If you want to know more about this "controversial" topic please also refer to my other posts: https://www.harvestministriesnz.com/post/what-to-do-if-you-miss-the-rapture https://www.harvestministriesnz.com/post/3-reasons-the-rapture-could-happen-today https://www.harvestministriesnz.com/post/fed-up-with-the-rapture-doctrine-being-mocked-attacked A few years ago I met for a coffee with a Christian brother to encourage one another in the faith. But unfortunately it turned out to be a "rapture attacking session" , even though I never brought it up. He must have figured out what I believe from other sources. He kept referring to the fact I was deceived by Darby. I have never read Darby, but some time I probably will when I will find the time. It’s the most persistent lie concerning the Rapture. I have either read or heard it more times than I can count. Though it’s been debunked countless times, a great many saints remain convinced that the doctrine of the pre-Tribulation Rapture originated with John Darby. Although they insist that no one believed in such a thing before him, it’s simply not true. Let me be clear: If anyone tells you that this teaching originated with John Darby, they are either purposely misleading you or have themselves been the victim of someone deceiving them about the origin of our “blessed hope.” If The Bible Is True, There Must Be A Rapture Regardless of the timing of the Rapture, the teaching that Jesus will someday appear and catch-up both dead and living saints to meet Him in the air is biblically-based. Scripture provides several details regarding the sequence of events that we now refer to as the “Rapture.” The late Dr. Ed Hindson, former professor at Liberty University, beloved Bible scholar, and author, put it this way: If you disagree on the timing of the rapture, please don’t tell people, “There’s never going to be a rapture.” No, there must be a rapture or the Bible is not true. There must be a time when the archangel shouts, when the trumpet sounds, and the dead in Christ are raised and the living are caught up (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18). We may differ on the timing of the rapture but not the fact of the rapture. We find references to the “Rapture” in John 14:2–3; 1 Corinthians 15:50–55; Philippians 3:20–21; Romans 8:23–25; Titus 2:11–14; and Colossians 3:4. Putting these passages together, we arrive at a series of events that comprise our “blessed hope.” If the Bible is true, there must be a still future time when Jesus appears, raises the dead in Christ, and catches living believers up to meet Him in the air (1 Thessalonians 4:13-17; 1 Corinthians 15:47-55). Since the words of these texts have never reached fulfilment anytime in the past, they point to a yet future reality, which we call the Rapture. It’s the time the Lord gives us our immortal and glorified bodies, the essence of our future experience of eternal life. Because the Bible is true, the event we now designate as the Rapture awaits a future and certain fulfilment. The Origin Of The Word Many people object to our hope of meeting Jesus in the air because the word “Rapture” doesn’t appear on the pages of Scripture. However, that’s not true; it appears in a previous version of the Bible. Long ago, it appeared in a Latin translation from about AD 400 called the Vulgate. The Vulgate used the Latin word rapturo to translate the Greek word harpazo in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. The words “caught up” in our English translations capture the essence of the Greek harpazo in the text just as the Latin rapturo, the origin of our word “Rapture,” did when Jerome and others translated the Bible into Latin. In his book Dispensationalism Before Darby, Dr. William C. Watson lists ten instances of Bible scholars using the word the word “Rapture” beginning with Joseph Mede in 1627 through the time of Thomas Broughton, an English pastor, in 1768. In the centuries after the Reformation, the usage of the word “Rapture” to describe the event depicted below in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 became commonplace in many protestant churches. In a letter that he wrote about these verses, Joseph Mede used the word “Rapture” six times when referring to this verse. Even though Joseph Mede didn’t place Jesus’ appearing before the start of the Tribulation period, his usage of the word “Rapture” establishes a four-hundred-year history of Bible students using the word “Rapture” to refer the event that the Apostle Paul wrote about in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Two centuries before John Darby was born, the word “Rapture” was already commonly use in Bible-believing churches. Early Beliefs In A Rapture Before A Time Of Tribulation The belief that Jesus would take His saints out of the earth before a time of Tribulation on the earth dates back to the first centuries of the church. In AD 180, Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies to refute the errors of Gnosticism, which posed a great threat to the church at the time. In Against Heresies, Book 5, Chapter 29, he wrote: And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be Tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.” In the above quote, Irenaeus used the same Greek word for “caught up,” harpazo, that Paul used in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 for the Lord catching up living believers to meet Him in the air. Irenaeus specifically placed the fulfilment of this verse ahead of the time of “Tribulation” that Jesus referred to in Matthew 24:21 and thus before the Second Coming, which the Lord said would happen after this time of judgment on the earth (Matthew 247:29). This highly respected theologian of the early church envisioned a fulfilment of the harpazo followed by a time of extended Tribulation on the earth. He regarded the Rapture and Second Coming as two distinct occurrences separated by at least the second half of the seven-year Tribulation. Cyprian (AD 210-258), a bishop in the city of Carthage, guided his church through a period of intense persecution and suffering during which time he also became a martyr. In his book, Treatises of Cyprian, he wrote: We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom. Cyprian believed in “an early departure” of the Church before further disasters occurred on the earth. He believed the time of additional trouble was “imminent” and thus also a “departure.” He believed that the Lord would take believers out of the world so they wouldn’t experience the troubling times ahead for those left behind. His reference to “snatches us” sounds just like the catching up of the Church in 1 Thessalonians 4:17. Cyprian’s beliefs signify a third century AD belief in a pre-Tribulation Rapture . Another unmistakable reference to the pre-Tribulation Rapture comes from Ephraim of Edessa (AD 306–373), who was a poet, a writer of hymns, and a preacher. The quote below comes from Ephraem’s sermon entitled “On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World.” Some historians believe someone else wrote it in AD 622 and ascribed it to Ephraem in order to lend credibility to it. Dr. Grant Jeffrey, who did extensive research on this sermon and obtained a translation of it on his own from a Greek scholar, believes it’s more likely that Ephraem himself preached the sermon sometime around AD 323, just a couple years before the Nicene church council. Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: “Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!” For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins. The above quote dates back to the early fourth century AD. Even if we concede that someone wrote this sermon in AD 622, as some maintain, we still have a definitive adherence to it a pre-Tribulation Rapture 1,200 years before the birth of John Darby! The above sampling of quotes are valid and accepted translations that clearly establish early beliefs within the church of Jesus taking His church out of the world before a time of great tribulation on the earth and returning to the earth with His saints after this time of trouble. Back To The Bible This attempt to discredit the Rapture by making it seem as though it’s a relatively new and thus an unfounded belief is an effort to divert our focus from what the Bible teaches us about our “blessed hope” (Titus 2:11-14). The witness of church history confirms that the scripturally-sound doctrine of the pre-Tribulation Rapture existed in the earliest centuries of the church. More importantly than that, however, is what the Bible says. The Rapture is a clearly defined occurrence in such passages as 1 Thessalonians 4:13-5:11, John 14:2–3, 1 Corinthians 15:50–55, Philippians 3:20–21, Romans 8:23–25, Titus 2:11–14, and Colossians 3:4. The majority of Bible-believing churches during the twentieth century not only adhered to a pre-Tribulation Rapture, but its pastors also unashamedly proclaimed it to their parishioners. The widespread popularity of this belief resulted from the biblically-sound teaching of a great many devout men of God during the late 1800s and early 1900s. John Darby was one of many who taught and wrote about our “blessed hope.”

THE 75 DAYS AFTER THE TRIBULATION: Most prophecy charts stop at the end of Daniel’s 70th week. Daniel doesn’t. The second half of the Tribulation is 1,260 days. Revelation calls it 42 months and “a time, and times, and half a time.” Then Daniel gives us two more numbers. “And from the time that the daily sacrifice is taken away, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there shall be one thousand two hundred and ninety days. Blessed is he who waits, and comes to the one thousand three hundred and thirty-five days." Daniel 12:11–12 That means Scripture takes us 75 days beyond the 1,260 days. 1,260 to 1,290 = 30 days. 1,290 to 1,335 = 45 more days. Those numbers are there for a reason. Christ returns, destroys the armies gathered against Jerusalem, and the Antichrist and False Prophet are cast into the lake of fire. Satan is bound. Yet before the Millennial Kingdom is fully established, Scripture shows judgment and separation taking place. Matthew 25 describes Christ separating the nations as a shepherd divides sheep from goats. Ezekiel 20 describes Israel being brought under the rod, with rebels purged out. Daniel then says the man who reaches the 1,335th day is blessed. That sounds like arrival. The Tribulation is over. Judgment has been carried out. The King is on the throne. Those who remain enter the promised Kingdom. Exactly what occurs on every one of those 75 days isn’t spelled out for us. What God did give us is the timetable. 1,260 days. Then 30. Then 45. Then blessing. Daniel’s prophecy doesn’t end with Armageddon. It carries us right to the doorstep of the Kingdom.

Can you imagine watching three of your own brothers be brutally slaughtered right in front of you, then hurled off a massive, jagged cliff simply because you completely refused to deny Jesus Christ? In the blood-soaked second-century Roman Empire, the legendary trial of Saint Felicitas and her seven sons reached a terrifying breaking point. The ruthless Roman prefect, Publius, had already executed Januarius, Felix, and Philip in front of the family. He turned his furious attention toward the fourth son, Silvanus. The prefect was absolutely desperate to break the family's unstoppable streak of courage... Believing that the sheer psychological terror of a dizzying, fatal drop would finally force a surrender. Forced to march under heavy guard to a high, rocky precipice outside the city, Silvanus was given a final, terrifying ultimatum. The Roman guards dragged Silvanus to the very edge of the massive cliff, demanding he look down at the jagged stones far below. The prefect offered him immediate freedom, wealth, and life if he would just burn a single pinch of incense to the pagan gods. Standing entirely unarmed on the ledge, Silvanus didn't even tremble. Fuelled by the fierce, praying gaze of his mother Felicitas, he boldly looked the prefect in the eye... And declared that the temporary fall of his earthly body was nothing compared to the eternal height of God's glory! Consumed by blinding, humiliated rage that his threats had failed yet again, the Roman judge gave the fatal order. The heavily armoured executioners violently shoved Silvanus over the jagged edge. He plummeted into the deep chasm below, enduring a horrific, bone-shattering impact on the rocks. Silvanus became the fourth son to seal his testimony with his life. Half of the brothers were now gone, but instead of breaking the family's spirit in terror... Silvanus’s fearless plunge built an absolute, unyielding wall of faith for his three remaining brothers to follow! Can you imagine being forced to watch four of your own brothers brutally executed right in front of you, and joyfully choosing the executioner's blade to secure your eternal crown? In the treacherous, blood-soaked arenas of the second-century Roman Empire... The trial of Saint Felicitas and her seven sons had become a terrifying test of wills. The ruthless Roman prefect, Publius, had completely failed to break the family. He had already slaughtered Januarius with leaden whips, crushed Felix with wooden clubs, and hurled Philip and Silvanus from a towering cliff. Now, his desperate, furious eyes turned to the fifth son, Alexander. The powerful judge was running out of time and patience to prove his authority. He offered Alexander immediate freedom, wealth, and absolute political protection... If he would simply abandon his mother's faith and offer a tiny pinch of incense to the Roman gods. Standing entirely unarmed near the very ground where his brothers had just bled, Alexander completely refused to flinch. Strengthened by the fierce, unwavering gaze of his mother, Felicitas... He boldly looked the prefect in the face and declared that his brothers' blood was a crown of victory, completely rejecting the empire's false idols! Consumed by blinding, humiliated rage that this family was entirely unbreakable, the judge ordered an immediate and violent end. Alexander was dragged to the centre of the dark stone courtyard and violently forced to his knees. He did not weep, tremble, or beg for his life. Alexander peacefully bowed his head, and with one brutal, sweeping strike of a heavy iron sword, the ruthless executioner severed his head. He became the fifth son to conquer the Roman Empire through martyrdom... Proving to the terrified pagan court that a faith anchored in absolute truth will gladly bleed before it ever bows! Can you imagine being dragged into a public square and choosing to be violently beaten to death with heavy wooden clubs rather than deny Jesus Christ? In the treacherous, blood-soaked days of the second-century Roman Empire... Felix stood as one of the seven sons of Saint Felicitas, a noble and wealthy Christian widow. When their family’s immense charity and bold testimony enraged the corrupt pagan priests of Rome... The entire family was violently arrested and dragged before the ruthless Roman prefect, Publius. Following the gruesome execution of his eldest brother, Januarius, the judge targeted Felix. The prefect was desperate to break this single family to terrify all of Rome's Christians... And he believed that forcing the remaining brothers to watch their siblings die in agony would finally shatter their resolve. Forced to stand entirely unarmed before the deadly Roman court, Felix was given a terrifying ultimatum. The powerful judge first tried to break the young nobleman, forcing him to look at the blood of his recently martyred brother. Publius promised to immediately set him free if he would simply offer a sacrifice to the pagan gods or face an execution so violent it would shatter his bones. Strengthened by the incredible courage of his mother, Felicitas, Felix completely refused to cower. He boldly looked the deadly prefect in the eye and declared his absolute, unwavering loyalty to Jesus Christ... Knowing full well it would guarantee an immediate and agonizing execution! Consumed by blinding, demonic rage that his threats had completely failed, the judge ordered a spectacle of unthinkable cruelty. Felix was violently seized by executioners armed with heavy, brutal wooden clubs. In a horrifying display of violence, the ruthless executioners rained down crushing, heavy blows, systematically shattering Felix’s bones. He did not beg for mercy or curse his attackers. Felix endured the horrific, bone-crushing agony with absolute, supernatural peace until his earthly body finally gave way. He was the second of his family to fall... But his unyielding, unbreakable endurance added another layer of steel to the resolve of his surviving brothers, proving to the entire Roman Empire that true faith cannot be broken!

Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.—Isaiah 40:1 Scripture tells us to “Comfort my people” but what does comfort look like in a nation bearing the weight of constant war? After spending almost three years building relationships in Israel, we discovered that comfort begins with something surprisingly simple: being there, listening, and walking alongside people who are hurting. Recently, a small Israeli Reserve unit went on a mission to Lebanon. Right before they left, Olive Tree—you—provided new uniforms for them, and they were so thankful. They made a video the morning they left thanking us for the uniforms, but we never got to see it. They were in a village in Lebanon when a terrorist, hiding in a church, opened fire. One of our soldiers was killed, and his death made national news. He was Major (res.) Itamar Sapir. Itamar is survived by his wife, Roee, and their one-year-old son. He was 27 years old War Is Hell The people of Israel are hurting, perhaps more than ever before in modern times, and this pain is transforming the country. There is a current mental health crisis in Israel that is unprecedented. In the past, wars were shorter, but today’s wars are prolonged. Then came October 7, 2023—a modern holocaust that cut to the heart of the nation. Can you imagine armed terrorists invading your small town and committing horrifying atrocities in the name of Allah? This is an ever-present threat in Israel. Israeli Health Ministry statistics show that the current mental health collapse is worse than anything Israel experienced in past wars (1973 Yom Kippur or 2006 Lebanon) due to a combination of extraordinary facts: • The massacre of civilians, including children and the elderly. • The loss of countless family members. • Hostages threatened, brutalized and killed. • Constant redeployment of hundreds of thousands of Reservists. • Years of ground warfare on multiple fronts. Depression, anxiety, addiction, and an epidemic of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are crippling the country. Trauma and grief add to what experts say is an “incredibly high” divorce rate in Israel. Now is the time to “Comfort, comfort my people, says your God.” (Isaiah 40:1)

Don’t Forget… According To ‘Climate Expert’ Predictions, Humans Should Already Be Extinct Did you know that you only have a few months—at most—left to live? Yes, that’s right, because a climate scientist from the University of Arizona predicted back in 2016 that the climate situation was so dire that in a mere decade he couldn’t imagine there being a single human being left on planet earth. Well, this year makes 10 years since he made that prediction . . . so are we all about to die from extreme temperatures not seen in “two billion years”? Dr. Guy McPherson has published 55 peer-reviewed articles and is a professor emeritus. His “near-term human extinction” theory—that humans will be extinct very soon—is considered “fringe” by most scientists, but that certainly hasn’t stopped him from touring, speaking, publishing, teaching, and interviewing as a climate expert! Take, for example, this interview from 2016 in New Zealand when he made this prediction: “In terms of the human race, we’re done, it’s locked in . . . We’re in the midst of the sixth mass extinction. . . . I can’t imagine there will be a human on the planet in 10 years.” Of course, it’s been 10 years, and human beings are still thriving and nowhere near extinction. His prediction was utterly false. Things have not rapidly declined to the point where humans are desperately clinging to life with only the hope of microbes and fungi left to repopulate a desolate planet. Since he has the wrong starting point—evolution, millions of years, and atheism—he reaches utterly wrong conclusions. In 2018, climate-change activist Greta Thunberg tweeted an article that quoted another climate activist/professor saying that climate change could “wipe out humanity unless we stop using fossil fuels over the next five years.” Again, a dire prediction that hasn’t taken place. Al Gore’s environmental activism is another example—a lot of the prophecies he made about climate change in his 2006 documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, have not come true. Climate models are only as good as the data put into them and the interpretations driving the conclusions. Dr. McPherson and climate alarmists like him don’t have all the information (climate science is extremely complex, after all) and have a wrong interpretation of the past when it comes to climate, so they make wrong predictions that fail again and again. Our climate did not evolve. It was created by God, intelligently designed with wisdom and foresight. And humans will not go extinct by soaring global temperatures. God has already decreed how it will all end when he returns in judgment and creates a new heavens and a new earth. For Christians, the future is not bleak and hopeless—we will spend eternity in perfection with our Creator. But for those who reject God, the future is hopeless. Not because of a man-made climate crisis, but because God will judge sin and those who have rejected Christ will forever be apart from him. That’s the reality! (Praise the Lord we have hope in Christ!) Climate alarmists will continue to predict the end of the world or the end of humanity, but they will continue to be wrong. Instead of getting worked up about the supposed hopelessness of the future, Christians are to continue following the mandate God gave us: to have wise and godly dominion over this creation (this means taking care of it for God’s glory and our good), doing the King’s business until he comes, contending for the faith, being salt and light, and making disciples—all with the hope of a brand-new creation when Jesus returns someday. What a difference a biblical worldview makes!

For generations, critics have claimed the Bible was filled with myths, legends, and invented people. Yet archaeology keeps uncovering the very kings, cities, inscriptions, and events they said never existed. And these examples are only the tip of the iceberg. To date, archaeologists have uncovered thousands of artifacts and archaeological discoveries that confirm, verify, or corroborate the historical world described in the Bible. These include inscriptions, monuments, seals, coins, tablets, tombs, buildings, royal records, and ancient manuscripts. Again and again, archaeology has brought to light the very people, places, kingdoms, rulers, customs, and events recorded in Scripture. Discoveries such as the Tel Dan Stele, the Mesha Stele, the Pilate Stone, the Sennacherib Prism, the Lachish reliefs, Hezekiah’s Tunnel, the Ketef Hinnom silver scrolls, and the Dead Sea Scrolls are only a fraction of the enormous archaeological record connected to the biblical world. The Bible is not a book floating in some imaginary past—it is firmly rooted in the real history of the ancient world. And the evidence becomes even more remarkable when we look at the people named in the Bible. Biblical scholar Lawrence Mykytiuk identified 53 people from the Hebrew Bible who are strongly identified in authentic ancient inscriptions. These include kings, rulers, officials, and other historical figures whose names and identities correspond to individuals recorded in Scripture. These inscriptions come from the ancient civilizations that surrounded Israel and Judah, including Assyria, Babylon, Egypt, Moab, Aram-Damascus, and Persia. People who were once known to us primarily through the pages of the Bible have turned up in the archaeological record of the ancient world. The stones themselves preserve their names. But archaeology is not the only source of external evidence. Non-biblical ancient writings and historical records also preserve testimony about people and events connected to the biblical account. Jewish historian Josephus wrote about figures and events from the biblical period, while Roman historians such as Tacitus and Suetonius provide independent testimony concerning the early Christian movement and figures associated with it. Assyrian and Babylonian royal records preserve accounts of kings and military campaigns that intersect with the biblical narrative, while ancient Egyptian and Persian records provide additional evidence for the world in which biblical events unfolded. The Bible’s historical claims do not exist in isolation; they repeatedly intersect with records preserved by civilizations outside the pages of Scripture. Then there is the manuscript evidence. The New Testament is supported by an extraordinary manuscript tradition consisting of more than 24,000 ancient manuscript copies and fragments in Greek and other ancient languages. When this enormous manuscript tradition is considered alongside the thousands of archaeological discoveries, the 53 strongly identified biblical figures, and the extra-biblical historical records connected to the biblical world, the evidence becomes staggering. The Bible has left an enormous footprint in history. Its people lived in real places, its kingdoms existed, its rulers left their names in stone, and its events repeatedly intersect with the surviving record of the ancient world. The more archaeology and ancient history uncover, the more remarkable the historical footprint of Scripture becomes

Yes another post regarding the religion of "peace": Christians wake up! This antichrist religion needs to be confronted for the sake of our children & grand-children! https://www.facebook.com/reel/242619457788727 https://www.facebook.com/reel/2195011687998523 https://www.facebook.com/reel/1007357525060805 https://www.facebook.com/reel/1488096683008074 𝐕𝐀𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐀 𝐆𝐎𝐌𝐄𝐙 𝐆𝐄𝐓𝐒 𝐁𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐄𝐃 𝐅𝐑𝐎𝐌 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐔𝐊 𝐅𝐎𝐑 𝐂𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐈𝐒𝐋𝐀𝐌𝐈𝐂 𝐄𝐗𝐓𝐑𝐄𝐌𝐈𝐒𝐌 — 𝐓𝐇𝐄𝐍 𝐆𝐎𝐄𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐏𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐒 𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐆𝐀𝐍 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐃𝐎𝐔𝐁𝐋𝐄𝐒 𝐃𝐎𝐖𝐍: “𝐇𝐎𝐖 𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐘 𝐆𝐈𝐑𝐋𝐒 𝐇𝐀𝐕𝐄 𝐁𝐄𝐄𝐍 𝐑∗𝐏𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐌𝐔𝐒𝐋𝐈𝐌 𝐆𝐑𝐎𝐎𝐌𝐈𝐍𝐆 𝐆𝐀𝐍𝐆𝐒? 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑 𝐌𝐘 𝐐𝐔𝐄𝐒𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍, 𝐏𝐈𝐄𝐑𝐒” Piers tried to corner her on how many Muslims there are in the world. Her response: “𝘞𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘺, 𝘗𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘴. 𝘐 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘨 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 100 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮𝘴.” — The UK 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐳 𝐟𝐫𝐨𝐦 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐮𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐲 for calling the Home Secretary a “dirty Pakistani Muslim” — Piers called her “𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘨𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨, 𝘐𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘤” — she fired back: “𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐲 𝐠𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫∗𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐮𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐦 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐬?” — Piers admitted the grooming scandal was “𝘢𝘯 𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦” and a “𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘴𝘺𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘮” — But he still defended the Home Secretary who 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐆𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐳 𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐞𝐚𝐝 𝐨𝐟 𝐚𝐝𝐝𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐛𝐥𝐞𝐦 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐔𝐊 𝐛𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐚 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐬𝐡 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬 𝐚𝐛𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐈𝐬𝐥𝐚𝐦 𝐰𝐡𝐢𝐥𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐬𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐁𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐬𝐡 𝐠𝐢𝐫𝐥𝐬 𝐰𝐞𝐫𝐞 𝐫∗𝐩𝐞𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐠𝐫𝐨𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐠𝐚𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐠𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐧𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬. 𝐏𝐢𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰𝐬 𝐢𝐭. 𝐇𝐞 𝐚𝐝𝐦𝐢𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐜𝐚𝐦𝐞𝐫𝐚. 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐮𝐭𝐫𝐚𝐠𝐞 𝐢𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐰𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐬𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐭 𝐨𝐮𝐭 𝐥𝐨𝐮𝐝 — 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐞𝐧 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐝 𝐢𝐭. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1653502935838934 Islamism is not a distant threat—it is advancing before our eyes, and too many refuse to see it for what it is. We must wake up!! We must stand firm in Biblical Truth—not with fear, but with courage; not with confusion, but with conviction—for the sake of our children and grandchildren. #anunholyalliance #islam #islamism #islamist #Sharia #omar #Mamdani Did you know that one of the largest mosques in the world is currently being built in Strasbourg, France? The Slovenian member of the European Parliament Branko Grims, explains how foreign money, including Qatari and Turkish cash, is funding this mega-mosque in the heart of the European Union. 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣. 𝙞𝙩'𝙨 𝙖 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙣 𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙗𝙤𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙖𝙡, 𝙚𝙫𝙞𝙡 𝙞𝙣𝙝𝙪𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝘾𝙐𝙇𝙏 𝙊𝙁 𝙏𝙃𝙀 𝘿𝙀𝙑𝙄𝙇 𝙃𝙄𝙈𝙎𝙀𝙇𝙁 , “People are k!lled, beheaded, tortured, and hanged for leaving Islam. This is not just Islamic extremism—this is Islam,” says Virginnia Logan in an interview. Sorry, but if your religion allows women to be raped and sold in slave markets, maybe it’s time to look at yourself in the mirror and realize your religion is not a religion of peace. It’s pure evil! The Common Thread Here is how nations and institutions are lost. History shows it is often a predictable, step-by-step process. This pattern applies to Islam and to modern liberalism alike. For our purposes, I will outline the strategy historically used to advance Islam and to bring entire societies under Islamic rule. I am not speaking of cultural Muslims, but of radicalized Islam, which is driven by the goal of domination. 1. INFILTRATE Immigration has become the primary means by which Islamists gain access to non-Muslim nations. Historically, Islam expanded by the sword. In more recent times—Europe being the clearest example—the strategy has shifted. Large-scale immigration replaces open conquest. 2. POPULATE Once established, rather than integrating into the host culture, enclaves are formed. More wives are imported. Through polygamy and high birth rates, Islamic populations grow rapidly, often outpacing the native population. 3. AGITATE Millions of Muslims live on public assistance, which affords time and resources to protest, march, and wave foreign flags in our streets. The Muslim call to prayer—once unthinkable in the West—is now openly broadcast in places like Michigan and New York City. Empty-minded liberals celebrate this as “diversity,” when in reality it is an enemy assault. 4. CONTAMINATE Democracy was uniquely sustained by Christian peoples who governed themselves with shared moral assumptions. Free nations cannot survive without common language, customs, values, and secure borders. Islam is not merely a religion; it is a totalizing revolutionary worldview, historically rooted in conquest and submission. 5. SUBORDINATE Intimidation is the means of subjugation. The intentions are no longer hidden. Recent protests—such as those in Michigan—openly denounce America and call for Sharia law. I have long wondered why the United States uses its military to defend Saudi Arabia, a nation where Bibles are forbidden and Christianity is illegal? 