information back on page 42. Conveniently, Riplinger chose to not comment on the fact that Christ is referred to as “lucifer” in the Latin translation of 2 Peter 1:19, because the Latin word, “lucifer” means “morning star” in English, and Christ is referred to as the morning star in that verse.
Page 57 - Riplinger says the modern versions remove “Our Father”, “thy will be done”, and “deliver us from evil” in Luke 11:2-4. She then concludes that the “removal of these words” is what distinguishes the prayers within the KJV of going to “Our Father” versus the modern version prayers going to “your father the devil”. Yet Riplinger failed to mention that each of the words she said were “removed” are actually still in the NIV and NASB in Matthew Ch. 6. If the translators for the modern versions were hoping to remove these sections from the Bible, they certainly had a huge oversight be including these phrases within the book of Matthew.
Page 61 - Riplinger says the new versions of the Bible attack the concept of “Our Father”. Yet in the NIV, with just a brief search, I was able to find that God is described as “Our Father” in Matthew 6:9 and Philippians 4:20. Once again, if the new translations were hoping to stamp this doctrine entirely out of the Bible, they did a very poor job of it. What is of a bigger concern is that Riplinger did not provide any type of analysis of the Greek texts to prove which translation of the Greek words and phrases is accurate. She simply claimed that the KJV was accurate and the newer translations were perversions of the truth.
Page 92 - Riplinger claims that all references to martyrs have been “removed” by the modern translations, and she says that the KJV accurately renders the Greek word “martys” as “martyr” in Rev. 2:13 and Rev. 17:6, yet she fails to mention that the KJV renders that exact same Greek word as “witnesses” in Acts 22:15, Romans 1:9, 1 Thess. 2:5, 1 Peter 5:1, AND EVEN IN THE CHAPTER RIGHT BEFORE AND RIGHT AFTER REVELATION CH. 3 - Rev. 1:5, and Rev. 3:14. Riplinger was upset that modern versions translate the Greek word “martys” as “witnesses” in Rev. 17:6, yet the KJV does the exact same thing in numerous spots throughout the New Testament.
Page 107 - Riplinger implies that a lesbian (Virginia Mollenkott) being part of the NIV Bible was a problem. Upon further review, Virginia did not participate in any translation work for the NIV, and she was only used as a literary consultant. Riplinger did not explain this to her readers.
Page 149 - This level of conspiracy theory adherence was utterly shocking…building a math problem based on the letters in Bible translations, inserting random rules into the math problem, and coming up with the letters S-I-N. I simply could not believe I was actually reading this. Also, throughout the book, Riplinger referred to the New American Standard Bible as the NASB, yet for the purposes of her conspiratorial math problem, she changed the letters to NASV.
Page 158 - Riplinger claims that the modern translations “remove” the necessity of taking up our cross to follow Jesus in Mark 10:21, yet she fails to explain that this exact phrase is included in the modern translations in Matthew 16:24 and Luke 9:23. If the modern translations were actually trying to remove the idea that taking up the cross is a necessity when it comes to following Christ, surely they would have refrained from including the phrase within two other gospel accounts…
Page 167 - “The Occult Encyclopedia says:
It has been said that religion consists of an appeal to the gods, whereas magic is the attempt to force their compliance.”
Page 171 - Riplinger claims that the KJV is the only version without a copyright. However, this is not entirely true. In the UK, where the KJV originated, Cambridge Press University holds the sole right to print and publish the KJV because the KJV rights are owned by the Crown.
Page 196 - Riplinger uses a study that leads her to conclude that the KJV is “easier” to understand than modern versions because the KJV uses less words per sentence, on average, and less syllables per word, on average. While this may be true, the length of words and sentences isn’t what determines one’s ability to understand something. For example, the phrase “fetch a compass” in the KJV (2 Sam. 5:23), might have less words than “circle around behind them” in the NIV, but I would say the vast majority of readers would much more easily understand what the phrase means in the NIV verses than an archaic phrase that is rarely ever used in modern English: “fetch a compass”. Riplinger’s cited study did not at all factor in the difficulty of reading archaic words that are no longer used or words for which the modern definition is significantly different than the definition of the words at the time they were originally translated.
