Beyond King James Version Onlyism by Chase Dowell

Beyond King James Version Onlyism

A Reflective Essay By Chase Dowell

My journey into KJV-onlyism began when I returned to Christ, like the prodigal son, after wondering from him in my childhood. I had left the Church not long after my confirmation and baptism, and spent many years “in the world” in every sense of the phrase. But in God’s providence and grace, my heart was stirred, and for the first time in my life I picked up a Bible and began to read.

I was so disconnected from Christianity as we entered into the digital age that I was not aware Bibles could be read for free on mobile apps. So, doing what any book lover does when a book is needed immediately, I opened my Kindle and purchased a New King James Version—having absolutely no idea what that meant. In my childlike understanding of Scripture, there was simply “the Bible” and I knew nothing of translation and variations within the biblical manuscripts that have survived history, a testament of the past and our ancient faith.

About halfway through Genesis, I realized the digital format was just not going to do. I wanted a physical Bible. The weight of God’s Word demanded a corresponding feeling in my hand. So I drove to a nearby store and bought the first physical copy I would ever read. Though I had been gifted Bibles growing up, they had long since disappeared—having never understood their value, something I would later come to regret. I picked one off the shelf that looked good: hand-sized, brown and tan cover. It happened to be an NIV.

Not long after, having read significant portions of the Pentateuch and the Gospels, the Spirit convicted me of my sin, drove me to my knees, and brought me to Christ. As I continued in Scripture and grew in my faith, I began attending a congregation—one where Textus Receptus preferences and KJVO leanings were present in some circles, though not officially held by the church.

One well-meaning lady pointed out that my Bible was missing verses. I had noticed the footnotes about manuscript variation all along, but it had never occurred to me that this was supposed to be concerning. I showed her the footnote containing the verse she said was missing and explained that my Bible wasn’t hiding anything.

I had no context for these new ideas I was being introduced to, and this issue came up again and again. Once, an elder in the church pulled a few Bibles off his shelf for me to compare verses in a passage in order to demonstrate some issue. I read them and considered what each said. I responded to him, confusedly, “They are saying the same thing.” I was perplexed. I couldn’t see what they saw and didn’t understand their fear and concern. I certainly hadn’t learned such anxieties from reading God’s Word.

I felt the need to defend my Bible. This was the Bible that introduced me to Jesus, the one I was reading when He became my friend, the one that brought me to tears at the Last Supper, the one in which He became my Lord and Saviour, and finally my King. But the idea that something was wrong with the text had been planted, and as these interactions continued, their suspicion would eventually become my own.

From my perspective, these ideas were coming from church leaders who had been walking with the Lord much longer than I had; perhaps they understood something I didn’t. Before long, I switched back to the NKJV. Still, for my own conscience, I needed to dig deeper. I had been pressed to adopt their concerns without, in my opinion, a satisfactory justification. Over the next year, as I neared the end of my first full read-through of Scripture, I began devouring textual debates and lectures on textual criticism and related topics. I must have watched hundreds of hours. I started leaning toward the Critical Text (The base text underlying most contemporary translations of the New Testament). The reasoning used to weigh manuscripts and decide between variant readings struck me as thoughtful and well grounded. This is when I started reading from the English Standard Version, influenced by Christian teachers I was watching online. I saw these men exposit the text with deep conviction, and I could see their love for God’s Word, something I shared, and I was drawn to it.

As it turned out, this leaning would only be temporary. Circumstances had placed me in a new church where their particular flavor of onlyism was even more pronounced. They used the KJV exclusively in preaching and teaching—something I had not yet experienced. To their credit, exclusive use of the KJV wasn’t treated as a condition of fellowship, nor was anyone required to use the KJV for personal devotion or study. Yet, that openness was never explicitly communicated to the congregation; it remained more of an unspoken liberty. Unfortunately, that silence created space for onlyism to take root and fester. This setting naturally inclined me to explore the KJVO position more seriously—not just the Textus Receptus or the traditional text and Majority/Critical Text positions, but the distinct claims of KJV-onlyism itself.

In conversations with my peers, I quickly realized we were approaching the issue from very different starting points. Whenever I brought these issues up, my closest friend in the church seemed disinterested. He told me God had told him the KJV was the correct Bible to use. From his perspective, there was no need to understand the nuances of textual issues or to weigh the arguments for one text over another—even when my presentation was in support of the King James. I have no doubt my brother genuinely believed God had told him the King James Bible was the correct one to use. In his mind, he was simply exercising obedience to Christ, and therefore any further examination was unnecessary.

God never gave me such a revelation, so for the sake of my own conscience I had to investigate these matters, assess all the positions for their strengths and weaknesses, and know the truth for myself. In the end, I became convinced of KJV-onlyism—or, more accurately, I became convinced that absolute certainty about the entirety of the text was necessary, and King James–onlyism was the only position that seemed to allow for it.

As providence would have it, a move to a new city, closer to family, brought me to yet another church—one where no one held to any kind of “only” position. The sermons were preached from the NIV, which unsettled me a little at first, but I still carried my King James to the pews each week. It gave me a sense of security, as though I could quietly measure everything I heard against what I believed was the true text and, as the saying goes, “eat the meat and spit out the bones.”

Around this time, my mother experienced her own return to Christ, and we were attending that church together. She asked me to help her find a Bible. By then I had become a collector of sorts and very knowledgeable about the offerings from all the major publishers, and though I had settled firmly into KJV-onlyism, I accumulated many editions across many translations along the way.

My mom had just one requirement: anything but the King James. We had discussed my preference before, but I felt strongly that I shouldn’t pressure her. In some ways, I felt I was better off before I started down this path to onlyism. And as I watched the Lord revealing her newly kindled faith, a question pressed on me more and more: What good had my onlyist position actually done for me? In the end, I simply helped her choose what suited her needs—a large-print thinline with a purple cover. I slipped a NKJV into the list of options, secretly hoping she might pick it, but she chose the NIV.

This is the Bible my mother chose and ever since the Lord has been working in her life in unmistakable ways.

During that first year in the new church, we read through the Bible together and met weekly to discuss the readings. Over the course of that year, I saw the Lord working in my mother’s life in unmistakable ways, which only further softened my heart and kept that same question before me.

That church would only be a momentary stop on my way to what would become my church home. While going through this textual journey during the preceding six years, I was simultaneously going through a theological one.

When I began attending the church I now call home, I asked the pastor for recommended theological readings. He pointed me to Christian Doctrine by Shirley Guthrie. Guthrie’s Neo-Orthodox approach was completely foreign to me—especially his view of Scripture. While I wouldn’t embrace all his conclusions, his book did open my eyes to something that had been staring me in the face the whole time: there is a spiritual nature to Scripture that cannot be understood in physical terms. I had heard echoes of this idea before, ironically from those defending the King James Version as a kind of sacred textual standard for the English-speaking Church.

The Word of God is “living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword.” I had witnessed its living power in my own mother’s life and experienced it myself from those very first days of picking up God’s Word. And slowly, I began to grasp a deeper understanding of what I already knew: what transforms hearts is the Spirit of God speaking through His Word, and that work of grace is not hindered by some personal uncertainties in the text. For the ink that pools and spreads across the vellum, the strokes that draw the droplets into letters, the words that slowly take shape, are but a visible sign of the thing signified. They point to the greater reality than themselves that has no container we can see or fully understand.

When I look back on my journey into only-ism, I began to see parallels between my own heart on this matter and the very things Jesus so often rebuked in the Pharisees. Imagine driving up a mountain near dusk when a valley suddenly opens before you and a breathtaking sunset fills the horizon. You pull over and start fiddling with your camera and adjusting its settings, trying desperately to capture the perfect shot. But you spend so long seeking perfection in the image, that you miss the sunset entirely and the opportunity to enjoy the perfection of the reality that image was meant to point to, and the beauty God placed before you in that special moment.

I now understand that I cannot ultimately figure out the entirety of the text in its hundreds of thousands of words down to the single letter with absolute certainty. No one can. By God’s grace it’s clear to me we were never meant to. God, in His providence, did not give us a completed text of Scripture free from variation in any age—including the King James. This is something the informed onlyist must reckon with, and some do so with more or less consistency. Nor did He give us instructions for identifying a single copy as the standard, or for constructing one.

And maybe that’s the point. Maybe the human element so evident in the transmission of the text is intentional on God’s part—bringing His Word down to us in a form meet for us. A well preserved text with minor variation that points to the perfect Word. Perhaps the absolute perfection we long for in a text is really a misplaced longing for the absolute perfection found only in Christ, the living Word. And even if such flawless perfection could be captured in physical form in all its glory, would we be capable of beholding it unveiled? Or would we, like the Israelites, shrink back—pleading for God to speak through Moses instead—afraid of the radiance reflected in his shining face?