6. DOMINATE Why did Christianity disappear from the Middle East? The answer is tragically simple. Christians were persecuted, driven out, and murdered. But the crisis to our nation does not end with external threats. We also face homegrown anarchists who despise the nation they inhabit. Liberals, socialist Democrats, and what some have aptly described as “crazy white women” have come out of hiding, openly declaring their contempt for the West as it was founded. Roughly half the population now rejects biblical morality outright. In many palce abortion has been allowed by law up to the moment of birth. Nations that willingly sacrifice their children will not merely experience judgment—they are already deeply under the judgment of God. The restraints of conscience have been severed. An apostatized Church bears enormous responsibility for this collapse and move toward secularism. When the Gospel was removed from pulpits-God abandoned those congregations. The absence of biblical preaching gave way to strong delusion. With no power to transform hearts, religionists drifted into social activism, abandoning the proclamation of Christ and Him crucified. Scores of these churches now openly denounce the truths they were founded upon. So here we are. Yet God still calls His remnant people to proclaim truth as it is, to people as they are. Hear this clearly: If you will not stand for truth in your local church, you will never stand for God in society. Many evangelical churches have already been infiltrated, contaminated, and are now dominated by anti-Christian beliefs, practices, and leaders. Few examples are more pungent than the United Methodist Church and its descent into open depravity. If you find this offensive, I urge you to study history. This pattern is neither new nor unique. It has been repeated again and again. The strategy is proven. The trajectory is clear. There is only one antidote to this destructive onslaught: repentance, revival and reformation. BREAKING: THREE ISIS brides arrested for slavery on arrival in Melbourne and Sydney as four women + nine children (13 total) touched down this afternoon. AFP Assistant Commissioner Stephen Nutt just confirmed at a special press conference. The charges are damning: • Kawsar Abbas and daughter Zahra Ahmad (Melbourne): enslavement, possessing a slave, using a slave, and engaging in slave trading. • Janai Safar (Sydney): entering a declared terror area and membership of a terrorist organisation. These women chose the ISIS caliphate. They married its savage fighters, raised children under the black flag, and allegedly lived in households where Yazidi women and girls were bought, sold, raped and owned as “spoils of war.” Yazidi survivors gave evidence of being held as personal slaves by their husbands. This is medieval Islamist barbarism, supremacist, violent, and totally incompatible with Australia. Albo lied when he said “if you make your bed, you lie in it” and promised no help for their return. Now they’re here. Tony Burke, whose Watson electorate is full of Muslim voters in Lakemba, has overseen the whole thing while Labor chases those votes. What’s worse is three of the children are already teenagers, brainwashed from birth to hate us and fight for the same death cult. This is national betrayal and cultural suicide. Enough is enough. Shut down radical mosques. Arrest those who support fundamental Islam. Deport non-citizens involved. Ban Muslim immigration. Australia must choose: our values or their barbarism. The rage is justified. We must act now before it’s too late. JERUSALEM FOUNDED IN 3000 B.C. - NEVER EVEN VISITED BY MOHAMMED - NOT EVEN MENTIONED ONCE IN THE QURAN, THE MUSLIM HOLY TEXT. - MUSLIMS PRAY WITH THEIR BACKS TOWARD JERUSALEM. - JERUSALEM HAS NEVER BEEN THE CAPITAL OF ANY ARAB OR MUSLIM ENTITY. "Arab-Muslim colonization" 1400 years... 170 million murdered But little Israel is the "colonizer" ?? Republican law maker tell Muslims that they have 72 Muslim countries to choose from, if Sharia Law is what they want. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1700997914586151 Another day. Another protest. Are you sick of them yet? I can see that hate speech laws are really working.......towards those who oppose Islam & this kind of hate & do not want the conflicts of this world on Australian soil: The are called bigots & racists. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2257339455106699 https://www.facebook.com/reel/953328794216191 A former Islamist extremist explains why he previously supported leftist politics. He argues that radicals view the Left’s lack of traditional religious values as a tactical advantage, allowing them to focus on secular issues like climate and abortion while the extremists maintain their own strict internal agendas. Islam is not a religion. It is about power, control & influence. Islamism does not look the same in every country. When it is weak, it speaks the language of tolerance. When it gains influence, it demands special rules. When it takes full control, tolerance disappears. The warning signs are not hard to see. The question is whether free societies will notice them early enough. Islamism is not about diversity. It is domination

Islam is not just a religion. It is about power, control & influence. Islamism does not look the same in every country. When it is weak, it speaks the language of tolerance. When it gains influence, it demands special rules. When it takes full control, tolerance disappears. The warning signs are not hard to see. The question is whether free societies will notice them early enough. Islamism is not about diversity, but destabilisation, destruction & death.

https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/08/05/west-islam-oxford-debate/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/08/04/30-islamist-dominate-west/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/08/03/suicidal-empathy-left-islamism/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/07/28/islam-west-cannot-coexist/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/07/28/isis-fighter-berlin-pride/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/07/10/what-you-cant-say-about-islam/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/07/02/islam-terrorists-80000-nigeria/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/06/03/wwws-islam/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/05/07/mozambique-islamic-extremists/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/03/23/islam-and-israel/ https://dailydeclaration.org.au/2026/03/19/secularism-islamism-and-biblical-truth/ Violence Does the Quran really contain over a hundred verses that sanction violence? The Quran contains at least 109 verses that speak of war with nonbelievers, usually on the basis of their status as non-Muslims. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter. Unlike nearly all of the Old Testament verses of violence, most verses of violence in the Quran are open-ended, meaning that they are not necessarily restrained by historical context contained in the surrounding text (although many Muslims choose to think of them that way). They are part of the eternal, unchanging word of Allah, and just as relevant or subject to interpretation as anything else in the Quran. The context of violent passages is more ambiguous than might be expected of a perfect book from a loving God. Most contemporary Muslims exercise a personal choice to interpret their holy book's call to arms according to their own moral preconceptions about justifiable violence. Islam's apologists cater to these preferences with tenuous arguments that gloss over historical fact and generally don't stand up to scrutiny. Still, it is important to note that the problem is not bad people, but bad ideology. Unfortunately, there are very few verses of tolerance and peace to balance out those calling for nonbelievers to be fought and subdued until they either accept humiliation, convert to Islam, or are killed. Muhammad's own martial legacy, along with the remarkable emphasis on violence found in the Quran, have produced a trail of blood and tears across world history. Quran Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that this verse was narrated at a time that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding merchant caravans for loot. (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah'). (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, who were led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. This is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers. (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut (Satan, etc.). So fight you against the friends of Shaitan (Satan)" The Arabic for the word "fight" is from qital, meaning physical combat. Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those of the believers who sit (at home), except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame, etc.), and those who strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with their wealth and their lives. Allah has preferred in grades those who strive hard and fight with their wealth and their lives above those who sit (at home).Unto each, Allah has promised good (Paradise), but Allah has preferred those who strive hard and fight, above those who sit (at home) by a huge reward " This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is this Arabic word (mujahiduna) used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad, which would not make sense if it meant an internal struggle). (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (4:101) - "And when you (Muslims) travel in the land, there is no sin on you if you shorten your Salat (prayer) if you fear that the disbelievers may attack you, verily, the disbelievers are ever unto you open enemies." Mere disbelief makes one an "open" enemy of Muslims. Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense? (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement" (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (8:12) - "(Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels... "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle, given that it both followed and preceded confrontations in which non-Muslims were killed by Muslims. The targets of violence are "those who disbelieve" - further defined in the next verse (13) as those who "defy and disobey Allah." Nothing is said about self-defense. In fact, the verses in sura 8 were narrated shortly after a battle provoked by Muhammad, who had been trying to attack a lightly-armed caravan to steal goods belonging to other people. (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end." Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more fitna (disorder, unbelief) and religion is all for Allah" Some translations interpret "fitna" as "persecution", but the traditional understanding of this word is not supported by the historical context (See notes for 2:193). The Meccans were simply refusing Muhammad access to their city during the pilgrimage. Other Muslims were allowed to travel there - but not as an armed group, since Muhammad had declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, as it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah", meaning that the true justification of violence was the unbelief of the opposition. According to the Sira (Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 324) Muhammad further explains that "Allah must have no rivals." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember." Quran (8:67) - "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war until he had made a great slaughter in the land..." Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy." As Ibn Kathir puts it in his tafsir on this passage, "Allah commands Muslims to prepare for war against disbelievers, as much as possible, according to affordability and availability." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (8:65) - "O Prophet, exhort the believers to fight..." Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence at the time of Muhammad was to convert to Islam: prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religion's Five Pillars. The popular claim that the Quran only inspires violence within the context of self-defense is seriously challenged by this passage as well, since the Muslims to whom it was written were obviously not under attack. Had they been, then there would have been no waiting period (earlier verses make it a duty for Muslims to fight in self-defense, even during the sacred months). The historical context is Mecca after the idolaters were subjugated by Muhammad and posed no threat. Once the Muslims had power, they violently evicted those unbelievers who would not convert. (See also: Response to Apologists) [Note: The verse says to fight unbelievers "wherever you find them". Even if the context is a time of battle (which it was not) the reading appears to sanction attacks against those "unbelievers" who are not on the battlefield. In 2016, the Islamic State referred to this verse in urging the faithful to commit terror attacks: Allah did not only command the 'fighting' of disbelievers, as if to say He only wants us to conduct frontline operations against them. Rather, He has also ordered that they be slain wherever they may be – on or off the battlefield. (source)] Quran (9:14) - "Fight against them so that Allah will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people." Humiliating and hurting non-believers not only has the blessing of Allah, but it is ordered as a means of carrying out his punishment and even "heals" the hearts of Muslims. Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The Arabic word interpreted as "striving" in this verse is the same root as "Jihad". The context is obviously holy war. Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. According to this verse, they are to be violently subjugated, with the sole justification being their religious status. Verse 9:33 tells Muslims that Allah has instructed them to make Islam "superior over all religions." This chapter was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths. (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!" (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell. The verse also links physical fighting to the "cause of Allah" (or "way of Allah"). (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light or heavy (some translations read "armed") and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and - in this case - on Christian soil, according to the historians). (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that unbelievers are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It explains why today's devout Muslims generally have little regard for those outside the faith. The inclusion of "hypocrites" (non-practicing) within the verse also contradicts the apologist's defense that the targets of hate and hostility are wartime foes, since there was never an opposing army made up of non-religious Muslims in Muhammad's time. (See also Games Muslims Play: Terrorists Can't Be Muslim Because They Kill Muslims for the role this verse plays in Islam's perpetual internal conflicts). (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme." How does the Quran define a true believer? (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness." (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (17:16) - "And when We wish to destroy a town, We send Our commandment to the people of it who lead easy lives, but they transgress therein; thus the word proves true against it, so We destroy it with utter destruction." Note that the crime is moral transgression, and the punishment is "utter destruction." (Before ordering the 9/11 attacks, Osama bin Laden first issued Americans an invitation to Islam). Quran (18:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story (which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source) tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (v.74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son. [Note: This parable along with verse 58:22 is a major reason that honor killing is sanctioned by Sharia. Reliance of the Traveler (Umdat al-Saliq) says that punishment for murder is not applicable when a parent or grandparent kills their offspring (o.1.12).] (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (21:44) - "...See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?" Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness with it." - The root for Jihad is used twice in this verse - although it may not have been referring to Holy War when narrated, since it was prior to the hijra at Mecca. The "it" at the end is thought to mean the Quran. Thus the verse may have originally meant a non-violent resistance to the 'unbelievers.' Obviously, this changed with the hijra. 'Jihad' after this is almost exclusively within a violent context. The enemy is always defined as people, rather than ideas. Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease (evil desire for adultery, etc.), and those who spread false news among the people in Al-Madinah, cease not, We shall certainly let you overpower them, then they will not be able to stay in it as your neighbors but a little while Accursed, wherever found, they shall be seized and killed with a (terrible) slaughter." This passage sanctions slaughter (rendered as "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators - those who speak out against Islam. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out, which is what today's terrorists do. Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who disbelieve follow falsehood, while those who believe follow the truth from their Lord... So, when you meet (fighting Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives)... If it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost." Holy war is to be pursued against those who reject Allah. The unbelievers are to be killed and wounded. Survivors are to be held captive for ransom. The only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. (See also: 47:4 for more context) (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' If so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted? This verse also says that those who do not fight will suffer torment in hell. Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. This verse tells Muslims that two very distinct standards are applied based on religious status. Also the word used for 'hard' or 'ruthless' in this verse shares the same root as the word translated as 'painful' or severe' to describe Hell in over 25 other verses including 65:10, 40:46 and 50:26.. Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His cause" Religion of Peace, indeed! The verse explicitly refers to "rows" or "battle array," meaning that it is speaking of physical conflict. This is followed by (61:9), which defines the "cause": "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist." (See next verse, below). Infidels who resist Islamic rule are to be fought. (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (61:10-12) - "O You who believe! Shall I guide you to a commerce that will save you from a painful torment. That you believe in Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad), and that you strive hard and fight in the Cause of Allah with your wealth and your lives, that will be better for you, if you but know! (If you do so) He will forgive you your sins, and admit you into Gardens under which rivers flow, and pleasant dwelling in Gardens of'Adn- Eternity ['Adn(Edn) Paradise], that is indeed the great success." This verse refers to physical battle waged to make Islam victorious over other religions (see verse 9). It uses the Arabic root for the word Jihad. Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such. (See also: Response to Apologists) Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to claim that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous - the actual Arabic words for persecution (idtihad) - and oppression are not used instead of fitna. Fitna can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. A strict translation is 'sedition,' meaning rebellion against authority (the authority being Allah). This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief. [Editor's note: these notes have been modified slightly after a critic misinterpreted our language. Verse 193 plainly says that 'fighting' is sanctioned even if the fitna 'ceases'. This is about religious order, not real persecution.] (See also: Response to Apologists) Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org Hadith and Sira Sahih Bukhari (52:177) - Allah's Apostle said, "The Hour will not be established until you fight with the Jews, and the stone behind which a Jew will be hiding will say. "O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, so kill him." Sahih Bukhari (52:256) - The Prophet... was asked whether it was permissible to attack the pagan warriors at night with the probability of exposing their women and children to danger. The Prophet replied, "They (i.e. women and children) are from them (i.e. pagans)." In this command, Muhammad establishes that it is permissible to kill non-combatants in the process of killing a perceived enemy. This provides justification for the many Islamic terror bombings. Sahih Bukhari (52:65) - The Prophet said, 'He who fights that Allah's Word (Islam) should be superior, fights in Allah's Cause. Muhammad's words are the basis for offensive Jihad - spreading Islam by force. This is how it was understood by his companions, and by the terrorists of today. (See also Sahih Bukhari 3:125) Sahih Bukhari (52:220) - Allah's Apostle said... 'I have been made victorious with terror' Sahih Bukhari (52:44) - A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Abu Dawud (14:2526) (considered daif) - The Prophet said, Three things are the roots of faith: to refrain from (killing) a person who utters, "There is no god but Allah" and not to declare him unbeliever whatever sin he commits, and not to excommunicate him from Islam for his any action; and jihad will be performed continuously since the day Allah sent me as a prophet... Abu Dawud (14:2527) (considered daif) - The Prophet said: Striving in the path of Allah (jihad) is incumbent on you along with every ruler, whether he is pious or impious Sahih Muslim (1:33) - the Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah Sahih Bukhari (8:387) - Allah's Apostle said, "I have been ordered to fight the people till they say: 'None has the right to be worshipped but Allah'. And if they say so, pray like our prayers, face our Qibla and slaughter as we slaughter, then their blood and property will be sacred to us and we will not interfere with them except legally." Sahih Muslim (1:30) - "The Messenger of Allah said: I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah." Sahih Bukhari (52:73) - "Allah's Apostle said, 'Know that Paradise is under the shades of swords'." Sahih Bukhari (11:626) - [Muhammad said:] "I decided to order a man to lead the prayer and then take a flame to burn all those, who had not left their houses for the prayer, burning them alive inside their homes." Sahih Muslim (1:149) - "Abu Dharr reported: I said: Messenger of Allah, which of the deeds is the best? He (the Holy Prophet) replied: Belief in Allah and Jihad in His cause..." Sahih Muslim (20:4645) - "...He (the Messenger of Allah) did that and said: There is another act which elevates the position of a man in Paradise to a grade one hundred (higher), and the elevation between one grade and the other is equal to the height of the heaven from the earth. He (Abu Sa'id) said: What is that act? He replied: Jihad in the way of Allah! Jihad in the way of Allah!" Sahih Muslim (20:4696) - "the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: 'One who died but did not fight in the way of Allah nor did he express any desire (or determination) for Jihad died the death of a hypocrite.'" Sahih Muslim (19:4321-4323) - Three hadith verses in which Muhammad shrugs over the news that innocent children were killed in a raid by his men against unbelievers. His response: "They are of them (meaning the enemy)." Sahih Muslim (19:4294) - "Fight against those who disbelieve in Allah. Make a holy war... When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." Sahih Muslim (31:5917) - "Ali went a bit and then halted and did not look about and then said in a loud voice: 'Allah's Messenger, on what issue should I fight with the people?' Thereupon he (the Prophet) said: 'Fight with them until they bear testimony to the fact that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his Messenger'." The pretext for attacking the peaceful farming community of Khaybar was not obvious to the Muslims. Muhammad's son-in-law Ali asked the prophet of Islam to clarify the reason for their mission to kill, loot and enslave. Muhammad's reply was straightforward. The people should be fought because they are not Muslim. Sahih Muslim (31:5918) - "I will fight them until they are like us." Ali's reply to Muhammad, after receiving clarification that the pretext for attacking Khaybar was to convert the people (see above verse). Sahih Bukhari 2:35 "The person who participates in (Holy Battles) in Allah’s cause and nothing compels him do so except belief in Allah and His Apostle, will be recompensed by Allah either with a reward, or booty ( if he survives) or will be admitted to Paradise ( if he is killed)." Sunan an-Nasa'i (Sahih) "Whoever dies without having fought or thought of fighting, he dies on one of the branches of hypocrisy" Sunan Ibn Majah 24:2794 (Sahih) - "I came to the Prophet and said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, which Jihad is best?’ He said: ‘(That of a man) whose blood is shed and his horse is wounded.'" Unlike the oft-quoted "Greater/Lesser" verse pertaining to Jihad, this is judged to be authentic, and clearly establishes that the 'best' Jihad involves physical violence. Tabari 7:97 The morning after the murder of Ashraf, the Prophet declared, "Kill any Jew who falls under your power." Ashraf was a poet, killed by Muhammad's men because he insulted Islam. Here, Muhammad widens the scope of his orders to kill. An innocent Jewish businessman was then slain by his Muslim partner, merely for being non-Muslim. Tabari 9:69 "Killing Unbelievers is a small matter to us" The words of Muhammad, prophet of Islam. Tabari 17:187 "'By God, our religion (din) from which we have departed is better and more correct than that which these people follow. Their religion does not stop them from shedding blood, terrifying the roads, and seizing properties.' And they returned to their former religion." The words of a group of Christians who had converted to Islam, but realized their error after being shocked by the violence and looting committed in the name of Allah. The price of their decision to return to a religion of peace was that the men were beheaded and the woman and children enslaved by the caliph Ali. Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 484: - “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.’” Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 990: Cutting off someone's head while shouting 'Allahu Akbar' is not a 'perversion of Islam', but a tradition of Islam that began with Muhammad. In this passage, a companion recounts an episode in which he staged a surprise ambush on a settlement: "I leapt upon him and cut off his head and ran in the direction of the camp shouting 'Allah akbar' and my two companions did likewise". Ibn Ishaq/Hisham 992: - "Fight everyone in the way of Allah and kill those who disbelieve in Allah." Muhammad's instructions to his men prior to a military raid. Ibn Kathir (Commentary on verses 2:190-193 - Since Jihad involves killing and shedding the blood of men, Allah indicated that these men are committing disbelief in Allah, associating with Him (in the worship) and hindering from His path, and this is a much greater evil and more disastrous than killing. One of Islam's most respected scholars clearly believed that Jihad means physical warfare. Saifur Rahman, The Sealed Nectar p.227-228 - "Embrace Islam... If you two accept Islam, you will remain in command of your country; but if your refuse my Call, you’ve got to remember that all of your possessions are perishable. My horsemen will appropriate your land, and my Prophethood will assume preponderance over your kingship." One of several letters from Muhammad to rulers of other countries. The significance is that the recipients were not making war or threatening Muslims. Their subsequent defeat and subjugation by Muhammad's armies was justified merely on the basis of their unbelief. See also: Classical Islamic Scholars on Jihad from WikiIslam Notes Other than the fact that Muslims haven't killed every non-Muslim under their domain, there is very little else that they can point to as proof that theirs is a peaceful, tolerant religion. Where Islam is dominant (as in the Middle East and Pakistan) religious minorities suffer brutal persecution with scant introspection. Where Islam is in the minority (as in Thailand, the Philippines and Europe) there is the threat of violence if Muslim demands are not met. Either situation seems to provide a justification for religious terrorism, which is persistent and endemic to Islamic fundamentalism. This begins with the Quran. Few verses of Islam's most sacred text can be construed to fit the contemporary virtues of religious tolerance and universal brotherhood. Those that do are earlier "Meccan" verses which are abrogated by later ones. The example of Muhammad is that Islam is a religion of peace when Muslims do not have the power and numbers on their side. Once they do, things change. Many Muslims are peaceful and do not want to believe what the Quran really says. They prefer a more narrow interpretation that is closer to the Judeo-Christian ethic. Some just ignore harsher passages. Others reach for "textual context" across different suras to subjectively mitigate these verses with others so that the message fits their personal moral preference. Although the Quran itself claims to be clear and complete, these apologists speak of the "risks" of trying to interpret verses without their "assistance." The violent verses of the Quran have played a key role in massacre and genocide. This includes the brutal slaughter of tens of millions of Hindus for five centuries beginning around 1000 AD with Mahmud of Ghazni's bloody conquest. Both he and the later Tamerlane (Islam's Genghis Khan) slaughtered an untold number merely for defending their temples from destruction. Buddhism was nearly wiped off the Indian subcontinent. Judaism and Christianity met the same fate (albeit more slowly) in areas conquered by Muslim armies, including the Middle East, North Africa and parts of Europe, including today's Turkey. Zoroastrianism, the ancient religion of a proud Persian people is despised by Muslims and barely survives in modern Iran. Violence is so ingrained in Islam that it has never really stopped being at war, either with other religions or with itself. Muhammad was a military leader, laying siege to towns, massacring the men, raping their women, enslaving their children, and taking the property of others as his own. On several occasions he rejected offers of surrender from the besieged inhabitants and even butchered captives. He inspired his followers to battle when they did not feel it was right to fight, promising them slaves and booty if they did and threatening them with Hell if they did not. Muhammad allowed his men to rape traumatized women captured in battle, usually on the very day their husbands and family members were slaughtered. The popular apologist argument that many verses of violence apply to war is shaded by the fact that war was started by Muslims, both in Muhammad's time and since. For the most part, Islamic armies waged aggressive campaigns, and the religion's most dramatic military conquests were made by actual companions of Muhammad in the decades following his death. The early Islamic principle of warfare was that the civilian population of a town was to be destroyed (ie. men executed, women and children taken as slaves) if they defended themselves and resisted Islamic hegemony. Although modern apologists claim that Muslims are only supposed to "attack in self-defense", this oxymoron is flatly contradicted by the accounts of Islamic historians and others that go back to the time of Muhammad. Some modern-day scholars are more candid than others. One of the most respected Sunni theologians is al-Qaradawi, who justifies terror attacks against Western targets by noting that there is no such thing as a civilian population in a time of war: "It has been determined by Islamic law that the blood and property of people of Dar al-Harb [ie. non-Muslim people who resist Islamic conquest] is not protected... In modern war, all of society, with all its classes and ethnic groups, is mobilized to participate in the war, to aid its continuation, and to provide it with the material and human fuel required for it to assure the victory of the state fighting its enemies. Every citizen in society must take upon himself a role in the effort to provide for the battle. The entire domestic front, including professionals, laborers, and industrialists, stands behind the fighting army, even if it does not bear arms." Sheikh Muhammad Bin Abdul Lateef, a favorite of ISIS, has admitted: ‘Jihad is a part of Islam without which Islam cannot be established and without which it is not possible to uphold the laws of sharia’. Consider the example of the Qurayza Jews, who were completely obliterated only five years after Muhammad arrived in Medina. Their leader opted to stay neutral when their town was besieged by a Meccan army that was sent to take revenge for Muhammad's deadly caravan raids. The tribe killed no one from either side and even surrendered peacefully to Muhammad after the Meccans had been turned back. Yet the prophet of Islam had every male member of the Qurayza beheaded, and every woman and child enslaved, even raping one of the captives himself (what Muslim apologists might refer to as "same day marriage"). One of Islam's most revered modern scholars, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, openly sanctions offensive Jihad: "In the Jihad which you are seeking, you look for the enemy and invade him. This type of Jihad takes place only when the Islamic state is invading other [countries] in order to spread the word of Islam and to remove obstacles standing in its way." Qutb wrote: "Islam has the right to take the initiative…this is God’s religion and it is for the whole world. It has the right to destroy all obstacles in the form of institutions and traditions … it attacks institutions and traditions to release human beings from their poisonous influences, which distort human nature and curtail human freedom. Those who say that Islamic Jihad was merely for the defense of the 'homeland of Islam' diminish the greatness of the Islamic way of life." The widely respected Dictionary of Islam defines Jihad as "A religious war with those who are unbelievers in the mission of Muhammad. It is an incumbent religious duty, established in the Quran and in the Traditions as a divine institution, and enjoined specially for the purpose of advancing Islam and of repelling evil from Muslims…[Quoting from the Hanafi school, Hedaya, 2:140, 141.], "The destruction of the sword is incurred by infidels, although they be not the first aggressors, as appears from various passages in the traditions which are generally received to this effect." Dr. Salah al-Sawy, the chief member of the Assembly of Muslim Jurists in America, stated in 2009 that "the Islamic community does not possess the strength to engage in offensive jihad at this time," tacitly affirming the legitimacy of violence for the cause of Islamic rule - bound only by the capacity for success. (source) Muhammad's failure to leave a clear line of succession resulted in perpetual internal war following his death. Those who knew him best first fought afterwards to keep remote tribes from leaving Islam and reverting to their preferred religion (the Ridda or 'Apostasy wars'). Then the violence turned within. Early Meccan converts battled later ones as hostility developed between those immigrants who had traveled with Muhammad to Mecca and the Ansar at Medina who had helped them settle in. Finally there was a violent struggle within Muhammad's own family between his favorite wife and favorite daughter - a jagged schism that has left Shias and Sunnis at each others' throats to this day. The strangest and most untrue thing that can be said about Islam is that it is a religion of peace. If every standard by which the West is judged and condemned (slavery, imperialism, intolerance, misogyny, sexual repression, warfare...) were applied equally to Islam, the verdict would be devastating. Islam never gives up what it conquers, be it religion, culture, language or life. Neither does it make apologies or any real effort at moral progress. It is the least open to dialogue and the most self-absorbed. It is convinced of its own perfection, yet brutally shuns self-examination and represses criticism. This is what makes the Quran's verses of violence so dangerous. They are given the weight of divine command. While Muslim terrorists take them literally, and understand that Islam is incomplete without Jihad, moderates offer little to contradict them - outside of personal opinion. Indeed, what do they have? Speaking of peace and love may win over the ignorant, but when every twelfth verse of Islam's holiest book either speaks to Allah's hatred for non-Muslims or calls for their death, forced conversion, or subjugation, it is little wonder that sympathy for terrorism runs as deeply as it does in the broader community - even if most Muslims prefer not to interpret their personal viewpoint of Islam in this way. Although scholars like Ibn Khaldun, one of Islam's most respected philosophers, understood that "the holy war is a religious duty, because of the universalism of the Muslim mission and (the obligation to) convert everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force", many other Muslims are either unaware or willfully ignorant of the Quran's near absence of verses that preach universal non-violence. Their understanding of Islam comes from what they are taught by others. Believers in the West are often led to think that their religion is like Christianity - preaching the New Testament virtues of peace, love, and tolerance. They are somewhat surprised and embarrassed to find that the Quran and the bloody history of Islam's genesis say otherwise. Others simply accept the violence. In 1991, a Palestinian couple in America was convicted of stabbing their daughter to death for being too Westernized. A family friend came to their defense, excoriating the jury for not understanding the "culture", claiming that the father was merely following "the religion" and saying that the couple had to "discipline their daughter or lose respect." (source). In 2011, unrepentant Palestinian terrorists, responsible for the brutal murders of civilians, women and children explicitly in the name of Allah were treated to a luxurious "holy pilgrimage" to Mecca by the Saudi king - without a single Muslim voice raised in protest. The most prestigious Islamic university in the world today is Cairo's al-Azhar. While the university is very quick to condemn secular Muslims who critique the religion, it has never condemned ISIS as a group of infidels despite horrific carnage in the name of Allah. When asked why, the university's Grand Imam, Ahmed al-Tayeb explained: " Al Azhar cannot accuse any [Muslim] of being a kafir [infidel], as long as he believes in Allah and the Last Day—even if he commits every atrocity." Following the atrocities of October 7, in which Hamas murdered innocent people, including children, as well as raping, torturing and kidnaping others, hundreds of Islamic scholars, clerics and organizations signed a statement of support, hailing the terrorists for their "righteous faith" and "religious duty", while disparaging the victims as "infidels." For their part, Western liberals would do well not to sacrifice critical thinking to the god of political correctness, or look for reasons to bring other religion down to the level of Islam merely to avoid the existential truth that it is both different and dangerous. There are just too many Muslims who take the Quran literally... and too many others who couldn't care less about the violence done in the name of Islam. Further Reading Other verses calling Muslims to Jihad can be found here at AnsweringIslam.org See also Cruelty in the Quran from the Skeptic's Annotated Quran Classical Islamic Scholars on Jihad from WikiIslam Muslim apologists often object to the straight-forward interpretation of many verses. A verse-by-verse response to their objections can be found here. The Quran's Turn to Violence (Mark Durie)