Page 204 - Fascinatingly, Riplinger spends a a good portion of the book claiming that the “new Bible versions” have “removed” or “omitted” numerous verses from the Bible. But then she claims that an issue with the new versions is that they “add” too many words and make scripture memorization more difficult.
Pages 221-225 - Riplinger is upset with modern Bible translations translating the Greek word, “doulos”, as “slaves” instead of “servants”, yet she gives no reason as to why that particular Greek word should be translated as “servants” other than her own preconceived notion that “servants” makes more sense within her own theological framework than the word “slaves”. This is an important distinction because we should be discussing these types of topics with a desire to actually discern what Paul, Peter, John, etc. actually wrote in the Greek and what that word meant in that time period, not what we WANT it to mean now. Riplinger might have made a stronger case if she had dove into the topic from the point of view of the Greek word itself, rather than throwing in the Greek word at the end of the section, almost as an afterthought.
Page 229 - Riplinger implies that modern translations are preaching “another gospel” because the translation is different in Mark 10:24, yet the NIV clearly says that Jesus is referring to “the rich” in these verses if we simply read verse 23 and 25 in the NIV. There was an enormous number of instances in this book in which “issues” were presented, and yet all it took was checking the context surrounding the topic to determine that there was actually no “issue” at all.
Page 232 - In typical conspiracy theory fashion, Riplinger implies that since the modern translations follow the Greek manuscript tradition than includes an additional letter “s” in the word “eudokios”, we should all “watch out for the letter “s” - sin, Satan, Sodom, Saul (had to be changed to Paul. The added “s” here is the hiss of the serpent.”)
Following this logic, couldn’t the letter “s” also be linked to salvation, sabbath, sanctification, and the Second Coming of Christ?
Pages 255-258 - Riplinger claims that modern translations are “attempting to present a works-based salvation”. Interestingly, she didn’t quote the following verse from the NIV, which CLEARLY teaches that salvation is by faith alone (NOT based on works). Ephesians 2:8-9 - ““For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Page 259 - Riplinger quotes 1 John 4:14 in the KJV to claim that the KJV represents Christ as THE savior, while newer versions paint Christ as “A savior” (one of many potential saviors). However, all I had to do was look up 1 John 4:14 in the NIV, and it clearly states that “God sent His Son to be THE savior of THE world”.
Page 268 - Riplinger claims that the new versions of the Bible are “bloodless Bibles”, yet 1 Peter 1:19 in the NIV explicitly claims that we were not redeemed by silver or gold, “but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.”
Page 294 - Riplinger was upset that modern Bible translations often leave the original words “Sheol” and “Hades” “untranslated into English. Yet she wasn’t upset that the KJV leaves a LATIN word that was translated from the original Hebrew in the KJV in Isaiah 14:12 (Lucifer). Instead of translating the Hebrew word into English, the KJV translators left the Latin translation in the English version.
Page 298 - Riplinger claims that the new versions are diminishing the deity of Christ by not translating the name of Jesus in all caps in Luke 2:21, Matt. 1:25, and Luke 1:31. Riplinger failed to mention that the original 1611 KJV did NOT list Jesus’ name in all caps in these verses. And the Greek manuscripts were originally written ONLY using upper-case letters, so there was no distinction between capitalized letters and lower-case letters.
Around page 304, Riplinger began making the claim that Christ’s deity is attacked in modern translations. Yet she failed to discuss the many verses in the modern translations that MORE clearly articulate the deity of Christ when compared with the KJV, such as Titus 2:13 and 2 Peter 1:1, just to name a few.
Page 310 - Riplinger claims that the newer Bible translations are “ashamed of the gospel of Christ” because there are a few verses in the Bible in which Jesus is referred to as Lord Jesus instead of Lord Jesus Christ. Instead of having a discussion about the Greek manuscripts and why this might be the case in the newer versions, Riplinger concludes that the newer translations have a diabolical plan to strip Jesus of His title as the Christ…which is ironic because the NIV refers to Jesus as “Christ” OVER 500 TIMES.