And with that realization—I began to see how Christ was the one feeding us, even when I thought I was the one sorting the meat from the bones. And after a seven-year journey that took me into KJV-onlyism along the way, and then out of it—my conscience came to rest. Today I have the freedom to read and be nourished by God’s Word in a variety of translations with textual variation between them, free from the anxieties of onlyism which can never deliver what it promises, utterly certain of Christ’s ability to spiritually feed my soul through His Word—which despite my ignorance is always meat, never bones.

To God be the glory!

Stepping away from a King James Version–only perspective was never just about favoring one translation over another. It was about recognizing that I had once put myself alone in the driver’s seat of discernment and had failed to see God’s care in feeding His children through His Word in all of Church history. In that independent frame of mind, I adopted a narrow view of Scripture and inspiration that made it difficult to see beyond a single text. But as I became exposed to—and began to embrace—the broader landscape of Christian theology and the rich tradition of the Church, I found my way out of that mindset.

It was this shift—from a solitary approach to a communal, historically grounded understanding—that allowed me to appreciate Scripture more fully and to recognize that we all need the wisdom of the Church, now and in history to guide us. And I believe this is the key to freeing the conscience of many bound to King James–onlyism: helping them understand a robust doctrine of the Word. Entangled within the KJVO mindset is a particularly narrow view of Scripture and inspiration that is incompatible with Church history, the extant manuscript evidence, and the way the Church has understood these matters for millennia. This wisdom must reach the onlyist, because apart from a miraculous work of God, I’m not sure anything else could release them.

From this I conclude that it is both good and right to desire the best possible text of Scripture and to labor faithfully to render it in every language under Heaven. Yet this work—and our understanding of it—must be kept in its proper proportion. Our certainty does not rest upon the absolute perfection of our labors, nor upon the possession of a flawless physical copy of God’s Word. Our certainty rests in Christ Himself. It is His work, not ours, to ensure that His Church hears the words it needs for faith and life.

And so this is my hope and my charge to the Church at large: that she would rediscover her roots, embrace the inheritance of the past, and receive with gratitude the blessings God has bestowed through the ministry of His Church in every age. And may the faithfulness of our Lord Jesus Christ sustain you until His appearing—and keep you unto everlasting life.

###

This article was written for Bible Version Conspiracy by our Co-conspirator and friend Chase Dowell. To find out more about the Bible Version Conspiracy, visit our website at bibleversionconspiracy.com, check out our YouTube channel, or email us at bibleversionconspiracy@gmail.com with specific questions about this or our other content. Join the Co-conspiracy and support what we do at https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/membership.

Did Luciferian Madame Blavatsky Actually Worship Satan? 🤔😈Dec 31, 2025

Did Helena Petrovna Blavatsky (1831-1891), the OG New Ager who founded the Theosophical Society and Lucifer Magazine, actually worship Satan as is so often accused? Does Isaiah 14 describe the fall of Satan from heaven? Are KJV-only apologists spreading falsehoods about Blavatsky, modern Bible translators and their translations, and even the word “Lucifer” itself? 🤔 Short answer: no, she didn’t, no, it doesn’t, and yes, they are! 😳

According to John Algeo (1930–2019), National President of the Theosophical Society in America, the first article that Blavatsky wrote for Lucifer Magazine confirms our own research into the “Lucifer” translation controversy from our formerly KJV-only perspective. Not only that, but Blavatsky taught the same thing about the name “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12 as the many faithful and learned Christian commentators and translators, which we’ve been exploring. In fact, it appears the one major difference between the insights of men like John Rogers, Matthew Poole, King James, the KJV translators themselves (!), Noah Webster, John Calvin, Adam Clarke, etc, and Blavatsky is that Blavatsky’s conclusion dismisses the existence of Satan altogether.

We are not endorsing Helena Blavatsky, John Algeo, or the Theosophical Society, nor are we defending their beliefs or teachings. I’ve read quite a bit of her book Isis Unveiled, Volume 2: The ‘Infallibility’ of Religion. We are well aware of what she thought of religion, especially Christianity, and history, and we have been clear on multiple occasions that she got a lot of things wrong and that, although her wisdom is extensive, it is not infinite and is dangerous if taken uncritically. We simply want to show that she has been wrongly accused of Satan worship, and did not teach that he is an impersonal force as some claim. Disingenuous authors have read her article “What’s in a Name?” and continue to lie about her beliefs to protect their anti-modern version rhetoric. This dishonesty is an unfruitful work that we are reproving. It also adds to our own exposure of the meaning and history of the word “lucifer”.

We also do not seek to prove an error in the KJV since, properly understood, it is saying the same thing as any other modern version in this case since “day-star”, “morning star”, “planet Venus”, and “Lucifer” are synonymous and accurate translations in the context of Isaiah 14:12. “Lucifer” is, however, the easiest translation to be misunderstood by modern readers because its classic sense has fallen almost completely out of use. As a result, “Luciferian” has been acquainted with “Satan worshipper” which simply isn’t the case.

Several KJV-only books, some of them written by friends of ours, have claimed Blavatsky was a worshipper of Satan because she was “Luciferian” and strongly imply that the translations of modern Bibles which read “Day-Star”, “Morning star”, etc., may be as well. This is not typical of KJV-only literature, but his standard fare in those written from a conspiratorial perspective. As conspiracy theories often go, these accusations are founded on half truths and misunderstandings. We hope this helps to set the record straight.

Mr Algeo’s article is reproduced below in bold. My comments are in [[ double brackets ]].

John Algeo writes:

“How Lucifer got to be used as a name for a devil is a complicated story. In the Book of the Prophet Isaiah (chapter 14), there is a passage talking about the King of Babylon, who was not a favorite of Isaiah’s. Verse 12 of that chapter runs (in the oldest known version of the Bible): “How you are [sic] fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground-you who laid low the nation” (Dead Sea Scrolls Bible 292).

“The King of Babylon had apparently been given (or perhaps himself assumed) the title “Day-Star,” which is a name for the planet Venus, the first planet or star seen in the morning just before the sun rises, hence the King was also called “son of the morning.” The identification of important monarchs with heavenly bodies has always been common, as for example King Louis XIV of France was called the “Sun King.” Now, the word Lucifer “light bearer” was the Latin term for the “day-star” or Morning Star because it brought in (or bore) the light of the day.

“So when the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Latin, the word lucifer was used in this verse, rendered into Latin as Quomodo cecidistide cælo, lucifer, qui mane oriebaris? That is literally, “How have you fallen from heaven, light bearer, who are born in the morning?” The reference to falling from heaven was doubtless Isaiah’s way of putting the Babylonian king in his place by sarcastically observing in effect: “OK, you call yourself the Day Star of Heaven, you who think you’re so high and mighty, but look at you now–you, the so-called Day Star, have fallen from your place in the heavens and have yourself been cut down to the ground.

[[ Please note this is exactly the same interpretation offered by many godly and learned Christians who have put aside Roman Catholic traditions when they conflict with or obscure the plain meaning of Scripture. This can be clearly seen, for example, in the notes of both Matthew’s Bible and Geneva Bible³, as we have discussed elsewhere.

Unfortunately, some fundamentalist researchers pretend that the fall of Satan scenario is the only interpretation acknowledged by genuine Christians who have not fallen into blasphemous error. One young KJV-only blogger (speaking from a place of pure innocence and good intention), goes so far as to say that no one questioned the Isaiah 14:12 fall of Satan narrative until Westcott and Hort! Elsewhere we have discussed why they see any translation other than “Lucifer” as blasphemous, so we won’t get into that now. These authors have set up a scenario or a modern translators are following occult beliefs in their translations. This is not the case, and it’s easy to show when the facts are considered. The false accusations need to be exposed, and showing whay Blavatsky actually believed and taught is a great way to do it.

The fall of Satan is indeed an ancient tradition, but this in this tradition Satan is being compared with the planet Venus, as Algeo goes on to discuss. ]]

“However, the early Christian interpreters misunderstood the expression “fallen from heaven” and, instead of recognizing it as a figure of speech playing on the destruction of the wicked King of Babylon, who called himself the Day Star, they thought it was a literal statement about a fall from heaven and identified the event with the legendary fall of Satan. So they thought that the term “Day Star,” or “Lucifer” in Latin, referred to Satan. And thus a term for the planet Venus became one of the names of a devil. It was a mistake caused by misunderstanding figurative language as a literal statement, a common problem among fundamentalists.