There can be lot of controversy, legalism, confusion & misunderstanding about this important topic. In our preaching we use mostly NKJV, Amp, ESV, NLT, NIV. I understand that those who are used to or have grown up with the KJV prefer this, ​but it you push this as the only correct translation to use, you are greatly mistaken: 1) You actually don't know all the facts about the KJV translation & it's errors & biases. 2) The way the English in the KJV is written, shaped, spelled & word order & usage changes the whole meaning in regards to way English is spoken & used today. 3) I am not disputing that the KJV has blessed many generations, but for new believers and a generation growing up who are not used to reading books, it is almost impossible to comprehend what they are reading. It sounds like a foreign language to them. 4) There is no perfect translation, thus any serious pastor or Bible teacher will often look at the meaning of the original text in Hebrew or Greek & compare several translations. Please see below a blog from Ps Mark Driscoll: (It is not that I would agree with him on everything, but he brings it across quite well) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ju4dTXz5K74 If want to know more background & don't mind a bit of reading 5-15 min I posted various different articles: 1) The haters: The KJV only movement 2) Why are the newer translations of the Bible "missing" verses? 3) What are the most accurate translations of the Bible? 4) Did King James alter the Bible for his own purposes? Is there any evidence to support this claim? 5) More various comments against the so-called Authorised KJV only. 1) The Haters: The KJV Only Movement Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. I don't know if this is due to the movement dying out or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ. What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians. While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and NKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators. Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armour and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives. KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labelled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Centuries later, when Jerome's Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labelled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings. Don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish. 2) Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses? If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples of missing verses and passages are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Another example is Mark 16:9–20, although that passage is always placed in the text or in footnotes. In addition to the few missing verses, there are numerous words and phrases that are missing from newer translations. Why do these translations omit these verses, phrases, and words? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, as some claim? No, the newer translations are not removing verses from the Bible. Rather, the newer translations are attempting to accurately present what the biblical writers originally wrote, and that means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. Any content “missing” in newer translations is believed by most scholars to not have been in the Bible to begin with. The KJV was translated in AD 1611; the New Testament translators of the KJV used a Greek manuscript called the Textus Receptus. Since that time, many biblical manuscripts have been discovered that predate the Textus Receptus, and these older manuscripts, in theory, are likely to be more accurate. In their research, Bible scholars and textual critics have discovered some differences between the Textus Receptus and the older manuscripts. It seems that, over the course of 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, either intentionally or accidentally. The “missing verses” mentioned above are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in brackets because the translators believe they do not truly belong in the Bible. For example, John 5:4 is included in the KJV, but in the NKJV the verse has a footnote attached explaining that it is not found in many Greek texts; the NASB includes the verse in brackets; the NIV places the verse in a footnote, so John 5:4 is “missing” in the actual text. The disputed portion is this: “waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted” (John 5:3–4, NASB). Here is a possible explanation of how John 5:4 ended up in the Bible: a scribe is writing out John 5, in which Jesus visits the pool of Bethesda: “Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years” (John 5:3–5). But then the scribe gets to verse 7, as Jesus speaks to the man about his desire to be healed, and the man says, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred” (verse 7). The scribe considers the man’s reference to “stirred” water as a source of possible confusion, as John does not expound on it. So the scribe writes a quick note in the margin to explain why the invalid was waiting for “stirred” water—an angel came down at certain times to make something special happen. The scribe’s notation was an attempt to aid the reader in understanding Scripture. But then, as more and more copies of that manuscript were made, the scribe’s marginal note was transferred from the margin and inserted into the actual text as part of the passage. It may be that the later copyist misconstrued the intention of the marginal note: instead of being a commentary of sorts, the note was seen as the scribe’s attempt to correct a mistake, inserting a verse he had accidentally left out. Thus, what the scribe meant as a helpful gloss resulted in John 5 expanding by one verse. It is important to remember that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death and resurrection; Christ’s being the only way of salvation; and the doctrines of heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These doctrines are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations. It is not a matter of the newer translations missing verses, and it is not a matter of the KJV translators adding to the Bible. It is a matter of determining, through careful research and textual science, what content was most likely part of the original manuscripts of the Bible. 3) What is the most accurate Bible translation? Choosing the most accurate translation is difficult because it is somewhat like asking, “What is the best brand of truck?” It depends on what you plan to do with it and what criteria you are using to evaluate it. Each translation of the Bible follows certain translation principles that will affect the final work. Some translations try to be “literal,” aiming for an exact, word-for-word correspondence as much as possible. Others try to be “dynamic,” or “thought-for-thought,” providing the overall meaning of the text in modern language, not necessarily providing word-for-word correspondence. One translation might be better for study, and another might be better for public reading. Someone reading on a fifth-grade level might prefer a translation different from what a college student is reading. Translation is not an exact science. There is often no perfect one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages. Additionally, every language has idioms and figures of speech—notoriously hard to translate—as well as historical and cultural factors that may affect the connotation of words in ways that cannot be translated. An example in English will help illustrate. If you have a friend who is involved in a live theatre production, and you want to wish her well, you might say, “Break a leg,” an idiom that, in the theater world, replaces saying, “Good luck” (which is considered bad luck to say). If you translate the idiom literally, the readers may get the wrong impression if they do not understand the cultural hijinks behind the phrase. In this case, translating break a leg as “good luck” might be better. A third option might be to leave the expression intact but include an explanatory footnote about what is actually meant. As our example shows, the most literal translation may not be the most accurate. The more a translation tries to express the original meaning in contemporary language, the more subjective interpretation is introduced. Further, readability can become an issue. A very accurate “literal” translation would be very unreadable. An Interlinear New Testament gives the Greek text on one line and, under it, the approximate English word for each Greek word. If you simply read the English words, you are left, in most cases, with a confusing jumble of words. It is very literal but practically meaningless. As the translation becomes more readable in English, it will become less literal. Most translations are on a continuum between being “literal” (staying as close to the original words and literary structure as possible) and “dynamic” (communicating the meaning of the passage in a way that the modern reader will understand, even if extra words are introduced that are not in the original text). There are dozens of English translations to choose from. The best ones are done by teams of competent evangelical scholars and reviewed by others. No single individual has all the skills necessary today to produce a good translation. Below are some of the most prominent and best translations: The King James Version is the most important book in the English language, having shaped the way English was spoken for hundreds of years. Many people grew up with the King James Version and still love the style and beauty of the translation. Someone once quipped, “The King James Version is as beautiful as Shakespeare and just as simple.” For some people, the Elizabethan English might be a challenge, but there is nothing wrong with accepting a challenge. The New King James Version is a more readable version of the King James, removing many of the archaic terms and modernizing the syntax. Both the KJV and the NKJV are “literal” translations. The New American Standard Bible stays as close as possible to the literal reading of the original text, preserving the literary structure, while still being readable in English. The NASB was very popular with serious Bible students for 20–30 years, from the 1980s to the early 2000s. However, some felt that it was difficult to read, especially for more casual or beginning readers who were not interested in “studying” the Bible. The English Standard Version has since filled the place of the NASB as a “literal” but readable translation. It seems to have replaced the NASB for many who prefer a translation on the “literal” end of the continuum. The New International Version is a “dynamic” translation. The translators’ concern was communicating the meaning in a way that is easily readable in English, even if it meant a departure from the original wording. The NIV has been very successful and is currently the most popular modern English version. The New Living Translation is by far the most “dynamic” of the most popular modern translations. When first released, the NLT sold very well, and for a time it looked as though it might overtake the NIV as the most popular dynamic translation. In recent years the NLT has faded while the NIV’s sales remain strong. The New English Translation or NET Bible is an internet-based version, although it is also available in book form. The NET contains extensive notes on the translation. While other modern versions may undergo a major revision every decade or so, the NET Bible is continually updated and revised as needed. For rapid reading of the text, a more dynamic translation such as the NLT or the NIV might be helpful. For more precise study, a more literal version such as the NASB, ESV, or NET would be preferable. When studying a passage, a good practice is to read it in several versions, both literal and dynamic. If there are places where the various translations seem to go in different directions, then more study is necessary to determine what issues of translation and interpretation are in play. Of course, consulting the original languages would be advantageous at that point, but for those who are not able to do so, the NET Bible and critical commentaries are a good option. Good commentaries will not simply tell the reader what the text means but explain the evidence for the various options and why the one chosen by the commentator is best. One should avoid interpretations or points of doctrine that are based on a single translation of a single word or phrase. One must also resist the tendency to “shop” for a translation that supports his preferred interpretation of a passage. The Message by Eugene Peterson and The Living Bible by Kenneth Taylor are rather free renderings of the original text as the authors understood it. The MSG and the TLB are the works of individuals, not committees, so there is far more room for error and personal bias. They are closer to personal paraphrases than to translations. Anyone who is reading either one of these would do well to keep in mind that the words express what a single man understood the text to mean. We recommend choosing one of the other translations, above, for one’s primary Bible. The New Revised Standard Version is the most popular version among non-evangelical Bible scholars. Evangelicals tend to stay away from this translation, as the translation team included many who were not committed to the authority of the biblical text. However, they were competent scholars in the biblical languages. In the final analysis, the choice of the “most accurate” translation will be a subjective decision. For study, we recommend the NASB, ESV, and NET, and we also recommend comparison with the NIV or NLT. We also have no problem recommending the KJV or NKJV, but comparing it with other versions helps identify points of tension in need of further research. For variety, one might choose a different translation each year to read through, noting anything that sounds different or seems to give a different meaning to a text. Every translation done in good faith by competent scholars can be considered accurate and authoritative. At the same time, human scholarship is imperfect; also, translations need to be updated over time as the English language changes. Did King James alter the Bible for his own purposes? Is there any evidence to support this claim? This is a thoughtful historical question, and the answer is more complex than a simple "yes" or "no." Based on the historical evidence from the period, the answer is yes, King James gave specific political instructions that shaped how the Bible was translated, but he did not personally alter the text. Instead, he set guidelines for the translators to ensure the final product supported his political and religious authority. Here is the evidence historians point to when making this claim: ### Evidence of King James's Influence 1. Political Instructions to the Translators King James did not sit with a quill editing verses, but he issued specific rules for the translation process. The most significant evidence comes from the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where James authorized the new translation. He gave two particularly important political instructions : *To support the hierarchy of the Church of England:** James ordered that the Greek word ekklesia be translated as "church" rather than "congregation" or "assembly." This might seem small, but it was a major political move. Translating it as "congregation" supported the more democratic, Puritan view of independent local churches. Translating it as "church" supported the Anglican structure with its bishops and top-down authority—an authority that flowed directly from the king himself . *To eliminate "seditious" marginal notes:** He also banned any marginal notes in the new translation. This was a direct attack on the popular Geneva Bible, which was favored by Puritans and ordinary people. The Geneva Bible contained study notes that, in places, questioned the divine right of kings and suggested that lesser magistrates could resist ungodly rulers. James wanted those notes gone so the text could not be used to challenge his authority . 