"King James Only": If You Do Not Have The KJV... You Do Not Have The Holy Ghost  [Video]

Wescott/Hort aka Nestle-Aland modern 'bibles' utterly rejected by the Holy Ghost - the original King-James-only:


Video embed code [adjust height/width as needed]:

<iframe src="https://www.bitchute.com/embed/ErSCLEGNYoJM/" width="550" height="309"</iframe>


[*note: The Holy Ghost is named in 89 verses in the KJV but 90 times total - Acts 19:2 is 2x. Interesting thing about this verse: It is from the book of Acts account of the apostle Paul's encounter with a group of "about twelve" men in Ephesus who knew only "John's baptism" - they had never heard "whether there be any Holy Ghost". Which is exactly what happens to users of so-called modern-versions.  (Acts 19:1-4, 5-7) ]

Video from: The Holy Ghost The Original King-James-Only -- No King James, No Holy Ghost!

Rev. 18:4
Compare also: According To The ESV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, Etc. The Gospel Message Is 'Foolishness' And 'Folly' - Danger Danger "The message of the gospel is foolishness and folly? Yes yes it is true. The message of the gospel is foolishness and folly and God is pleased. The 'bible' says so...if that is...you will believe the Westcott-Hort aka Nestle-Aland so-called modern bible versions. The gospel message is foolishness and folly - it says so right in 1 Corinthians 1:21..."

This image may be freely used, reproduced, posted, etc.

Rev. 18:4
Said the apostle Paul: 2Cor. 2:17 "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God..."


Clinton Post said...

Ghost and spirit are they not the same thing?

tom m. said...

The etymology of the word 'ghost' is uncertain. Some sources say it entered the English language about the 14th-15th century as a derivation of a Dutch or German word. When it became commonly used is another question, likely not until much later. Perhaps not even until "Casper the friendly" came on the scene.

Today ghost and spirit are often used interchangeably - but not so in the Word of God

The fact is that long before the word 'ghost' came into use in the English language with the definition it now has, God the Holy Ghost the third person of the Godhead was so called

He had the name first in other words...

JAP said...

That is like saying "You don't have the holy spirit by reading the Septuagint and not the Hebrew holy scriptures", please... the newer translations may be watered down but the essential message of the gospel is still there, all translations fall short from the original Hebrew.....the first two letters of the Pentateuch in the original Hebrew speak of the story of redemption. JAP
PS Please don't accuse me of some Hebrew movement or something to that effect, Yeshua is still the Messiah, in any language.

tom m. said...

Response to JAP (directly above),

In the statement above a number of arguments are made, each of them invalid; as such:

1. re: "don't have the holy spirit by reading the Septuagint" -- This is very true. The Spirit of God absolutely will not attend the reading of the 'septuagint'. The reason for this is simple - the 'BC' Septuagint, in plain words, is a total fraud. To believe in a 'BC' septuagint one has to believe the following nonsensical story: 'About 250BC 72 jewish elders/scholars were brought to Egypt by an Egyptian king to have the jewish scriptures translated into Greek. Not a single one of the 72 could read, write, or speak Greek. No problem though this was a divine work. Each of the 72 were put into separate cells (there are some variations on the story) to do the translation work. When finished every one of the translations turned out to be an exact word-for-word match. It was a miracle, undeniable proof of God's hand on the new Greek OT.' --- That is the basic story of the origination of the 'BC' septuagint. Reality check: ridiculously fantastic, not the slightest bit believable. It is a fairy-tale, a fable. The fact of it is, what is called the 'septuagint' did not exist until after the completion of the NT. It is AD, not magically BC (per the story), as universally claimed. The Lord Jesus and the apostles did not quote from the fictional BC septuagint. What goes for a septuagint today is a 4th century production. This is all verifiable fact - just need to do the homework. No Holy Ghost here.

2. "newer translations may be watered down" -- Westcott/Horts are not 'watered down', the correct word is corrupted - systematically altered to remove whole or in part, key verses - and change specific words. Any that do simple version-comparison can easily discover how damaging these changes are.

3. "the essential message of the gospel is still there" -- "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" [Rom. 10:17]. This verse "hearing...the word of God" ..refers to the actual scriptures, not some nebulous "message" dug out of corrupted Alexandrian-text Westcott/Hort versions. God the Holy Ghost the third person of the triune Godhead uses only his own Word in the work of salvation. He does not recognize Westcott/Hort versions - see video above. Note also on "message" - every so-called modern version says (contradicting the KJV) that the 'message' is foolishness - see post: ESV, NIV, NASB, NKJV, etc.

3. "all translations fall short from the original" -- There are no originals, Hebrew or Greek. All dissolved into dust long ago. A lot of manuscripts, yes, but no originals. The LORD God promised to preserve his Word though [Ps. 12:6-7] - and has done so in his own way. The Holy Ghost interpreted all the Hebrew and Greek in the universal language English. It is done. It's called the Authorized Version. He is The Language Expert - you cannot improve on his work. Some will not like this statement - like it or not - it is the fact. Note: to say all translations fall short is a dangerous position to take. It contradicts the bible, and it contradicts the Author of the bible who said he would preserve it. To say all translations fall short, and since there are no originals, is to say we have no bible at all - only some writings that anyone can edit according to their own interpretation. No - we have a bible, inspired, inerrant, and it is a final authority (AV). Man will not submit to this final authority though - this is the real issue.

(cont. below)

tom m. said...


4. Lastly, the name 'Yeshua'. Where is the scripture? There is not one. The name Yeshua is derived from the jewish talmud. It may not be used in place of 'Jesus', the name given by the angel Gabriel [Luke 1:26,31]. The Holy Ghost who wrote the bible and translated the languages plainly said his name is 'JESUS' (even for Jews). 'Yeshua' is a talmudic denial of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ [Jer. 23:26-27]. Their justification for changing the name essentially comes down to "because WE said so". The name change must be rejected by Christians. Note: "Yeshua the Messiah" also to be rejected. JESUS is not the "messiah of the Jews" only - but the 'Saviour' of the whole world:

1 John 4:14 'And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world'

Jesus Christ the name above every name - Phil. 2:9