[[ The “figurative language” being confused for literal is the taunt from the dead kings that the king of Babylon had “fallen from heaven”. They compare his death to the planet/star Venus falling from the sky. Here “heaven” refers to the sky, not the abode of God and the angels. Reading the KJV, we assume we know the meaning of these “false friends” (“heaven” and “Lucifer”) which are used in an unusual, more archaic sense than we typically understand them. This is made especially clear regarding “Lucifer” in the KJV’s own marginal note which reads “Or, O Day-starre”. Since we commonly refer to the big blue thing above us as the sky, rather than heaven, it is easy to see how confused interpretations of this passage have been reinforced by the passage of time. KJV-only fundamentalists fight against modern translations, complaining that modern versions omit “heaven” many times when they, in fact, simply make a distinction by using “sky” and “heaven” according to the context.¹

Unfortunately, the same KJV-only people (and even some commentators) see the fall of Satan as essential to the understanding of Isaiah 14 because the king of Babylon didn’t fall from heaven. To them, Satan is the only being that fits the bill. Some pretend that only New Agers and occultists take the view Mr. Algeo expresses while carefully avoiding the fact that many sound Christian commentators and translators through the ages taught the same truths as presented by Mr. Algeo. Thanks to the suspicions and panic spread by these careless authors, insinuations and accusations of closeted satanism fly freely against, not only Blavatsky, but anyone and anything not in accordance with narrow KJV-only views. ]]

“The story does not end there, however, at least not for Theosophists. When Helena Blavatsky moved to London in 1887, she decided to start a new magazine, and she chose to name it Lucifer, against the advice of some of her friends.² The choice of that name was surely due, at least in part, to Blavatsky’s wicked sense of humor. She knew very well that the literal-minded and unimaginative of her day would associate the name with the devil. She was saying in effect: Very well, you think I’m a devil well, here’s another little tidbit for you to chew on. That is, she used the name to tweak the noses of the literalists.

[[ We don’t quite agree with Mr. Algeo that the fall of Satan (the traditional interpretation of Isaiah 14:12) is the literal interpretation of the passage. However, we do see how he could think it’s literalistic since it’s how it is taken by most Christians who only consider the passage at face value and only in the light of strong cultural traditions.

Although Blavatsky was involved in occultism and the New Age, continuing to pretend Blavatsky worshiped Satan is not only irresponsible, but it is also downright dishonest and false accusations do not come from the heart of Christ. We all remember who the Father of Lies is, don’t we? ]]

“The very first article in the first issue of the magazine was ‘What’s in a Name?’ and was by Blavatsky herself. In it, she explained what the name really means and how it came to be misunderstood and misapplied. She also explained why it was the right name for her magazine, which was intended (as St. Paul says in 1 Cor. 4.5) to bring “to light the hidden things of darkness.” She wrote that the purpose of her new magazine was “to fight prejudice, hypocrisy and shams in every nation, in every class of Society [sic], as in every department of life.” To top it off, the illustration on the cover of the magazine depicted a brilliant youth holding aloft a blazing star that he is bringing to earth.

“Blavatsky furthermore pointed out that in the Book of Revelation, Christ referred to himself as “the bright and morning star,” that is, Lucifer. And the Gospel of St. John (1.4) says, “In him . . . was the light of men.” Blavatsky identified Christ with Prometheus, who brought fire and thus light to humanity and who was thus etymologically a Lucifer or Light-bearer. Christ, Prometheus,and Lucifer were all symbolic bringers of light to the world and consequently savior figures.

[[ Close followers of the Bible Version Conspiracy know who we’re talking about when we say certain authors and their followers criticize the Latin Vulgate for saying “lucifer rising” in 2 Peter 1:19 refering to Jesus Christ. Not only do these researchers not understand — or at least are not willing to publicly acknowledge and discuss — that “lucifer” is simply the Latin name for the planet Venus or daystar, but these same individuals loudly praise the Old Latin Bible and cover up the fact that the Old Latin reads exactly the same as the Vulgate! Is this due to a massive conspiracy? No. It’s simply because they are both written in Latin.

The Google AI summary informs us of other passages where the word “lucifer” is used in the Latin Vulgate:

“Job 11:17: Referring to a man arising like the morning star.

Job 38:32: Asking if one can bring forth the morning star.

Isaiah 14:12: Addressing the King of Babylon as “Lucifer,” who rose in the morning and fell from heaven.

2 Peter 1:19: Referring to the “day star” (lucifer) arising in hearts, which in this contextt refers to Jesus Christ.” ]]

“Blavatsky certainly did not believe in the existence of any literal devil, under whatever name. And she doubtless thought that ideas about the devil were a mixture of legends and misunderstandings of metaphorical and symbolic language, of which the name Lucifer is a prime example. For that reason also, it was a good name for her magazine.” — Viewpoint: Lucifer: What’s in a Name by John Algeo (2001).

Translation differences between modern Bible versions and the KJV have been blown far out of proportion by KJV-only fundamentalists in recent decades. Thankfully, most Christians are willing to absorb information that does not contradict clear scriptural teaching, whereas the fundamentalist mentality all too often keeps itself from asking serious questions and protects itself from the truth out of fear. The Isaiah 14:12 controversy illustrates how, when mixed together, tradition, ignorance, presumption, superstition, and paranoia can form an especially corrosive compound. Sadly, drinking this conspiratorial cocktail often brings out the worst in the “Onlyists” and accusations and suspicions of satanism fly freely against any man or woman who dares to question the voices of their movement. Men or women in our own century or in the 19th century.

Read John Algeo’s full article at https://www.theosophical.org/publications/quest-magazine/viewpoint-lucifer-whats-in-a-name

As we wrap up 2025, a new year dawns with plans to explore the “Lucifer” controversy more deeply, finally finish and publish our official Lucifer page, the article Blavatsky wrote about “Lucifer” for the first edition of her magazine, write an article exposing the usage of “lucifer” in Latin manuscripts, finish our page about Gail Riplinger’s nutty and dishonest Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas claims, and lots of other fascinating topics. We will also begin work on the chapter we’re contributing to the upcoming book, The Myth of “New Age Bible Versions”. Stay tuned and subscribe so you don’t miss anything!

Question of the day: Have you ever been accused of something that was exactly the opposite of the truth? How did it make you feel? Has that experience made you more careful to hear both sides of the story before passing judgment?

▶️ Check out our other articles on the “Lucifer” controversy and KJV-onlyism at https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/posts/203638

▶️ Subscribe to our exposure of the conspiracy behind the Bible version controversy on YouTube: https://youtube.com/c/bibleversionconspiracy/?sub_confirmation=1

▶️ Join the Co-Conspiracy to follow our exposure of the conspiracy behind the Bible version controversy on a deeper level and support what we do: https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/membership

Notes

¹ The KJV only uses “sky” seven times and “skies” 5 times compared to the NKJV’s “sky” nine / “skies” seven, and NIV’s “sky” in eighty-four verses / “skies” 16 verses. The NKJV retains both “heaven” and “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12, whereas most translations replace “Lucifer” with “morning star”, “day-star”, “shining one”, etc. Several versions use “heavens” in this context as Algeo did in his paraphrase to refer to the sky/outer space, but it seems only the NET replaces “heaven” with “sky” in Isaiah 14:12.

² The friends won out eventually as the Magazine was renamed the Theosophical Review ten years later.

³Matthew’s Bible (1537) “How art thou fallen from heaven O Lucifer thou faire morning childe? hast thou gotten a fall eve to the grounde / thou and (not witstanding) didest subddue the people? Marginal note, “He compareth the death of Nebuchadnezzar to the falling of Lucifer the morning star which he calleth the child of the morning because it appeareth only in the morning. The meaning is: no such thing ought to have happened unto thee, that in earth was like the morning star, which no man can take out of heaven: And thou that wast so mighty that thou destroyedst what people thou wouldest and unto whom it was a pastime to overthrow nations, hast received such measure as thou broughtest. Such a like thing is there in Ezek. 28. Against king Cyrus.”

Geneva Bible margin note (1560) “How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning? and cut down to the ground, which didst cast lots upon the nations?” Marginal note: “Thou that thought thyself most glorious, and as it were, placed in the heaven for the morning star, that goes before the sun, is called lucifer to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.”

This content (minus a few editorial changes) was originally published to our Buy Me A Coffee page on December 31, 2025. https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/did-luciferian-madame-blavatsky-worship-satan

Did Manly P. Hall HATE KJV-onlyism?? 🤔May 26, 2025

Did a famous occult philosopher say the quiet part of the Bible version conspiracy out loud? As some KJV-only authors claim, is KJV-onlyism the greatest hindrance to the New World Order? Is there an important lesson KJV-onlyists can learn from the writings of one of the greatest occult philosophers of the last century?