Page 330 - Riplinger says the newer Bible versions “take the bite out of Christianity” by removing “Lord” from Jesus’ title. To start this chapter, Riplinger stresses the importance of Jesus being called Lord by including 5 different verses from the KJV that show how essential it is to believe that Jesus is Lord. Ironically, the NIV calls Jesus “Lord” in every single one of these verses, just like the KJV does (Acts 2:36, 2 Thess. 1:12, Romans 10:9, Jude 1:4, and 1 Corinthians 12:3). If the NIV actually wanted to trick its readers into thinking that Jesus isn’t actually “Lord”, perhaps it wouldn’t have referred to Jesus as “Lord” around 700 TIMES in the New Testament!
Pages 351-354 - Riplinger claims that new Bible versions reinforce “their denial that Jesus Christ was God manifested in the flesh”. Yet the NIV clearly states in John 1:1 that “Jesus (the Word) was God”, and in John 1:14, it clearly says, “Jesus (the Word) became flesh and made his dwelling among us”. If the NIV actually wanted its readers to think that Jesus wasn’t God in the flesh, they sure did a poor job of it by deciding to leave these clear verses in their translation.
Page 376 - “The KJV is also the only bible that always distinguishes between the Hebrew Adonai and JHVH, using 'Lord' for the former and LORD' for the latter.”
Page 452 - “The word psychology means 'study of the soul' in Greek.”
Page 529 - “The church declared Origen a heretic because he held the
following beliefs:
1. The Logos is subordinate to the Father and has some characteristics similar to the Logos of the Gnostics.
2. The soul is preexistent; Jesus took on some preexistent human soul.
3. There was no physical resurrection of Christ nor will there be a second coming. Man will not have a physical resurrection.
4. Hell is nonexistent; purgatory, of which Paul and Peter must partake, does exist.
5. All, including the devil, will be reconciled to God.
6. The sun, moon and stars are living creatures.
7. Emasculation, of which he partook, is called for for
males.”
Pages 539 - 544 - Riplinger made numerous claims regarding what the “New Versions” teach that could so easily be refuted by direct quotations from the “New Versions” themselves. There is not sufficient room within this review to reply to all the inaccurate assertions made within these 6 pages.
Page 559 - Riplinger argues that since some of the most ancient manuscripts that we have today included apocryphal writings, they are therefore untrustworthy and corrupt, yet she did not mention that the original 1611 King James Version actually included the Apocrypha.
Page 588 - Riplinger seems to imply that modern Bible versions are racist.
Page 596 - Riplinger wrote, “Foreshadowing the final false prophet, Kittel promoted a
'New' bible version for Hitler's 'New' church, to replace Luther's traditional German Bible, Die Heilige Schrift, based on the Majority Text. Luther's bible was about 400 years old during Hitler's generation. 'Archaic'...Kittel said. (The KJV will be 400 years old during our generation. Archaic.. some say. Is it a coincidence that God closed the Old Testament canon 389 years before Christ's first coming. And now, he gives us the 1611 KJV in these last days', in the world's universal language, 389 years before his second coming in the 6000th year. The 4000th year Christ came the first time. The fourth day he created the sun, a type of Christ. The 7th day God rested, prefiguring his millenial reign during the 7000th year.)”
Page 609 - I’m not sure if Riplinger meant for it to come across this way, but it seems that she views any end-times perspective other than “premillenial” as dangerous heresies (such as “amillenial” and “postmillennial”).
Although I truly struggled to find this book to be trustworthy, I’ll certainly be keeping a copy of it to refer to since it is quite popular with KJV-onlyists.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
February 25, 2014
It was a good book, but became dry in some places and getting to involved with some of the people who revised the bible. I would have liked a little more of why should someone choose the KJV instead of just why all the other revisions are so bad to use. With that said, this is a very good book for someone who is either using something other than the KJV or they are interested in learning more about where the KJV text came from compared to the other versions.
September 7, 2015
I didn't get very far with the book.
My personal view is that the KJV is a great translation and in 50 years when all our current modern translations are out of print and have been replaced by new modern translations the KJV will still be around. However does that make the KJV the inspired word of God? Not so sure. If it is why didn't Jesus tell us to expect it, why was it compiled in the 17th century and in English?
My personal view is that the KJV is a great translation and in 50 years when all our current modern translations are out of print and have been replaced by new modern translations the KJV will still be around. However does that make the KJV the inspired word of God? Not so sure. If it is why didn't Jesus tell us to expect it, why was it compiled in the 17th century and in English?