2. Elevating the "Majesty" of the King One of the most compelling pieces of evidence comes from a linguistic analysis of the KJV. Scholar Laura Knoppers of Penn State University found that the translators used the word "majesty" in a very deliberate and unusual way . Typically, the KJV translators varied their English words to reflect different Hebrew or Greek originals. However, for the word "majesty," they did the opposite, using that single English term to translate several different original words. The effect was to apply the concept of "majesty" repeatedly to both God and the earthly king, subtly blurring the distinction between divine and royal authority. Knoppers concluded that this translation choice "linked the earthly monarch with God himself" . 3. Using the Bible to Assert Personal Authority King James had a personal history of using biblical interpretation for political gain. Before he was king of England, he wrote his own commentaries on scripture (like the Book of Revelation) to argue for the divine right of kings. Historian Jane Rickard notes that James "used not only his political authority but also textual authority" to control the meaning of the Bible, seeing it as a vital source of "political as well as spiritual authority" . 4.Addressing the "Queen James" Connection: You may have heard rumors that King James was gay or bisexual, which has led to modern projects like the "Queen James Bible" . While some historians believe he had intimate relationships with men (like the Duke of Buckingham), this did not influence the 1611 translation. In fact, the KJV contains the very verses (like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27) that modern translations use to condemn homosexuality . If James was trying to "alter the Bible for his own purposes" regarding his personal life, he did a terrible job, as the text he authorized has been used against same-sex relationships for centuries. The Other Side of the Coin: Why "Alter" Might Be Too Strong a Word: While evidence shows King James shaped the translation to serve his political goals, it is important to give him credit where it is due. The goal was not to invent a new religion but to create a standard, unified, and accurate translation for the Church of England . The existing Bibles at the time (the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible) had significant problems. *He ordered a scholarly translation:** James tasked the best scholars of the day—about 50 of them—with the work, dividing them into six companies in Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster . *He prioritized accuracy:** He instructed them to follow the Bishops' Bible as a base but to use Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and other versions when they "agreed better with the text" . The goal was to create a version that was both faithful to the original languages and superior to its predecessors. 5.Conclusion: Yes, there is solid historical evidence that King James influenced the translation of the Bible for his own political purposes. His instructions at the Hampton Court Conference and the strategic use of language (like the word "majesty") show a clear intent to use scripture to bolster the divine right of kings and the authority of the Church of England. However, calling this an "alteration" implies a malicious rewrite. A more accurate description is politically motivated commissioning and guidance. He did not change core Christian doctrines, but he shaped the wording and presentation to ensure the Bible did not become a tool for his political enemies, particularly the Puritans. More various comments against the so-called Authorised KJV only: *KJV purism is almost a cult in my opinion. They conveniently forget that the Bible existed long before 1611. *KJV purists need to acknowledge the fact that the Scriptures need to be retranslated every so often for the sake of newer generations of believers. This is what kept the Church alive over the last 2,000 years. *The two earliest known Bibles in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus (330–360 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (300-305 AD), were both written in ancient Koine Greek. Likewise, the KJV translation (1611 AD) leans heavily on an older version of the English language, which can be very hard to read for younger generations. The English Bible has to be updated every other century or so to account for the various linguistic changes. This isn't a bad thing. *If every new translation is rejected, then why aren't we scrambling to learn Koine Greek in order to read the earliest Old and New Testament manuscripts written by early church fathers? Before KJV there was the Tyndale Bible, and before that was the Wycliffe Bible, and before that was the Latin Vulgate. The "KJV purist" position is really a logical fallacy because new translations have been made throughout history to stay contemporary with linguistic changes. Just look at how much the English language itself has changed over the last 400 years. The Bible has to be retranslated every other century or so to continue being readable by newer generations. The two earliest known Bibles in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus (330–360 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (300-305 AD), were both written in ancient Koine Greek. These earliest new testament manuscripts weren't even discovered yet when the KJV (1611) Bible was translated. Edit: I'm not negating from the fact that the KJV Bible was a very important translation for its time that brought MANY people to Christ while it was contemporary in 17th to early 20th century English vernacular. It's really easy to control people when they can't read the Bible, and you can just tell them what it means. The King James is a fine translation if... ...you have a post-secondary education in English literature and are comfortable with words like bewrayeth, caul, dearth, froward, holpen, kine, ouches, peradventure, rereward, shew, wist, and wot... ...and know that "cast" doesn't go on your leg, "let" can mean the opposite of "allow", "peculiar" doesn't mean "weird", "quick" has nothing to do with "speed", "save" doesn't necessarily mean "rescue", "sore" isn't necessarily on your body, "terrible" isn't bad, "turtle" has two legs and wings, and "want" isn't necessarily "desire"... ...and know that you can not look up difficult words in modern dictionaries for definitions. Many words have completely changed meanings in 400 years. The Bible itself doesn't change, but languages do. *The fundamentalist KJV-only movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress. Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal. So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others. KJV Only Arguments: 1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.”Response: Most of the Byzantine texts used by the King James translators come from the 11th and 12th centuries. We have since discovered many older and more reliable manuscripts, which are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors. By comparing the earlier manuscripts to the later ones, we can see how the flourishes and additions of scribes can corrupt a text over time, leading us to believe that many of the “Alexandrian manuscripts” are closer to the originals and the majority of Byzantine texts altered. If the controversy were truly a textual issue, one wonders why the Greek scholars in the KJV camp have not come up with a modern English translation based on the texts they deem “inspired.” The textual issue is actually a smokescreen which hides the true reason for rejecting modern versions: any update of the KJV is considered tampering with God’s Word. 2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his lordship.Response: The Byzantine texts have the additional “Lord” and “Christ” added to the name of Jesus in many places where the older, more reliable texts do not. These are most surely the results of ambitious scribes, seeking to show reverence to the Savior or simply making mistakes in copying manuscripts. There are many examples where the deity of Christ is made clearer in modern translations than in the KJV. (Jude 4, Phil. 2:6-7, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 3:14-15, John 14:14) 3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions.Response: This is an all-out attack on the character of faithful believers who have sought to use their linguistic skills in offering an accurate translation of the Scriptures. The biblical linguist B.F. Westcott is consistently attacked, due to negligence in confusing him with the spiritualist W.W. Westcott. If there is anyone whose salvation should be questioned due to their “fruit,” it would be some of the extremist KJV Only advocates, whose polemic, vicious rhetoric is not becoming of a believer in Christ. 4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible.Response: Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture. The starting-point for KJV Only advocates is that the KJV is the standard to which all other translations must bow, which is also the position they seek to prove. Thus, they employ circular reasoning that will not allow them to see any other position as possibly correct. 5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English.Response: No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original. 6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.”Response: Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.” Of course, this does not negate the worth of the King James version, but we could use this argument if we were to employ the same tactics of the KJV Only crowd. Compare Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (KJV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. (ESV) If we were to use the KJV Only logic, we could assume on the basis of this verse that the King James translators were conspiring to take us back to the chains of Catholicism, while the ESV translators are translating faithfully God’s Word. Of course, this would be a ridiculous assumption, but it is the kind of reasoning that KJV Only advocates employ. Even John R. Rice, the founder of the (now KJV-Only) Sword of the Lord admitted in Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible that the KJV renders Revelation 22:14 incorrectly and that the ASV is more accurate here. 7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses. These footnotes confuse the reader and undermine the doctrine of inspiration.Response: The 1611 King James Version also included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses. We should be grateful for today’s translators, who in the spirit of the King James tradition, have been intellectually honest when rendering exceptionally difficult verses about the limits to their knowledge. Conclusion: Like with anyone who expounds a conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd. One should seek to prod these brothers and sisters to a correct understanding with love and patience, realizing that most efforts will be spurned and may turn out in vain.

There can be lot of controversy, legalism, confusion & misunderstanding about this important topic. In our preaching we use mostly NKJV, Amp, ESV, NLT, NIV. I understand that those who are used to or have grown up with the KJV prefer this, ​but it you push this as the only correct translation to use, you are greatly mistaken: 1) You actually don't know all the facts about the KJV translation & it's errors & biases. 2) The way the English in the KJV is written, shaped, spelled & word order & usage changes the whole meaning in regards to way English is spoken & used today. 3) I am not disputing that the KJV has blessed many generations, but for new believers and a generation growing up who are not used to reading books, it is almost impossible to comprehend what they are reading. It sounds like a foreign language to them. 4) There is no perfect translation, thus any serious pastor or Bible teacher will often look at the meaning of the original text in Hebrew or Greek & compare several translations. If want to know more background & don't mind a bit of reading 10-15min I posted various different articles: 1) The haters: The KJV only movement 2) Why are the newer translations of the Bible "missing" verses? 3) What are the most accurate translations of the Bible? 4) Did King James alter the Bible for his own purposes? Is there any evidence to support this claim? 5) More various comments against the so-called Authorised KJV only. 1) The Haters: The KJV Only Movement Thankfully, advocates of KJV Onlyism are not “hating” on us as frequently as they used to. I don't know if this is due to the movement dying out or due to its advocates becoming more civil (highly unlikely), but I am thankful that we do not have to deal with KJV Onlyism as much as we used to. I remember the first time I was exposed to KJV Onlyism. I thought it was utterly ridiculous. I did not know anything about the Textus Receptus, or Erasmus, or King James VI. All I knew was the idea that English speakers are required by God to use a Bible translation from 17th century England is ludicrous. As I am now much more familiar with the arguments, I am still absolutely convinced that KJV Onlyism is terribly misguided and horribly destructive to the Body of Christ. What is the true origin of KJV Onlyism? My informed speculation is that it is due to a resistance to change. In the 20th century, when English translations of the Bible other than the KJV started becoming popular, those who were used to the KJV did not want to change and relearn all the Bible verses they knew. But, they couldn't just admit, "I'm an old fuddy-duddy and don't want to change," so they began developing arguments for the KJV and against all the new translations. These arguments have been improved upon, and have gained traction, and have been passed on to new generations of English-speaking Christians. While they rarely admit it, advocates of KJV Onlyism essentially believe that God re-inspired the Bible in AD 1611. Ultimately, they have to go there because if they place their loyalty on the Textus Receptus (the Greek manuscript compilation used by the KJV translators), that would open the door to new translations being created. And, we can't have that, so, God must have perfectly superintended the KJV translators into creating a perfect representation of His Word in English. From their writings, it appears advocates of KJV Onlyism hate the NKJV, KJ21, and NKJV just as much as they hate the NIV, NASB, ESV, NLT, CSB, etc. No, in order for KJV Onlyism to be true, God had to have re-inspired the Bible through the KJV translators. Does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn't make any sense to me. Now, the more scholarly KJV Onlyites will make arguments for the superiority of the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts behind the KJV. But, if you ask them if a new translation could be created from those manuscripts, watch out. I would advise body armour and ear muffs. Others will argue against the translation methodology of the new translations. But, with the more literal modern translations, like the NASB and ESV, the translation methodology is not dissimilar from what the KJV translators employed. Still others will attack the integrity, morals, and motivations of the modern translators. So, evidently, the group of 17th century British Anglicans behind the KJV were sinless, had perfect theology, and had absolutely no ulterior motives. KJV Onlyism is a good example of Solomon's words in Ecclesiastes that there is “nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). When Jerome translated the Bible into Latin, he was labelled a heretic by some for daring to “change” the Bible. Centuries later, when Jerome's Latin Vulgate became nearly universally accepted in the Western church, many who dared to attempt updates were murdered. Then, when believers in Germany, England, and other countries began translating the Bible into their common languages, they were labelled heretics, and some were burned at the stake for their vulgarity. KJV Onlyism makes the exact same mistake. Instead of focusing their loyalties on the original Hebrew and Greek, they make their preferred translation of the Bible the only true Bible and persecute anyone with a different preference. There are movements similar to KJV Onlyism in other languages as well, although, thankfully, not with nearly the same followings. Don't be deceived by KJV Onlyism. God did not re-inspire the Bible in AD 1611. The King James Version is not the only Bible we can use. The new translations are not a part of a grand conspiracy to spread false doctrine. When the Bible was written, it was written in the common and current language of the people of that time. When the Bible is translated, it should be translated into the common and current language of the people. My first reaction to being exposed to KJV Onlyism was precisely correct. To force the English-speaking world to use an archaic and antiquated translation is ridiculous. The KJV Onlyites can bemoan all they want, but their concupiscence for disputation is verily brutish. 