At the Bible Version Conspiracy, we are on a mission to expose the conspiracy we believe manipulates and controls the modern Bible version controversy. Many KJV-only and some modern Bible version proponents also believe in this controversial conspiracy, both sides offering evidence to justify their suspicions. Responsibility demands that we explore these claims and verify their accuracy before accepting them and promoting them as proof of the conspiracy we seek to expose on our YouTube channel and website. After the hundreds of “facts” from KJV-only authors that we have been able to verify as falsehoods, we were anticipating finally having a claim that checks out.

Please note, our friend Joey Faust is the first to offer a fascinating and mysterious quotation as proof of an occult conspiracy against the King James Bible. Brother Joey and us have discussed it briefly before this article was completed, and we have barely scratched the surface. Brother Joey and us have been friends for years, and we appreciate the wisdom he has to share. We occasionally disagree, often strongly, but we want to be clear that we have no ill will toward him or his books, even if they contain serious errors. This article is designed to document our fact-check, findings, and opinions as transparently as possible.

Hall and Faust in the Balance of the Scales

Manly Palmer Hall (above) was a famous esoteric philosopher, astrologer, globalist, founder of the Philosophical Research Society, and author of The Secret Teachings of All Ages. Several KJV-only authors accuse Hall of being an accomplice in a conspiracy to supplant the KJV and possibly even a mastermind behind modern versions of the Bible. Joey Faust, author of The Word: God Will Keep It, quotes Hall from 1944, when he wrote:

“The way of…conditioning would be the one used in Central Europe to condition Nazi minds…[It there] began in the public schools…[and] with the small child; which is where we will have to begin…To make things right we will have to undo much that is cherished error. The problem of revising the Bible shows how difficult it is to do this. For the last hundred years, we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What’s wanted [by the majority of people] is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English…The solution to this whole problem…is…psychology…it should be an absolute requisite of education from the grammar school up…We must begin in the home with small children…[and] with the churches teaching the integrity of the religions of other peoples…We have to be conditioned…”

(Manly P. Hall, Horizon, “Asia in the Balance of the Scales,” Volume 4, No. 1, 1944)

The Word: God Will Keep It by Joey Faust. Note, all those “…” are Joey’s. Page numbers are excluded since we reference his searchable PDF.

Although Faust wrote a fascinating book on the 400-year “History of the KJV-only Movement” (specifically intended to dispel the claims that KJV-onlyism is a “new sect”), this quotation does not do the context justice and grossly misrepresents Hall’s statement. Sadly, we have found such misrepresentations among KJV-only works far more often than can be accounted for by simple human error.

Did Manly P. Hall hate KJV-onlyism, seeing the movement and the KJV as obstacles to the New World Order? Or is this a delusion of grandeur conceived in a Riplinger-level overactive imagination? A few vocal KJV-only advocates have taken up Faust’s quote and used it for their purposes.

Hall also admitted that he (and his “associates”) had been laboring to change the world through a mass indoctrination program that includes promoting revised versions of the Bible! They worked to change and replace the King James Bible.

…

It is probable that these men, with such diverse backgrounds, were connected and organizedmore than is often realized, through various secret societies, etc. However, it is certain that the prince of the power of the air (the god of this world) is organized, as he labors to unite men philosophically toaccomplish his goals.Things are “progressing” quickly according to such occult plans. Evil men and seducers arewaxing worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived (2 Timothy 3:13). Yet, in the early 1940’s, Hall was complaining that KJV Onlyism was a major roadblock to the devilish goals of ushering in a one world religion, etc. (see Daniel 8:25, Revelation 13, 17, etc.). The great awakening of so many people to the King James Only viewpoint in recent decades continues to be a hindrance to their agenda.

…

Many [sic] P. Hall was one of the most influential occult writers. He was also a 33º Mason. In theabove quote, this occultist is complaining that their “plans” were being hindered by KJVOnlyists! It is clear from such testimonies that there were enough KJV Onlyists around to trouble men like Hall:

…

The occult plan is plainly confessed above.

Joey Faust, The Word: God Will Keep It

Okay, never mind that he totally made up a false teaching to slam the King James Bible-believers.

…

I asked the question, “Who is ‘we’?” Let’s take that apart right now. And while we’re at it, we’ll see what the Sinaiticus might have to do with it. By “we,” it seems that Hall is referring to some very high-up people in the occultic and political world. These people were the intelligent leaders who were to create a New World Order.

…

Six: The evidence suggests that this Bible found by Tischendorf in 1844 is what occultist Manly P. Hall was referring to, when he said, in 1944:

“For the last hundred years we have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What’s wanted is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it.”

David W. Daniels, Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake? p. 48, etc. He quotes Hall four times throughout the book and serves a central role in thus book’s thesis.

He is clearly insisting that it was the KJV believers who slowed down the works of the modern Bible. Those Christians who force other Christians to have a firm belief in modern versions of the Bible will surely be accountable for their sin.

…

He believed that the verses in the KJV taught these [erroneous] doctrines that he didn’t agree with, that is why he put out another bible to correct those “wrong theological notions.”

Missing or Corrupted Verses in the Modern Bibles by Gene Kim

Now for the most important occult quote of them all:

…Did you catch that? Hall says that “they” had spent 100 years trying to replace the King James Bible with a different version. This quote comes from 1944 – exactly 100 years from the time Codex Siniaticus was discovered – the same codex which Hall claims corrects the errors of the King James Bible.

HOW THE BIBLE SURVIVED FOR 2000 YEARS UNDER FIRE by GodSessions.com

The “last hundred years” from the date of publication of Hall’s article would have been 1844. It is interesting that around that time there were reported activities by the Jesuits, a Roman Catholic order that was created to fight the Protestant Reformation, to pursue an objective to take control of the Bible.

Satan Targets the Bible by TheCammandmentsofGodandthefaithofJesus.com

In the spring of 1944, exactly 100 years since the Jesuits’ created the Textus Vaticanus [sic] and Textus Sinaiticus [sic] forgeries, he made a following statement:

…

Who are “we”? Let’s take that apart right now. And while we’re at it, we’ll see what the Sinaiticus might have to do with it.

…

By “we,” it seems that Hall is referring to some very high-up powerful individuals in the Occult and Political world. That was the focus of his 1944 article,

…

But to accomplish this enslavement, Hall and his masters needed to muddy the understanding of anyone reading a Bible in the common tongue. Once again, they cloaked the Word of God in an ancient language and offered a counterfeit in the common tongue to the unwary masses.

…

In other words, presenting modern Bibles with Jesuit-edited errors as an alternative to confusing, antiquated translations.

…

Hall cunningly pitted himself on the side of “reason” by contrasting the need for modern translations against the minority of misguided Christians who consider the King James translation, itself, “inerrant”.

Vatican Freemasons Control All Reality From “Science” To “Shakespeare” by Johnny Cirucci (Note: Johnny’s is a pretty unhinged article, and some of it seems suspiciously familiar, but he makes some interesting points.)

If the KJV is the only infallible Bible in history, why wouldn’t Satan hate it with all his being? If it is truly “the only real Bible”, how could it be anything but a hindrance to his plans for world domination? Seeing your movement as Satan’s most formidable foe seems to afford a degree of comfort. Every KJV-only advocate who references Hall’s statement seems to agree. We think the scenario put forward by the above authors is logical. Whether or not these claims are based in reality is another question entirely.

The clearest evidence that the passage is being misunderstood by the authors above is the simple fact that Hall is not speaking about KJV-onlyism as we know it today, since it did not even exist in 1944, and certainly did not constitute “the majority of people” (Faust) in 1944 which will be important later. The “totally made up” claim about “the King James Bible-believers” (Daniels) was not describing the convictions of a narrow cross-section of fundamentalist Christians, but, almost sarcastically, to represent Western society’s view of what constitutes “the Bible” after 300 years of exposure to only one. Hall’s quote encompasses Western believers and non-believers in every walk of life, not simply “the King James Only Movement”. This becomes clear when we read Hall’s article for what it says rather than for what we want it to say or wish it said. (Much of the pre-Ruckman KJV-only history presented throughout Faust’s book may likewise be unrelated to the KJV-only movement we all know and love. A distinguishing belief seems to separate pre-Ruckman and post-Ruckman KJV exclusives, that there was no perfect Bible before 1611.)

Unfortunately, examining the context further reveals that our authors reached the same conclusion because they shared biases, not because they carefully, fairly, and independently read the article to see what Hall said. Modern KJV-onlyism has serious questions to answer in an age where references can be fact-checked online. Since the entire volume containing “Asia in the Balance of the Scales” is available for free on the Internet Archive, how many readers will test the accuracy of KJV-only authors for themselves? And if they are inaccurate, how much longer can the truth be avoided?