September 13, 2019
While attempting to defend the Bible as God's word, the author has only presented a highly inaccurate and misleading, when not actually false, representation of various modern English Bible translations in support of her "King James only" English translation view of the Bible. Not worth reading except as an illustration of how anything can get published today.
February 1, 2020
Controversial, and while I agree with some of the logic, it has too many inaccuracies and sourcing issues. I do believe it is misunderstood by most, however. It shouldn't be seen that I am not KJVO in the criticism I level, rather the book could be more substantial.
Edit:
I would say Gail's latter work are far more substantial.
Edit:
I would say Gail's latter work are far more substantial.
November 8, 2019
This book is amazing!!!!!! The amount of research that went into this book is phenominal & how she uses the AKJV 1611 in comparison to the many modern versions. One has to ask ourselves "What gives us the right to edit, revise & rewrite another author's book (in this case the Author is God). It's ok to translate into other languages but keep the scriptures intact with nothing changed,
June 13, 2019
Regardless of what you believe on the matter, this is one of the worst formulated books on the subject that I've ever read.
August 16, 2019
I can only give this book 3 stars. Since the author is a KJV Onlyist I expected it to be one sided. However, Riplinger attacks the integrity of everyone involved in the translation of modern English Bible translations viciously and without any real proof of what she says about them.
For both the translations and quotes from the translators she uses the cut and paste method of quotations. In one instance, for example, she pulls one word or phrase from several different pages of a book by one of the NIV translators and strings them all together using ellipses to make it appear that the author was making damning remarks about himself and the NIV.
In another instance she claims that many of the translators of the modern versions either went insane or lost their ability to speak as if God were punishing them for messing with His Word. When John Ankerberg brought this up on his show and asked the editors of three modern versions if this was true of anyone on their translation teams they all denied it vehemently stating that the claim was categorically untrue.
I only gave it three stars because once you get past all of the exaggerations and rhetoric there are some interesting things in the book. However, I would not take Gail Riplinger or this book too seriously. It is more of an oddity than a scholarly work.
For both the translations and quotes from the translators she uses the cut and paste method of quotations. In one instance, for example, she pulls one word or phrase from several different pages of a book by one of the NIV translators and strings them all together using ellipses to make it appear that the author was making damning remarks about himself and the NIV.
In another instance she claims that many of the translators of the modern versions either went insane or lost their ability to speak as if God were punishing them for messing with His Word. When John Ankerberg brought this up on his show and asked the editors of three modern versions if this was true of anyone on their translation teams they all denied it vehemently stating that the claim was categorically untrue.
I only gave it three stars because once you get past all of the exaggerations and rhetoric there are some interesting things in the book. However, I would not take Gail Riplinger or this book too seriously. It is more of an oddity than a scholarly work.
April 18, 2020
This is a great work. Like most authors I have ever read, I see a few questionable quotations. I don't agree with every one of her observations. And I might deduct a star for that but then I see the sexist, unhinged, ridiculous, exaggerated accusations from the anti-KJB crowd, as well as the group we would call "TR" (if you're not involved in the King James Only movement or a student of the movement, you wouldn't understand) and I just have to ADD back that star and give it a 5.
The new bible version sham is a money-making monstrosity based on shabby "textual science" involving apostates and evangelical, fundamentalist DUPES who are producing (from corrupt manuscripts and corrupt translation techniques) perverted "bibles" that reflect the new age influence found in today's Laodicean (lukewarm) version of Christianity.
Read this book and you'll see what I mean.
The new bible version sham is a money-making monstrosity based on shabby "textual science" involving apostates and evangelical, fundamentalist DUPES who are producing (from corrupt manuscripts and corrupt translation techniques) perverted "bibles" that reflect the new age influence found in today's Laodicean (lukewarm) version of Christianity.
Read this book and you'll see what I mean.
September 28, 2022
Honestly this was a very long book that merely scratched the surface of the corruption that has taken over the new bible versions. None of them are sacred, all have the same agenda to brainwash the people dumb down the Christians reading it and above all else don't give any proof of the diety of God and that Jesus was Christ. Truly an eye opener to those willing to look into these things for themselves. For those comfortable with their NIV and NASB bibles....BEWARE, if you do not know the history behind them and the evil within them you should certainly look into for yourself before standing up for them.