2) Why are the newer translations of the Bible missing verses? If you compare the King James and New King James Versions with the newer translations (e.g., the New International Version, English Standard Version, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation, etc.), you will notice that several verses are entirely missing from the newer translations. Examples of missing verses and passages are John 5:4, Acts 8:37, and 1 John 5:7. Another example is Mark 16:9–20, although that passage is always placed in the text or in footnotes. In addition to the few missing verses, there are numerous words and phrases that are missing from newer translations. Why do these translations omit these verses, phrases, and words? Are the newer translations taking verses out of the Bible, as some claim? No, the newer translations are not removing verses from the Bible. Rather, the newer translations are attempting to accurately present what the biblical writers originally wrote, and that means leaving out anything that was not part of the original text. Any content “missing” in newer translations is believed by most scholars to not have been in the Bible to begin with. The KJV was translated in AD 1611; the New Testament translators of the KJV used a Greek manuscript called the Textus Receptus. Since that time, many biblical manuscripts have been discovered that predate the Textus Receptus, and these older manuscripts, in theory, are likely to be more accurate. In their research, Bible scholars and textual critics have discovered some differences between the Textus Receptus and the older manuscripts. It seems that, over the course of 1,500 years, some words, phrases, and even sentences were added to the Bible, either intentionally or accidentally. The “missing verses” mentioned above are simply not found in some of the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. So, the newer translations remove these verses or place them in footnotes or in brackets because the translators believe they do not truly belong in the Bible. For example, John 5:4 is included in the KJV, but in the NKJV the verse has a footnote attached explaining that it is not found in many Greek texts; the NASB includes the verse in brackets; the NIV places the verse in a footnote, so John 5:4 is “missing” in the actual text. The disputed portion is this: “waiting for the moving of the waters; for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted” (John 5:3–4, NASB). Here is a possible explanation of how John 5:4 ended up in the Bible: a scribe is writing out John 5, in which Jesus visits the pool of Bethesda: “Here a great number of disabled people used to lie—the blind, the lame, the paralyzed. One who was there had been an invalid for thirty-eight years” (John 5:3–5). But then the scribe gets to verse 7, as Jesus speaks to the man about his desire to be healed, and the man says, “I have no one to help me into the pool when the water is stirred” (verse 7). The scribe considers the man’s reference to “stirred” water as a source of possible confusion, as John does not expound on it. So the scribe writes a quick note in the margin to explain why the invalid was waiting for “stirred” water—an angel came down at certain times to make something special happen. The scribe’s notation was an attempt to aid the reader in understanding Scripture. But then, as more and more copies of that manuscript were made, the scribe’s marginal note was transferred from the margin and inserted into the actual text as part of the passage. It may be that the later copyist misconstrued the intention of the marginal note: instead of being a commentary of sorts, the note was seen as the scribe’s attempt to correct a mistake, inserting a verse he had accidentally left out. Thus, what the scribe meant as a helpful gloss resulted in John 5 expanding by one verse. It is important to remember that the verses in question are of minor significance. None of them change in any way the crucial themes of the Bible, nor do they have any impact on the Bible’s doctrines—Jesus’ death and resurrection; Christ’s being the only way of salvation; and the doctrines of heaven and hell, sin and redemption, and the nature and character of God. These doctrines are preserved intact through the work of the Holy Spirit, who safeguards the Word of God for all generations. It is not a matter of the newer translations missing verses, and it is not a matter of the KJV translators adding to the Bible. It is a matter of determining, through careful research and textual science, what content was most likely part of the original manuscripts of the Bible. 3) What is the most accurate Bible translation? Choosing the most accurate translation is difficult because it is somewhat like asking, “What is the best brand of truck?” It depends on what you plan to do with it and what criteria you are using to evaluate it. Each translation of the Bible follows certain translation principles that will affect the final work. Some translations try to be “literal,” aiming for an exact, word-for-word correspondence as much as possible. Others try to be “dynamic,” or “thought-for-thought,” providing the overall meaning of the text in modern language, not necessarily providing word-for-word correspondence. One translation might be better for study, and another might be better for public reading. Someone reading on a fifth-grade level might prefer a translation different from what a college student is reading. Translation is not an exact science. There is often no perfect one-to-one correspondence between words in different languages. Additionally, every language has idioms and figures of speech—notoriously hard to translate—as well as historical and cultural factors that may affect the connotation of words in ways that cannot be translated. An example in English will help illustrate. If you have a friend who is involved in a live theatre production, and you want to wish her well, you might say, “Break a leg,” an idiom that, in the theater world, replaces saying, “Good luck” (which is considered bad luck to say). If you translate the idiom literally, the readers may get the wrong impression if they do not understand the cultural hijinks behind the phrase. In this case, translating break a leg as “good luck” might be better. A third option might be to leave the expression intact but include an explanatory footnote about what is actually meant. As our example shows, the most literal translation may not be the most accurate. The more a translation tries to express the original meaning in contemporary language, the more subjective interpretation is introduced. Further, readability can become an issue. A very accurate “literal” translation would be very unreadable. An Interlinear New Testament gives the Greek text on one line and, under it, the approximate English word for each Greek word. If you simply read the English words, you are left, in most cases, with a confusing jumble of words. It is very literal but practically meaningless. As the translation becomes more readable in English, it will become less literal. Most translations are on a continuum between being “literal” (staying as close to the original words and literary structure as possible) and “dynamic” (communicating the meaning of the passage in a way that the modern reader will understand, even if extra words are introduced that are not in the original text). There are dozens of English translations to choose from. The best ones are done by teams of competent evangelical scholars and reviewed by others. No single individual has all the skills necessary today to produce a good translation. Below are some of the most prominent and best translations: The King James Version is the most important book in the English language, having shaped the way English was spoken for hundreds of years. Many people grew up with the King James Version and still love the style and beauty of the translation. Someone once quipped, “The King James Version is as beautiful as Shakespeare and just as simple.” For some people, the Elizabethan English might be a challenge, but there is nothing wrong with accepting a challenge. The New King James Version is a more readable version of the King James, removing many of the archaic terms and modernizing the syntax. Both the KJV and the NKJV are “literal” translations. The New American Standard Bible stays as close as possible to the literal reading of the original text, preserving the literary structure, while still being readable in English. The NASB was very popular with serious Bible students for 20–30 years, from the 1980s to the early 2000s. However, some felt that it was difficult to read, especially for more casual or beginning readers who were not interested in “studying” the Bible. The English Standard Version has since filled the place of the NASB as a “literal” but readable translation. It seems to have replaced the NASB for many who prefer a translation on the “literal” end of the continuum. The New International Version is a “dynamic” translation. The translators’ concern was communicating the meaning in a way that is easily readable in English, even if it meant a departure from the original wording. The NIV has been very successful and is currently the most popular modern English version. The New Living Translation is by far the most “dynamic” of the most popular modern translations. When first released, the NLT sold very well, and for a time it looked as though it might overtake the NIV as the most popular dynamic translation. In recent years the NLT has faded while the NIV’s sales remain strong. The New English Translation or NET Bible is an internet-based version, although it is also available in book form. The NET contains extensive notes on the translation. While other modern versions may undergo a major revision every decade or so, the NET Bible is continually updated and revised as needed. For rapid reading of the text, a more dynamic translation such as the NLT or the NIV might be helpful. For more precise study, a more literal version such as the NASB, ESV, or NET would be preferable. When studying a passage, a good practice is to read it in several versions, both literal and dynamic. If there are places where the various translations seem to go in different directions, then more study is necessary to determine what issues of translation and interpretation are in play. Of course, consulting the original languages would be advantageous at that point, but for those who are not able to do so, the NET Bible and critical commentaries are a good option. Good commentaries will not simply tell the reader what the text means but explain the evidence for the various options and why the one chosen by the commentator is best. One should avoid interpretations or points of doctrine that are based on a single translation of a single word or phrase. One must also resist the tendency to “shop” for a translation that supports his preferred interpretation of a passage. The Message by Eugene Peterson and The Living Bible by Kenneth Taylor are rather free renderings of the original text as the authors understood it. The MSG and the TLB are the works of individuals, not committees, so there is far more room for error and personal bias. They are closer to personal paraphrases than to translations. Anyone who is reading either one of these would do well to keep in mind that the words express what a single man understood the text to mean. We recommend choosing one of the other translations, above, for one’s primary Bible. The New Revised Standard Version is the most popular version among non-evangelical Bible scholars. Evangelicals tend to stay away from this translation, as the translation team included many who were not committed to the authority of the biblical text. However, they were competent scholars in the biblical languages. In the final analysis, the choice of the “most accurate” translation will be a subjective decision. For study, we recommend the NASB, ESV, and NET, and we also recommend comparison with the NIV or NLT. We also have no problem recommending the KJV or NKJV, but comparing it with other versions helps identify points of tension in need of further research. For variety, one might choose a different translation each year to read through, noting anything that sounds different or seems to give a different meaning to a text. Every translation done in good faith by competent scholars can be considered accurate and authoritative. At the same time, human scholarship is imperfect; also, translations need to be updated over time as the English language changes. 4-Did King James alter the Bible for his own purposes? Is there any evidence to support this claim? This is a thoughtful historical question, and the answer is more complex than a simple "yes" or "no." Based on the historical evidence from the period, the answer is yes, King James gave specific political instructions that shaped how the Bible was translated, but he did not personally alter the text. Instead, he set guidelines for the translators to ensure the final product supported his political and religious authority. Here is the evidence historians point to when making this claim: ### Evidence of King James's Influence 1. Political Instructions to the Translators King James did not sit with a quill editing verses, but he issued specific rules for the translation process. The most significant evidence comes from the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where James authorized the new translation. He gave two particularly important political instructions : *To support the hierarchy of the Church of England:** James ordered that the Greek word ekklesia be translated as "church" rather than "congregation" or "assembly." This might seem small, but it was a major political move. Translating it as "congregation" supported the more democratic, Puritan view of independent local churches. Translating it as "church" supported the Anglican structure with its bishops and top-down authority—an authority that flowed directly from the king himself . *To eliminate "seditious" marginal notes:** He also banned any marginal notes in the new translation. This was a direct attack on the popular Geneva Bible, which was favored by Puritans and ordinary people. The Geneva Bible contained study notes that, in places, questioned the divine right of kings and suggested that lesser magistrates could resist ungodly rulers. James wanted those notes gone so the text could not be used to challenge his authority . 2. Elevating the "Majesty" of the King One of the most compelling pieces of evidence comes from a linguistic analysis of the KJV. Scholar Laura Knoppers of Penn State University found that the translators used the word "majesty" in a very deliberate and unusual way . Typically, the KJV translators varied their English words to reflect different Hebrew or Greek originals. However, for the word "majesty," they did the opposite, using that single English term to translate several different original words. The effect was to apply the concept of "majesty" repeatedly to both God and the earthly king, subtly blurring the distinction between divine and royal authority. Knoppers concluded that this translation choice "linked the earthly monarch with God himself" . 3. Using the Bible to Assert Personal Authority King James had a personal history of using biblical interpretation for political gain. Before he was king of England, he wrote his own commentaries on scripture (like the Book of Revelation) to argue for the divine right of kings. Historian Jane Rickard notes that James "used not only his political authority but also textual authority" to control the meaning of the Bible, seeing it as a vital source of "political as well as spiritual authority" . 4.Addressing the "Queen James" Connection: You may have heard rumors that King James was gay or bisexual, which has led to modern projects like the "Queen James Bible" . While some historians believe he had intimate relationships with men (like the Duke of Buckingham), this did not influence the 1611 translation. In fact, the KJV contains the very verses (like Leviticus 18:22 and Romans 1:26-27) that modern translations use to condemn homosexuality . If James was trying to "alter the Bible for his own purposes" regarding his personal life, he did a terrible job, as the text he authorized has been used against same-sex relationships for centuries. The Other Side of the Coin: Why "Alter" Might Be Too Strong a Word: While evidence shows King James shaped the translation to serve his political goals, it is important to give him credit where it is due. The goal was not to invent a new religion but to create a standard, unified, and accurate translation for the Church of England . The existing Bibles at the time (the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible) had significant problems. *He ordered a scholarly translation:** James tasked the best scholars of the day—about 50 of them—with the work, dividing them into six companies in Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster . *He prioritized accuracy:** He instructed them to follow the Bishops' Bible as a base but to use Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and other versions when they "agreed better with the text" . The goal was to create a version that was both faithful to the original languages and superior to its predecessors. 