Context is King

Who are the “we” people mentioned by Hall who have been trying to bring out a reasonably accurate Bible? Check out the immediate context below.

Manly Hall died in 1990, so we can’t email him to ask what he meant. However, from reading the context, it is clear that Hall’s “we” is not a secret society, “some very high-up people in the occultic and political world”, or a shadowy Bible translation cabal. The Faustian reading of Hall’s article makes some parts of it very confusing (i.e., the “totally made up false teaching” described by Daniels above), but careful reading of the article in question brings many of the statements Hall made to a place where they can be easily understood.

Taking the entire context of the article into consideration, Hall is clearly speaking of occidental Bible translators in the West who were struggling to overcome the widespread ignorance of Bible history in their society. He wrote this before most modern Bible versions were published and became popular, but the American Standard Version of 1901 was highly regarded as one of the most formally accurate to the original Bible languages. Unfortunately, the uninformed position regarding the KJV that Hall describes could be held by anyone, Christian or non-Christian. The translator’s plight, mentioned in passing, is but one example of how “cherished error” can get in the way of progress in any field. Despite the movement’s high concentration of cherished error, Hall is not discussing KJV-onlyism as we know it today, not even close.

Closely held opinions, preferences, and traditions can cause unnecessary strife and division, making us unable to consider things from any other perspective. This is the entire point of Hall’s statements, not some secret plot against the KJV. Hall’s love of psychology as a solution to these problems is because it is “the first systematic effort to analyze human thinking” and a great step toward bringing formal training in seeing things from others’ point of view to public education. Admittedly, globalism has done a lot of harm in its battle for utopia, but maybe Hall had a little wisdom to share after all. The call for cooperation and understanding among men of different persuasions is overlooked by Faust and company in favor of a failed attempt to give KJV-onlyism way more credit than it deserves.

As showcased by Faust, the passage leads the reader to the conclusion that Hall and the “we” see KJV-onlyism as a major obstacle that must be ripped down so the NWO can march forward and conquer the globe. We believed Faust’s view was the case for years and actively promoted his book, but we have unfortunately discovered the flaws in his treatment of the passage over the last several weeks. Perhaps the overuse of “…” should have alerted me sooner since it seems to be the trademark of Riplinger-level documentation among KJV-only authors. And, yes, Joey says he read Hall’s entire article and many others by him before he wrote The Word, and he stands by the statements he made above. As always, we highly encourage you to read Hall’s article for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

Other vocal KJV-only authors and bloggers have borrowed this segment from Faust to demonstrate a conspiracy behind modern translations (above). Unfortunately, their insights add nothing to our understanding of what the passage originally said, serving only to confuse their readers further. It makes one wonder whether any of them (other than Faust and Daniels) have even seen the article before. Trust for KJV-only authors – whom some KJV-only adherents feel are the only authors you can truly trust –, proof of a deeply held conviction about a conspiracy behind modern Bible versions, and a chance to justify authors they trust (such as Gail Riplinger) prove too delicious to resist.

Despite our disagreement with Joey’s reading of “Asia in the Balance of the Scales”, we do agree that what is meant by reasonably accurate translations in the last hundred years refers especially to the efforts of the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version. The rest of The Word: God Will Keep It pretends that modern translations are only viewed as more accurate than the KJV because Christianity is being secretly influenced by liberals, Jesuits and occultists. Perhaps it is, but probably not. We’ll have to look into this later. (I have a hunch that Joey’s suspicions hinge on the claims of a certain woman focusing on the translation of a certain word in Isaiah that starts with “L”.)

Sadly, as seen in another work of his, brother Joey tends to ignore heaps of information that don’t fit his thesis and pretend the opposing viewpoint is only held by “cultists”. Sound familiar? It’s not a perfect parallel, but this error in Joey’s book reminds me of Gail Riplinger’s quotation of Vera Alder to prove there is a plan to create a New World Order Bible. (New Age Bible Versions (2021), p. 613) There is always just enough information that can be trimmed away from such quotations so they can be squeezed into the KJV-only conspiracy narrative. It is easy to prove that Faust’s artificial occultists-hate-KJV-onlyism scenario is not the case in Hall’s article.

How many other statements in The Word: God Will Keep It have been skewed to fit the Faustian narrative? We trust there will not be any more serious misunderstandings or misrepresentations in the book, as Joey is a good friend of mine, but only time and fact-checking will tell. We will discuss other clear problems in Joey’s work in the future. All this being said, we deeply appreciate that so far, Joey has received our criticisms in the spirit they have been intended, and we are encouraged that he has been willing to listen to and discuss at length our observations and arguments in the background.

We were hoping the evidence behind these claims would pan out. Why? Because we are on the hunt for 100 rock-solid pieces of evidence that there is a conspiracy behind the modern Bible translation controversy. Have you found something you think we should consider? Feel free to drop us a note!

God bless!

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

“Conviction plus patience is an almost unbeatable combination.” — Manly P. Hall, Asia In the Balance of the Scales, p. 14.

🥳🏆Devil’s Advocate Award: Matthew Poole, for “Lucifer is NOT Satan”👏–Apr 01, 2025

Modern English Bible translations change “Lucifer” to “day star” in Isaiah 14:12. Is this part of a satanic conspiracy to exalt Satan as KJV-only authors demand? Or is the truth much more simple than we suspected? 🤔

It is true that most modern translations do not include “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12, the only verse with the word in the entire Bible. This controversial translation choice has given rise to KJV-only accusations of satanic practices being performed secretly by modern Bible translators. Certainly, whoever made this change must worship Satan, right?

Granted, there may be satanic practices being performed by professing Christians which have infiltrated Bible translation committees. Such infiltration, however, did not influence the change from “Lucifer” to “day star”. This is plain to see and easy to prove from history and the Scriptures themselves.

The name Lucifer has been traditionally applied to Satan for most of Christian history. It comes as a shock to most, but the learned men at the time the KJV was translated didn’t think “Lucifer” was a true name of Satan! Were the scholars of the 17th century alive today, they would battle the same KJV-only conspiracy theories as intellectually misleading and detrimentally divisive to Christianity.

Abundant proof of this conclusion is readily available spanning every century that demonstrates KJV-only advocates are dead wrong about Lucifer. The latest discovery we’ve made is Matthew Poole’s Commentary on Isaiah 14:12 from the year 1685. For his noble contribution to the demise of scriptural ignorance and needless discord among brethren, Poole wins our “Devil’s Advocate” of the week award! 🏆🥳 …Posthumously of course. 🙃

The section from his commentary reads thusly:

“O Lucifer; which properly is a bright and eminent star, which ushers in the sun and the morning; but is here metaphorically taken for the high and mighty king of Babylon. And it is a very usual thing, both in prophetical and in profane writers, to describe the princes and potentates of the world under the title of the sun or stars of heaven. Some understand this place of the devil; to whom indeed it may be mystically applied; but as he is never called by this name in Scripture, so it cannot be literally meant of him, but of the king of Babylon, as is undeniably evident from the whole context, which certainly speaks of one and the same person, and describes him as plainly as words can do it.”

Were Pool alive today, would he join KJV-only advocates in their objections to “day star” replacing “Lucifer” in modern English Bibles? Simply, NO! In fact, he taught that Satan holds no natural place in the passage, something KJV-only authors can’t abide.

Perhaps Satan has in some sense a secondary spiritual or “mystical” place in this passage, however this is not enough to sustain the wilting flower of KJV-only falsehoods and objections to “day star”. KJV-only objections to this sort of information stem from the inability of their arguments to withstand exposure to plain facts of history in linguistics: facts of which old and modern translators are only too aware.

Stay tuned for a full treatment of the falsehoods and facts surrounding the “Lucifer” vs “day star” controversy on our upcoming page bibleversionconspiracy.com/lucifer

Have a blessed week! ❤️

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

Proverbs 6:16-19 KJV — These six things doth the LORD hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him: A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.

Revelation 12:10 KJV — And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.

This content was originally published to our Buy Me A Coffee page on April 1, 2025. buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/devil-advocate-week-matthew-poole-1685

Can Gail Riplinger back up her Shepherd of Hermas claims?? 🤔🐑 – March 19, 2025

The Shepherd of Hermas says to 1. Take the mark of the beast, 2. Give up to the beast, 3. Kill anyone not receiving the mark of the beast, 4. Form a one-world government, etc. …Or does it? 🤔 Are Gail Riplinger’s “explosive” claims verifiable? Short answer: No, because she lied.