August 28, 2024
This book reminds me of a self published Wikipedia article, a lot of great information but questionable conclusions.
I agree with alot of the authors points but disagree with her some of logic to get there. I did find the book fascinating for all the second-hand information she provided through the footnotes. It was interesting to see a direct connection of Westcott and Hort to the occult.
I’d recommend it if you come across the book for a good deal simply for the notes and information she provides, not necessarily her conclusions.
I agree with alot of the authors points but disagree with her some of logic to get there. I did find the book fascinating for all the second-hand information she provided through the footnotes. It was interesting to see a direct connection of Westcott and Hort to the occult.
I’d recommend it if you come across the book for a good deal simply for the notes and information she provides, not necessarily her conclusions.
July 7, 2023
This is one of the worst books I have ever read. It makes for some popular meme's with it's charts here and there, but it goes way a general case for the KJV over modern translations. Sure, there may be some true things in this book, but it's indiscernible from the cast amount of mis citations, made up narratives, and goofy logic. There's more respectable and sober minded argument's out there for where modern translations fall short.
August 9, 2025
I actually agree with the author's conclusion: The KJV Bible is God's Holy Word in the English language, and other versions are corrupt because they've changed the words of God. However, take two minutes to fact check this author, and you’ll discover that her research is dubious and her argument is dishonest. You don't have to lie to prove that the Bible has been corrupted. God's truth defends itself. It's people like this author that give fundamental Christians a bad name.
April 7, 2020
The writing style is flowery and strained. That said, and being that I am in agreement with around 99% of its content, I recommend every person ought to find time to read this book.
January 23, 2023
I have her updated version and is absolutely phenomenal!
July 11, 2024
If you told me Gail eats 1/2 pack of saltine crackers a day and has had sex once (missionary only) (purely for the purposes of procreation) (duh) I would believe you wholeheartedly
October 17, 2025
Read this book over 20 years ago.
March 30, 2023
An absolute must read if you care about God's Holy Word. If you are being honest, you will switch to the KJV after reading this.
All the 1 star people are either non-Christian deceivers or Christians that put their pride above the
truth, in which case I wonder if they are even Christians.
In response to those people I would refer them to 2 Timothy 2:9:
9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
In every new version of the Bible it is bound by copyright laws. The Bible tells us God's Word will not be bound so how can any of these versions be God's Word?
All the 1 star people are either non-Christian deceivers or Christians that put their pride above the
truth, in which case I wonder if they are even Christians.
In response to those people I would refer them to 2 Timothy 2:9:
9 Wherein I suffer trouble, as an evil doer, even unto bonds; but the word of God is not bound.
In every new version of the Bible it is bound by copyright laws. The Bible tells us God's Word will not be bound so how can any of these versions be God's Word?
September 1, 2021
This book and Sam Gipp's "The Answer Book" opened my eyes to the truth. Gail Riplinger, a tenured professor at Kent State University and a Christian, became incapacitated with a connective tissue disorder. For the next several years, while bed-ridden, Riplinger compared and collated other bible versions (KJV, NIV, ASV, NLT, NKJV, ESV...etc.,) side by side. The results were shocking and alarming. The spirit of Antichrist is very much active in the world, and "New Age Bible Versions" reveals it.
"...Yea, hath God said,..." (Genesis 3:1). Divine inspiration without divine preservation would be a divine waste of time. Satan has been attacking God's word from the beginning. Riplinger proves unequivocally, newer bible versions reduce the deity of Jesus Christ, deny Christ's virgin birth, omit the Holy Trinity, or Godhead, and the list goes on. Riplinger shows the NIV is 64,000 words shorter than the King James Bible. God gives a very grave and dire warning to those who would dare to add to or take away anything from His word in Revelation 22:18-19. Is there a bible in the English language that is the perfect, inspired, inerrant, authoritative, preserved, and infallible word of God? The answer is yes. It's the Authorized King James Bible (KJV). This book brought me back to the KJV with great conviction and resolve.