5.Conclusion: Yes, there is solid historical evidence that King James influenced the translation of the Bible for his own political purposes. His instructions at the Hampton Court Conference and the strategic use of language (like the word "majesty") show a clear intent to use scripture to bolster the divine right of kings and the authority of the Church of England. However, calling this an "alteration" implies a malicious rewrite. A more accurate description is politically motivated commissioning and guidance. He did not change core Christian doctrines, but he shaped the wording and presentation to ensure the Bible did not become a tool for his political enemies, particularly the Puritans. More various comments against the so-called Authorised KJV only: *KJV purism is almost a cult in my opinion. They conveniently forget that the Bible existed long before 1611. *KJV purists need to acknowledge the fact that the Scriptures need to be retranslated every so often for the sake of newer generations of believers. This is what kept the Church alive over the last 2,000 years. *The two earliest known Bibles in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus (330–360 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (300-305 AD), were both written in ancient Koine Greek. Likewise, the KJV translation (1611 AD) leans heavily on an older version of the English language, which can be very hard to read for younger generations. The English Bible has to be updated every other century or so to account for the various linguistic changes. This isn't a bad thing. *If every new translation is rejected, then why aren't we scrambling to learn Koine Greek in order to read the earliest Old and New Testament manuscripts written by early church fathers? Before KJV there was the Tyndale Bible, and before that was the Wycliffe Bible, and before that was the Latin Vulgate. The "KJV purist" position is really a logical fallacy because new translations have been made throughout history to stay contemporary with linguistic changes. Just look at how much the English language itself has changed over the last 400 years. The Bible has to be retranslated every other century or so to continue being readable by newer generations. The two earliest known Bibles in existence, the Codex Sinaiticus (330–360 AD) and Codex Vaticanus (300-305 AD), were both written in ancient Koine Greek. These earliest new testament manuscripts weren't even discovered yet when the KJV (1611) Bible was translated. Edit: I'm not negating from the fact that the KJV Bible was a very important translation for its time that brought MANY people to Christ while it was contemporary in 17th to early 20th century English vernacular. It's really easy to control people when they can't read the Bible, and you can just tell them what it means. The King James is a fine translation if... ...you have a post-secondary education in English literature and are comfortable with words like bewrayeth, caul, dearth, froward, holpen, kine, ouches, peradventure, rereward, shew, wist, and wot... ...and know that "cast" doesn't go on your leg, "let" can mean the opposite of "allow", "peculiar" doesn't mean "weird", "quick" has nothing to do with "speed", "save" doesn't necessarily mean "rescue", "sore" isn't necessarily on your body, "terrible" isn't bad, "turtle" has two legs and wings, and "want" isn't necessarily "desire"... ...and know that you can not look up difficult words in modern dictionaries for definitions. Many words have completely changed meanings in 400 years. The Bible itself doesn't change, but languages do. *The fundamentalist KJV-only movement is cocooning itself into a safe web of tradition that will eventually squeeze the very life out of it. It used to be that independent Baptists separated themselves from other Christians over important doctrines, such as the virgin birth of Christ or the inspiration of the Scriptures. Today, the independents are separating, even among themselves, over issues such as Bible translations, music style, and dress. Rising to the forefront of the fundamentalist squabbles is the King James Only controversy. Some groups are claiming that this is the hill on which to die, the main issue by which to tell a fundamentalist from a liberal. So what is it anyway? The King James Only controversy is essentially a conspiracy theory that claims that all modern translations of Scripture are based on tainted manuscripts and that their translators are driven by a liberal Protestant or Roman Catholic (or even one-world government) agenda. This theory manifests itself in various forms, some of which are more extreme than others. KJV Only Arguments: 1. The King James Version is based on the “Majority Text” over against the modern versions that are based on the corrupt “Alexandrian Texts.” Response: Most of the Byzantine texts used by the King James translators come from the 11th and 12th centuries. We have since discovered many older and more reliable manuscripts, which are closer to the original writings of the Bible authors. By comparing the earlier manuscripts to the later ones, we can see how the flourishes and additions of scribes can corrupt a text over time, leading us to believe that many of the “Alexandrian manuscripts” are closer to the originals and the majority of Byzantine texts altered. If the controversy were truly a textual issue, one wonders why the Greek scholars in the KJV camp have not come up with a modern English translation based on the texts they deem “inspired.” The textual issue is actually a smokescreen which hides the true reason for rejecting modern versions: any update of the KJV is considered tampering with God’s Word. 2. The modern translations attack the deity of Christ by removing references to his Lordship. Response: The Byzantine texts have the additional “Lord” and “Christ” added to the name of Jesus in many places where the older, more reliable texts do not. These are most surely the results of ambitious scribes, seeking to show reverence to the Savior or simply making mistakes in copying manuscripts. There are many examples where the deity of Christ is made clearer in modern translations than in the KJV. (Jude 4, Phil. 2:6-7, Acts 16:7, 1 Peter 3:14-15, John 14:14) 3. Heretics, occultists and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions. Response: This is an all-out attack on the character of faithful believers who have sought to use their linguistic skills in offering an accurate translation of the Scriptures. The biblical linguist B.F. Westcott is consistently attacked, due to negligence in confusing him with the spiritualist W.W. Westcott. If there is anyone whose salvation should be questioned due to their “fruit,” it would be some of the extremist KJV Only advocates, whose polemic, vicious rhetoric is not becoming of a believer in Christ. 4. The modern translations delete verses from the Bible. Response: Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture. The starting-point for KJV Only advocates is that the KJV is the standard to which all other translations must bow, which is also the position they seek to prove. Thus, they employ circular reasoning that will not allow them to see any other position as possibly correct. 5. The 1611 Authorized Version is the preserved Word of God in English. Response: No one today reads from the 1611 version, which also included the Apocrypha. The 1769 revision is the most common version of the King James translation, and this one includes thousands of differences compared to the original. 6. The modern translations promote a “works-salvation.” Response: Virtually all of today’s cults (excepting the Jehovah’s Witnesses) prefer the King James version over the rest, including the Mormons, who also preach a “works-salvation.” Of course, this does not negate the worth of the King James version, but we could use this argument if we were to employ the same tactics of the KJV Only crowd. Compare Revelation 22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. (KJV) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. (ESV) If we were to use the KJV Only logic, we could assume on the basis of this verse that the King James translators were conspiring to take us back to the chains of Catholicism, while the ESV translators are translating faithfully God’s Word. Of course, this would be a ridiculous assumption, but it is the kind of reasoning that KJV Only advocates employ. Even John R. Rice, the founder of the (now KJV-Only) Sword of the Lord admitted in Our God-Breathed Book – The Bible that the KJV renders Revelation 22:14 incorrectly and that the ASV is more accurate here. 7. The newer versions include footnotes which offer different renderings of certain words or verses. These footnotes confuse the reader and undermine the doctrine of inspiration. Response: The 1611 King James Version also included thousands of footnotes which offered different readings for different verses. We should be grateful for today’s translators, who in the spirit of the King James tradition, have been intellectually honest when rendering exceptionally difficult verses about the limits to their knowledge. Conclusion: Like with anyone who expounds a conspiracy theory, it is usually fruitless to try to reason with the KJV Only crowd. One should seek to prod these brothers and sisters to a correct understanding with love and patience, realizing that most efforts will be spurned and may turn out in vain.

https://www.harvestministriesnz.com/post/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-rapture Because I take the Bible literally, even when some kind of poetic language is used like symbol, or metaphor, something literal is being referenced. The Apostle Paul was chosen by God to be His Apostle with delegated authority to the Gentiles. And that, For the specific purpose of revealing the mystery of Salvation by Grace alone through faith alone as stated clearly in 1st Corinthians 15:3 and 4.. INCLUDING FOR THE FIRST TIME Gentiles into the plan of God. We see this plan unfolding very rapidly RIGHT NOW. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE BIRTH PANGS OF MAJOR END TIME EVENTS, AS ARE COMING ON THE WORLD LIKE RIGHT NOW. ISRAEL IS AT THE CENTER JUST AS PROPHESIED, BEING PRESSURED BY THE WORLD TO COMPROMISE AND BACK DOWN. THE WORLD STAGE IS BEING SET FOR THE ANTICHRIST.. and the rapture is imminent like never before.. What is a Dispensation? The Framework of God’s Dealings with Man The Meaning of a Dispensation To understand the Scriptures as a unified revelation, one must first grasp the principle by which God has ordered His dealings with mankind throughout history. That principle is the concept of a dispensation. A dispensation is a period of time during which God administers His will toward humanity under a defined set of instructions. It is not merely a measurement of time, but a divine stewardship—a structured way in which God governs, reveals, tests, and guides His creation. This concept is not the product of theological imagination; it is rooted in the very language of Scripture. The Apostle Paul writes: “For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me.” (I Corinthians 9:17) The word translated “dispensation” comes from the Greek oikonomia, meaning an administration, stewardship, or household management. It conveys the idea that God, as the sovereign Lord, distributes responsibilities and revelations in an orderly manner across different periods. Paul uses this same term repeatedly: “That in the dispensation of the fullness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ…” (Ephesians 1:10) “If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:” (Ephesians 3:2) “I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;” (Colossians 1:25) These passages establish a foundational truth: God has not dealt with humanity in the same way at all times. Instead, He has progressively revealed His will through distinct administrations. Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth The necessity of recognizing dispensations is anchored in a command: “Study to shew thyself approved unto God… rightly dividing the word of truth.” (II Timothy 2:15) To “rightly divide” is to discern distinctions where God Himself has placed them. It is to recognize that instructions given in one period may not apply in the same way in another. Without this principle, Scripture becomes a mixture of commands, promises, and expectations that appear inconsistent. But when rightly divided, the Bible reveals a coherent and unfolding plan. Consider the contrast: • Jesus instructs His disciples: “Go not into the way of the Gentiles… but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5–6) • Later, Paul is told: “I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 22:21) Without dispensational understanding, this appears contradictory. With it, the distinction becomes clear: God has shifted His administration. The Language of the Ages To rightly divide Scripture, one must understand the terminology God uses concerning time and administration. Ages (Aion) The Greek word aion refers to an age—a period of time characterized by specific conditions or purposes. Scripture speaks of: • Past ages “Which in other ages was not made known…” (Ephesians 3:5) • The present age “Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world [age].” (Galatians 1:4) • The age to come “They which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world [age]…” (Luke 20:35) • Ages to come “That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace…” (Ephesians 2:7) Thus, Scripture presents time not as a single undivided line, but as a series of divinely purposed ages. World (Kosmos, Oikoumene, Aion) The English word “world” translates several different Greek and Hebrew terms, each with distinct meanings: • Kosmos — the ordered system or arrangement (John 3:16) • Oikoumene — the inhabited earth (Luke 2:1) • Aion — an age or period of time Failure to distinguish these leads to misunderstanding. For example: “Be not conformed to this world [age]…” (Romans 12:2) This speaks not of the physical planet, but of the present moral and spiritual order. Times and Seasons Scripture also distinguishes between general time and appointed moments: • Chronos — continuous time • Kairos — a fixed or appointed season “To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven.” (Ecclesiastes 3:1) God operates according to both—broad timelines and precise moments of fulfilment. The Eternal Framework Before examining human history, we must recognize the broader framework: • The Eternal Past — before recorded time (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1) • The Eternal Future — after all redemptive history is complete (Revelation 21–22) Between these two lies the entire drama of creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. Scripture also alludes to a pre-Adamic administration involving angelic beings: “For by him were all things created… whether they be thrones, or dominions…” (Colossians 1:16) “God spared not the angels that sinned…” (II Peter 2:4) This indicates that God’s dealings extend beyond humanity alone, encompassing all free moral agents in His universe. The Dispensations of Human History Between the eternal past and eternal future, Scripture reveals a series of distinct dispensations in human history. 1. Innocence — The Garden of Eden “Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat…” (Genesis 2:17) Man was placed in a perfect environment with one command. The test was simple—obedience. Failure came swiftly (Genesis 3), and judgment followed: expulsion from the Garden. 2. Conscience — From the Fall to the Flood Man now lived with the knowledge of good and evil. “Every imagination… was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5) The result was universal corruption and the judgment of the Flood (Genesis 6–8). 3. Human Government — After the Flood God instituted authority: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed…” (Genesis 9:6) Yet rebellion continued, culminating in Babel (Genesis 11), where God scattered humanity. 4. Promise — Abraham God called one man and made covenant promises: “In thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.” (Genesis 12:3) This dispensation emphasized faith in God’s promises, yet led into bondage in Egypt. 5. Law — Moses to Christ At Sinai, God gave Israel a detailed system of law: “And God spake all these words…” (Exodus 20:1) For centuries, Israel lived under this system. Yet they failed to keep it and rejected their Messiah: “He came unto his own, and his own received him not.” (John 1:11) This rejection culminated in the crucifixion and later judgment upon Jerusalem (Luke 21:24). The Present Age and the Eternal Purpose 6. — The Dispensation of Grace Following Israel’s rejection, a profound shift occurred. In Acts 9, Saul of Tarsus was converted and commissioned: “I will send thee far hence unto the Gentiles.” (Acts 22:21) This marked the beginning of a new dispensation: “The dispensation of the grace of God…” (Ephesians 3:2) The message of this age is clear: “How that Christ died for our sins… was buried, and… rose again…” (I Corinthians 15:3–4) The requirement is equally clear: “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved…” (Acts 16:31) Salvation is by grace alone: “For by grace are ye saved through faith… not of works…” (Ephesians 2:8–9) This dispensation forms the Body of Christ, composed of both Jew and Gentile: “For he is our peace… to make in himself of twain one new man…” (Ephesians 2:14–15) The Necessity of Testing Free Moral Agents Why does God administer history through dispensations? The answer lies in the nature of His creation. God has made beings with free will. “I have set before you life and death… therefore choose life…” (Deuteronomy 30:19) Each dispensation serves as a test—an opportunity for obedience or rebellion. Through these tests, several truths are established: • That God’s authority is just (Psalm 19:9) • That sin brings judgment (Romans 6:23) • That obedience leads to blessing (Isaiah 1:19) God’s ultimate purpose is to prepare a creation that willingly submits to Him in righteousness. Future Dispensations: The Tribulation After the present age concludes: “The Lord himself shall descend… and we… shall be caught up…” (I Thessalonians 4:16–17) God resumes His dealings with Israel, fulfilling prophecy: “He shall confirm the covenant with many for one week…” (Daniel 9:27) The Kingdom — The Millennium Christ will reign on earth: “They lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:4) Satan will be bound: “He laid hold on the dragon… and bound him a thousand years.” (Revelation 20:2) Yet he will be released: “Satan shall be loosed… to deceive the nations…” (Revelation 20:7–8) Even in a perfect environment, mankind must choose obedience. The Eternal State Finally, all things are restored: “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth…” (Revelation 21:1) God’s purpose is fulfilled: “That God may be all in all.” (I Corinthians 15:28) The redeemed inherit all things: “Heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ…” (Romans 8:17) The Wisdom of God’s Plan God’s dispensational dealings are not arbitrary—they are necessary. They ensure: • The testing of all free moral agents • The demonstration of God’s justice and mercy • The final removal of all rebellion Scripture declares: “To the intent that now… might be known… the manifold wisdom of God.” (Ephesians 3:10) Even eternal judgment serves a purpose: “They shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.” (Isaiah 66:24) A Unified Revelation From the Garden of Eden to the New Creation, God’s plan unfolds through distinct dispensations, each revealing another facet of His character. A dispensation answers the question: What has God required of mankind at a given time? When this principle is understood, Scripture is no longer a collection of disconnected teachings, but a unified revelation moving toward a glorious conclusion. God has spoken. Man must respond. And in rightly dividing the Word of truth, we do not divide Scripture—we uncover the divine order that has been there all along.