A friend asked me, “What’s wrong with what she wrote about the Shepherd of Hermas? She backs it up with summarized portions of the work. Is she misrepresenting the actual words? Is she making stuff up?”

I replied, “💯 She misrepresents and makes stuff up about the Shepherd of Hermas many times!

A friend asked me if her claims about Hermas from her Prophecy Club speech were accurate and I started looking into it. Soon I was sickened and horrified by the gross ignorance and lies I found. To be clear, I’ve checked all of the statements about the Shepherd of Hermas as well as almost everything in New Age Bible Versions Chapter 40, “The Final Bible!” (which is about the Shepherd of Hermas and Epistle of Barnabas), and out of over 100 claims, almost nothing checked out. Her 12 Mandates of the Antichrist (claiming Hermas teaches to take ‘the name’ of the beast, give ‘up to the beast’, form a one world government, kill those not receiving his ‘name’, etc. etc.) were all completely false.

To save time, I’ve copied and pasted the following response to another of my friends to answer your question with more details about selected points.

“On page 623 the Antichrist’s disregard for “the desire of women” (Daniel 11:37) is related to Hermas’s statement that, “These men should repent and put away their desire for women (22) and return unto these virgins and walk in their power…”. In actuality, it says, “[T]hese men, being such as they are, should repent and put away their desire for THESE women, and return unto the virgins, and walk in their power… “. (Hermas 13[90]:1) These women in the passage are directly stated to represent vices such as Unbelief, Intemperance, Disobedience, and Deceit (Hermas 15[92]:3) and the virgins represent the virtues of Faith, Continence, Power, Long-suffering, “Simplicity, Guilelessness, Purity, Cheerfulness, Truth, Understanding, Concord, Love”. (Hermas 15[92]:2) From reading the passage, I would say no good Christian should desire “these women” and Daniel 11’s description of the Antichrist is not even remotely related. Gail currently justifies reading Hermas as an occult document written to appear Christin by misrepresenting Blavatsky’s statements regarding Hermas earlier in “The Final Bible!”.

“On page 630 where Hermas is quoted as saying “I took courage and gave myself up to the beast (22)…” presenting this as proof that Hermas wants Christians not to have victory over the Antichrist, but rather To accept him and take his mark. In context, the passage of Vision 4 says “And I began to weep, and to entreat the Lord that He would rescue me from it [the beast]. And I remembered the word which I had heard, “Be not of doubtful mind, Hermas.” Having therefore, brethren, put on the faith of the Lord and called to mind the mighty works that He had taught me, I took courage and gave myself up to the beast. Now the beast was coming on with such a rush, that it might have ruined a city. I come near it, and, huge monster as it was, it stretcheth itself on the ground, and merely put forth its tongue, and stirred not at all until I had passed by it.” (Hermas 1[22]:7-9) As I listened to the audiobook, I understood “I took courage and gave myself up to the beast” to mean “I took courage and fully accepted that the beast was coming and prepared for battle.” However I have since learned from looking up a translation that came just before Lightfoot’s that what was meant is that Hermas made himself clearly visible to the beast and boldly faced it prepared for conflict. I also took time to look up a modern English translation and the passage in Greek and found the Roberts-Donaldson translation says, “I boldly faced the beast.” A friend of mine translated the greek phrase “θαρσήσας εἰς τὸ θηρίον ἐμαυτὸν ἔδωκα” as “I courageously faced the beast.” In fact, Hermas does have victory over the beast in the passage by the power of Christ. Furthermore, the old lady which typifies “the Church” (2[23]:2) says to him, “[T]ell them [the elect] that this beast is a type of the great tribulation which is to come. If therefore ye prepare yourselves beforehand, and repent (and turn) unto the Lord with your whole heart, ye shall be able to escape it, if your heart be made pure and without blemish, and if for the remaining days of your life ye serve the Lord blamelessly. Cast your cares upon the Lord and He will set them straight.”. (Hermas 2[23]:5) This is so far from a command to “Give ‘up to the beast’” (NABV, 615) that I doubt even the Antichrist himself could employ this passage to get Christians to surrender to him much less use a translation from 1893. Somehow, Gail has been able to flip the passage on its head and sell the idea that the Shepherd of Hermas teaches people to “give up to the beast” to thousands of unsuspecting Christians.

“See what Lightfoot’s translation of Hermas says for yourself at https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html#google_vignette

“Gail and Bryn are well aware of these last two criticisms and have published 2 documents in an attempt to respond. However they manage to avoid addressing these problems directly, opting rather for the copout at the quotations of Hermas are not intended to be accurate since it was called “an abstract” on page 617, misrepresenting my statements, attacking my character, and questioning my motives. I’m sad to say that after supporting her for over a decade, I have recently been on the receiving end of some of her harshest statements and gas lighting. I have responded to both documents on my YouTube channel the Bible Version Conspiracy (see live streamed episodes 18, 21, 22, 31, 32 and 33 in particular) and will continue to do so on our website as opportunity allows.

“I could list many more if called upon to do so, but this should meet your request. I hope this answers your question and helps to bring the closure you’re desire. Feel free to reach out to Gail about these matters. Please let me know if you have any questions. God bless!”

BTW, she also lied about “‘If you think you have everything you need in your Bible…we don’t think that’s true.’” 🤦‍♂️ More on this later.

God bless!

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

This content was originally published to our Buy Me A Coffee page on March 19, 2025. buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/can-gail-riplinger-back-shepherd-hermas-claims

Will KJV-onlyism STEAL What St. Patrick Won? 🤔☘️–Mar 17, 2025

Did Saint Patrick win back a biblical symbol from the druids that modern KJV-onlyism is now telling Christians to avoid?? 😮

A three-pronged enigma has puzzled researchers of ancient symbolism and myth for centuries. The history of one of Ireland’s timeless symbols, the triquetra, is shrouded in dark mystery. Wiccans and Pagans claim it as their own while Christians use it to represent the Holy Trinity of Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Ghost! In some King James-only circles, the wildest claims imaginable – though of highly questionable accuracy – have surfaced in the last 30 years. But there are many important truths about the triquetra that have remained unexplored until now.

You may find this surprising, but its most ancient use of the triquetra was to symbolize Noah and his three sons and how all men are brothers and should be kind one to another. I hope the article will help clear up some of the divisive falsehoods KJV-only gatekeepers have spread about it over the last 30 years.

Check out our page at Bibleversionconspiracy.com/triquetraGod

Have a bless and Happy St Patrick’s Day! ☘️

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

This content (minus the meme below) was originally published to our Buy Me A Coffee page on March 17, 2025. buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/trinity-666-symbol

The NKJV Omits “God” 51 Times!? 🫨…Or does it? 🤔 – Mar 06, 2025

It’s true! The word “God” is in the New King James Version 51 FEWER times than in the KJV! 😵 This is proof of a conspiracy to eventually remove the Judeo-Christian God from the Bible and replace Him with a New Age “God of forces”! …or is it?

Sounds a little crazy, I know, but that seemingly off-the-wall belief is nothing new. It’s exactly what I used to believe and what thousands of others for the last 30 years have continued to believe thanks to one person. In her track called the NKJV Death Certificate, Gail Riplinger (author of the unhinged 1993 book New Age Bible Versions) presents the following chart.

Modern versions are constantly leaving out words relating to God and Satan, aren’t they? That’s what Gail says. In her many presentations, Gail compared this series of “omissions” to removing the main characters of a novel. But is this actually a fair comparison? Are these indications of an Antichrist conspiracy, or is there more going on here that we are not being told? 🤔 Let’s take the second “ommission” in her list, “God”, as an example.

Rick Norris, author of The Unbound Scriptures, Discerning the Truth about the KJV, and a top contributor to our Facebook group Rebooting Gail Riplinger made a facinating comment on one of our group’s posts. The post was a video which responded to Gail’s oft-repeated claim of “God” being omitted from the NKJV 51 times as well as others on the chart. Rick writes:

“Gail Riplinger claimed in her tract [NKJV Death Certificate] that the “NKJV omits the word ‘God’ 51 times” (Church Bus News, April-June, 1996, p. 26). This inaccurate claim seems to be based on a simple comparison of the NKJV to the KJV and not on a comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. This count likely does not even take into consideration the places where the KJV has the word “God” added in italics. In the 2021 updated edition of New Age Bible Versions, Gail Riplinger continued to repeat her misleading, incorrect claim that the NKJV omits “God 51 times” (p. 4).

“In response to this misleading charge, James D. Price noted: “The truth is that the KJV added the word “God” in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it–and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as “God forbid,” “God save the king,” or “God speed” instead of a more literal expression in good English. In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible” (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger’s Death Certificate for the New King James Version, p. 4).