The Lord Jesus Christ referenced scripture as authoritative and without error; stating that it cannot be broken (John 10:35). Jesus quoted scripture frequently to correct those in error (Matthew 12:1–8). Jesus is also referenced as "the Word" (John 1:1 & 1:14). Since he is the Son of God, we must follow his example with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
This book and its author get a lot of mocking criticism and hate from the secular, academic world; particularly from James R. White. Jesus was also mocked and ridiculed. The progeny of Christ's skeptics & critics back then are very much alive today. As a military veteran, the phrase: "You get the heaviest flak when you're over the target" is spot-on. Gail Riplinger uses comparative methods with the different bible versions against the KJV that are easy to reference, research, and confirm for yourself. It was an eye-opening experience! More of Gail Riplinger's books and resources are available at: www.avpublications.com
"...Yea, hath God said,..." (Genesis 3:1). Divine inspiration without divine preservation would be a divine waste of time. Satan has been attacking God's word from the beginning. Riplinger proves unequivocally, newer bible versions reduce the deity of Jesus Christ, deny Christ's virgin birth, omit the Holy Trinity, or Godhead, and the list goes on. Riplinger shows the NIV is 64,000 words shorter than the King James Bible. God gives a very grave and dire warning to those who would dare to add to or take away anything from His word in Revelation 22:18-19. Is there a bible in the English language that is the perfect, inspired, inerrant, authoritative, preserved, and infallible word of God? The answer is yes. It's the Authorized King James Bible (KJV). This book brought me back to the KJV with great conviction and resolve.
The Lord Jesus Christ referenced scripture as authoritative and without error; stating that it cannot be broken (John 10:35). Jesus quoted scripture frequently to correct those in error (Matthew 12:1–8). Jesus is also referenced as "the Word" (John 1:1 & 1:14). Since he is the Son of God, we must follow his example with the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.
This book and its author get a lot of mocking criticism and hate from the secular, academic world; particularly from James R. White. Jesus was also mocked and ridiculed. The progeny of Christ's skeptics & critics back then are very much alive today. As a military veteran, the phrase: "You get the heaviest flak when you're over the target" is spot-on. Gail Riplinger uses comparative methods with the different bible versions against the KJV that are easy to reference, research, and confirm for yourself. It was an eye-opening experience! More of Gail Riplinger's books and resources are available at: www.avpublications.com
April 11, 2015
My one star sums up what I felt about it. I picked this book up years ago out of curiosity concerning the King James-only controversy. I had hoped it would give me some clarity on the position of those who adhere to the view that every translation besides the King James version is "corrupt" and downright dangerous to read. Needless to say, I wasn't convinced.
The biggest turn off was the authors consistently vitriolic language toward any interpretation opposed to hers. A close second to this was the shoddy scholarship and manipulation of the data. It's amazing how if you use enough graphs and tweak them just so, you can make them "prove" any point you desire.
I've read other books defending the KJV-only position that were much less critical and more convincing. I say that because I have friends who are a part of churches and minstries that hold the KJV in high regard. Though I don't view it as the only acceptable English translation, I also don't have a problem with anyone who prefers to use it to the exclusion of all others. I do, however, tend to shy away from entering the debate, as, in my opinion, it seems to divide Christians who in most other areas would agree. In other words, I'm opposed to using one's position on the King James version as a test of orthodoxy or a gauge with which to measure the "soundness" of one's doctrine.
The biggest turn off was the authors consistently vitriolic language toward any interpretation opposed to hers. A close second to this was the shoddy scholarship and manipulation of the data. It's amazing how if you use enough graphs and tweak them just so, you can make them "prove" any point you desire.
I've read other books defending the KJV-only position that were much less critical and more convincing. I say that because I have friends who are a part of churches and minstries that hold the KJV in high regard. Though I don't view it as the only acceptable English translation, I also don't have a problem with anyone who prefers to use it to the exclusion of all others. I do, however, tend to shy away from entering the debate, as, in my opinion, it seems to divide Christians who in most other areas would agree. In other words, I'm opposed to using one's position on the King James version as a test of orthodoxy or a gauge with which to measure the "soundness" of one's doctrine.
October 18, 2021
Excellent, Excellent book! Forget what the skeptics say and read this book for yourself. If you are a new Christian, maybe a struggling Christian, or maybe you’ve been a Christian your entire life, wherever you are in your walk, your need this book! And for your own safety of your heart and soul, don’t let it be a dust collector!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 33 reviews