“James D. Price then discussed these times and demonstrated the faithfulness of the NKJV to the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV.

“Jack Lewis maintained that “the phrases ‘God forbid’ (1 Sam. 14:45; etc.) and ‘would God’ (Num. 11:29) add the word ‘God’ to the text” (English Bible, p. 44). Harold Rawlings claimed that “the KJV is replete with dynamic idioms like ‘God forbid’ and ‘God save the king’ that have no exact verbal equivalent in the original” (Trial by Fire, p. 192). In the introduction to his 1833 revision of the KJV, Noah Webster noted that the phrase God forbid was used several times in the KJV “without any authority from the original languages for the name of God” (p. ix). The KJV has “God forbid” eight times in the Old Testament and fifteen times in the New Testament. Michael Sproul maintained that “’God forbid’ is a dynamic equivalent of a Greek idiom in the English language” (God’s Word Preserved, p. 346). D. A. Waite acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV’s “God forbid” would be literally translated as “may it not be” (Foes, p. 96). KJV-only author David Cloud described this example as “’a little something like’ that which is called dynamic equivalency today” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157). KJV-only author William Grady asserted that “occasionally” the KJV translators “even had the ‘audacity’ to insert an English idiom, with no manuscript authority whatsoever, such as the phrase ‘God forbid’” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44). David Daniell indicated that Luther’s German Bible has “das sey ferne (be that far away)“ instead of “God forbid” (William Tyndale, p. 142).

“At Acts 10:14, Tyndale’s and Matthew’s Bibles have “God forbid” while the KJV has “Not so.” At Acts 11:8, Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Whittingham’s, and Geneva Bibles have “God forbid” while the KJV again has “Not so.” At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times. At 1 Samuel 20:9, the 1560 Geneva’s rendering [“God keep it from thee”] and the Bishops’ rendering [“God keep that from thee”] were revised in the KJV [“Far be it from thee”]. Would Riplinger and other KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV omitted the name of God from the English Bible at these verses as they inconsistently allege against the NKJV concerning other verses?

“Were the KJV translators always completely faithful to their underlying original-language texts and always consistent in following the renderings of the earlier English Bibles? Instead of keeping the rendering of the earlier English Bibles, the KJV translators corrected the addition of the word “God” in several of them at 1 Kings 1:31. At Nehemiah 2:3, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s Bibles have a rendering with the name of God [“God save the king’s life for ever”] and the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have a similar rendering [“God save the king for ever”]. The KJV does not add the name of God at this verse [“let the king live for ever”]. At Daniel 2:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Bishops’ Bibles have the name of “God” [“O king, God save thy life for ever”] where the Geneva and KJV does not. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s also have a similar rendering at the following verses (Dan. 3:9, 5:10, 6:6, 6:21).”

Pastor Scott Ingram also has an excellent video breaking down the details behind Gail’s chart.

Gail Riplinger claimed that the NKJV removes the word “God” 51 times. The truth is the King James Bible “added” the word “God” to the text 54 times and there is nothing wrong with that. I hope it is clearer that this article has in no way been critical of the King James Bible. We can still say with confidence that there is not one error in the KJV’s translation of God’s word.

Sadly, we have come to grips with the fact that Gail’s so-called “explosive” exposes rely on shock value rather than documentation and understanding. Presenting only enough of the facts to be shocking but nowhere near enough to inform the reader about what is actually going on seems to be her standard mode of operation. We hope that more of her followers will take the challenge to evaluate Gail’s “documentation” and see the truth for themselves.

Some links are affiliate links and we earn a small commission from qualifying purchases. You can also view, search, and download New Age Bible Versions 2010 edition for free on the Internet Archive.

God bless!

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

This content was originally published to our Buy Me A Coffee page on March 6, 2025. https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/the-nkjv-omits-god-51-times

NIV Tested Positive for Virginia Mollenkott?? 🤔🏳️‍🌈 – Feb 28, 2025

At the time the NIV was being translated, Virginia Mollenkott had a husband, a son, and a reputation for being a sincere evangelical Christian. She was also not an author or translator of the NIV. She was consulted in minor ways on style, but had no say in the final readings in the text.

Has the NIV has “gone Woke” in recent years, or has it tested positive for the agenda since the very beginning?? Was there a conspiracy to gradually make the NIV favor homosexuality? Did the loud protest of the ridiculous KJV-onlyist help shape the course for future compromise? Were the cries against Virginia Mollenkott used to mask the real agenda? How are “they” exploiting our fears? How much can we trust the KJV-only gossip mill? 🤔

We’ve been told by the gatekeepers of KJV-onlyism that Virginia Mollenkott was on the original NIV committee and that she orchestrated the removal of scriptural condemnations of sodomy/homosexuality from its translation. Should we really be surprised that it has no basis in fact?

Check out this transcript from the Ankerberg Show where Kenneth Barker NIV translator goes toe-to-toe with two leading proponents of KJV-onlyism.

“Ankerberg: New Age Bible Versions?, by Gail Riplinger criticizes the new translations in many ways and one of them has to do with the NIV, Dr. Barker. And she says that your translation can’t be trusted because of the translators that you had on the committee. She says there were homosexuals and lesbians; and she also asserts that because there were lesbians on the committee, the translation work they did, they were able to silence all of God’s warnings against sodomy in the Bible. Is this true?

Barker: No, it isn’t, John. And I think I can save a little time by just quickly reading what I wrote about that in the book, Accuracy Defined and Illustrated on pages 123 and 124. “Some have claimed that the NIV condoned sodomy [that is, homosexual sins]. The alleged reason for this is that some NIV translators and editors were homosexuals or lesbians. These charges have no basis in fact.

“Here are the facts. In the earliest stages of translation work on the NIV [in the early 1970s], Virginia Mollenkott was consulted briefly, and only in a minor way, on matters of English style. At that time she had the reputation of being a committed evangelical Christian with expertise in contemporary English idiom and usage. Nothing was known of her lesbian views. Those did not begin to surface until years later in some of her writings.”

I’ll just inject a parenthesis here, as she has said in the interview that you did with her, Joe, on tape and I’ve heard that with my own ears, she herself has acknowledged that that did not become known or public knowledge until about the year 1983. And, of course, the NIV was finished at the end of 1978.

“If we had known in the early seventies what became public knowledge only years later, we would not have consulted her at all. But it must be stressed that she was not a member of an NIV translation committee. She was not a translator, she was not an editor, she did not influence the NIV translators and editors in any of their final decisions.” Not one.

“[It] is also asserted that the NIV allows for homosexual and lesbian practices because it translates ‘sodomites’ [in the King James] as ‘male shrine prostitutes’ in 1 Kings 14:24; 15:12; 22:46; and 2 Kings 23:7. This is simply a problem of arriving at the correct meaning of the Hebrew word qadesh[plural quedeshim], as it is in most of the passages here. Apparently the KJV/AV translators thought it meant ‘sodomites [homosexuals],’ so they rendered it that way. Today, as all modern commentaries and Hebrew lexicons indicate, we know that it means male ‘shrine prostitutes.’ There is also a feminine form of the same Hebrew word that means ‘female shrine prostitutes.’ Such religious prostitution was a prominent feature of the pagan immoral ‘worship’ of the Canaanite fertility gods and goddesses. Of course, that practice is thoroughly condemned in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament.”

Then just this final short paragraph.

“Homosexual and lesbian practices are condemned just as clearly and strongly in the NIV as in any other English version. See the NIV renderings in Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; 1 Timothy 1:10; and Jude 7.”

Ankerberg: What do you think, Joe?

Chambers: I interviewed Virginia Mollenkott for about 45 minutes. She told of the long period of time in which she worked with the NIV as a stylist and a consultant. She told of large passages of Scripture sent to her for her opinion, for her involvement. She said often they would actually change words because she felt they were better.

Here’s a letter written from her last year, June 12, 1994, “I worked as NIV stylistic consultant for several years.” She said very clear that there was a reduction of condemnation of sodomy in the NIV, and I can quote 1 Corinthians 6:9 as a proof. Let me give it to you, and I’ll read it both in the King James and the NIV. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, be not deceived, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminates, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” Now, the last phrases have been changed: “Nor male prostitute, nor homosexual offender.” And even Virginia agreed that “homosexual offender” could be a homophobic reacting against a homosexual just as surely as it could be a homosexual in their acts of sin. So that those Scriptures clearly reduce…. And, of course, sodomy is removed from the entire Old Testament, as he admitted, and sodomy was certainly more than being a male prostitute, although they were male prostitutes.

Barker: We did not translate it male prostitutes. We were talking about the word qadesh, quedeshim, when we were saying that. You’ll find plain homosexual references in all the verses that I listed at the end of what I read a moment ago. I don’t see how anyone could say that we watered down homosexual and lesbian practices when we plainly condemn in this passage male prostitutes and homosexual offenders. That is totally beyond me.

Chambers: “Nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” That phrase being reinterpreted “nor homosexual offenders.”

Barker: The study note on that says, “Paul here identifies three kinds of sexually immoral persons: adulterers, male prostitutes, and males who practice homosexuality. In Romans 1:26 he adds the category of females who practice homosexuality.” What could be clearer?

Ankerberg: What you’re saying is, “homosexual offenders” covers all three of those categories.

Barker: Yes. Yes, it does.

Chambers: But it doesn’t cover it and communicate to the people like “abusers of themselves with mankind.” That includes, men, women, or whatever.

Barker: Well, I think it does.

Ankerberg: Well, how about Leviticus 18:22 where they say, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman”?

Chambers: Now that’s in the NIV?

Ankerberg: Yes.

Chambers: Okay. I would accept that as being against it, but he still removes the word sodomy.

Ankerberg: Well, my point is, if Virginia was on the deal and she was supposed to be responsible for doing this, why didn’t she get that one too?

Chambers: Nobody said she did it in every case.

Barker: Sodomy is simply an antiquated word for homosexuality, homosexual and lesbian practices.

Chambers: The only people who would call it antiquated would be the sodomites themselves. They don’t like it, of course. They like the word “gay.”

Barker: No, it’s just that you don’t hear it much anymore, Joe, in modern American usage.

Chambers: But modern Americans…

Gipp: Sodomy is against the law in many places. I mean that word sodomy

Farstad: It is used in a legal sense.

Gipp: Yeah, you can’t say that it’s antiquated. I mean, we’re talking 1995 and it is used legally and you can say to somebody, “Sodomy is wrong. Here is a law that is against sodomy.” If you change our law to say “shrine prostitute,” every homosexual is going to say, “I got no problems.”

Barker: There you keep bringing up shrine prostitute. You see, that was point two in a statement. In all the other references that I mentioned, including the one John mentioned, we were not talking about the words translated “shrine prostitutes,” we were talking about translations in the NIV that mention specifically homosexuality. What does sodomy mean? It means homosexuality.

Gipp: Right. And what did you do with sodomy when you translated it?

Barker: There are some places where sodomy is translated homosexuality; there are other places when it’s the translation of qadesh and quedeshim, for which you also have qadeshah, the feminine of it, where it is clearly referring male and female shrine prostitutes…

Gipp: That’s what I just said, shrine prostitutes.

Barker: …where we translate it that way. But, don’t forget all the other Hebrew words that are not those words that are translated homosexuality.

Gipp: You have changed sodomite to shrine prostitute in several areas.

Barker: Because that’s what it means.

Ankerberg: Alright. James, final word.

White: I hope everyone notices that the King James Only advocates will always use terms like “changed,” “deleted,” so on and so forth. In this entire thing we have seen very plainly that it’s a circular position. It starts with its own assumption. It starts with its own finish. And, therefore, anything that differs from the King James is obviously a change, a deletion, a perversion, or whatever. We cannot, if we are going to be honest with ourselves before God, argue in circles. God does not call us to argue in circles. This argument that was just put forward, it would be just as easy for me to sit back and say, “Well, the King James doesn’t say anything about homosexuality.” I don’t see the word there, so therefore it must be alright. That’s a ridiculous argument, and yet it’s the standard that’s being used.”

(The King James Controversy Revisited – Program 7, September 26, 2013)

The segment from the Ankerberg discussion is a 9-minute clip which focuses on modern versions’ teaching on homosexuality. The full recording of this discussion (which I believe was recorded in 1995) is also available on YouTube. Start at 1:57:17. See also Dust Off the Bible’s article on Was The NIV Corrupted By Homosexual Translators?

From what we have seen, many one the uninformed side of the KJV-only proponent spectrum accuse her of being the perpetrator of what they see as Woke corruptions. While the more deceptive (from whom the uninformed heavily borrow) opt for a carefully worded game of guilt by association. Thus they skillfully avoid saying what they know is technically inaccurate, while maintaining the unneeded suspicions they have spread.

Question: Have the compromises we see today been influenced by the protests of KJV-only proponents? Let us know what you think below.

God bless!

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

This content was originally published on our Buy Me A Coffee page on Feb 28, 2025. https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/niv-tested-positive-mollenkott

How I adressed some concerns about “Lucifer” 👿

Should “helel” in Isaiah 14:12 be translated as “Lucifer” or “day star”? Are modern Bible versions helping Satan? Should Christians be worried?

It’s great when I get a chance to respond to your emails! Yesterday I had a lot of fun responding to a gentleman who has put enormous effort into his emails to me about our recent podcasts.”Larry” has strong KJV-only convictions and something of a history with Satanic metal music. My recent podcasts about “Lucifer” not being Satan and my criticisms of Riplinger, Gipp, and Peterson have given him cause for concern.

For the sake of brevity and “Larry’s” privacy, I will only be publishing my most recent reply to him, and have have used a false first name.

This response turned out pretty well, so I couldn’t resist sharing it with you. Below is the full text of my latest email to “Larry” addressing his concerns and responding to some of his concerns and statements.

Hello Larry,

Thank you for watching the stream and for once more taking the time to craft such a lengthy email. I appreciate the Scriptures you sent and understand your concerns (I shared many of the same five years ago). I hope you know that I am neither your or Gail’s enemy nor an enemy of the King James Bible. I do not believe “Lucifer” is a mistranslation in the KJV, but I do not believe it is being understood properly by most today. I want to oppose faulty understandings of Scriptures (like Isaiah 14:12 only applying to Satan), unwarranted divisions and suspicions among Christians (like Gail calling modern versions blasphemous and New Age because of her lack of research and verified falsehoods), and other un-Christlike ills being spread by different voices in my niche. Surely, if you were in my place, you would not hesitate to call out falsehoods being spread by your heroes.

Items and documents we couldn’t look closely at in the #38 stream were further expanded in our Valentine’s Day stream “39: Gail Riplinger’s Heart💔Broken When Her Valentine Tells the TRUTH about Lucifer”. We especially examined the quotations by John Calvin, King James, and John Gill which show Gail’s conclusions about “Lucifer” and “day star” are nothing but hot air – although “Lucifer” is a proper translation when understood correctly. (I apologize in advance for the audio on episode #39. I think I clicked the wrong button.) We also show and supply the address and password to our detailed page which will thoroughly discuss this question (bibleversionconspiracy.com/lucifer). Nonetheless, there are a few points in your email that need to be addressed.

“Examine what is the end of your arguments; you are not arguing for a single thing/a specific thing/one thing, but rather a broad spectrum of things with no definite conclusion reached.”

My specific claims are:

Gail’s and other KJV defenders’ conclusions about “Lucifer” and “day star” are ahistorical and irresponsible.

Gail’s and other KJV conclusions about “Lucifer” and “day star” are easy to prove wrong and thus are of no real value, although trusting KJV-only fans think they are helpful.

Gail’s and other KJV defenders’ conclusions are harmful to Christians by causing unwarranted suspicion, division, and hatred among them.

No legitimate connection exists between “Lucifer” and “Satan”, although New Ages love to tout him as their “light bearer” and Savior.

My arguments are:

KJV-only ideas about “Lucifer” and “day star” are not backed up by the old translations in English or any other language.

KJV-only ideas about “Lucifer” and “day star” are not backed up by many old Christian writers, pastors, or commentators, and lexicographers, often being flatly contradicted by them.

KJV-only ideas about “Lucifer” and “day star” are not backed up by a contextual reading of the passage but only by presupposed traditions based partly on Roman Catholic superstitions.

The passage is applied to the death of the king of Babylon (Is. 13:1 and 14:4) and has no connection to the use of “day star”, etc. when applied to Jesus Christ even though the same word (“lucifer”) is used in the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate texts.

My definite conclusions are:

“Lucifer” is an accurate translation if understood properly, but so are “day star”, “morning star”, “shining one”, and “planet Venus”.

Gail Riplinger and others who make false and falsifiable claims about “Lucifer” and “day star” should not be relied upon. Rather, they need to be called out when their arguments are weighed in the balances and found wanting and subsequently ignored.

Understanding Isaiah 14:12 as having no connection to Satan is the best defense against New Age heresies.

“Now ask yourself, how would your arguments have been of any help in my life at tearing down that stronghold of Satan? Sister Gail Riplinger’s lectures and works helped tear down that stronghold in my life, because of the relationship with God’s word God used her in my life to help establish….Your arguments would actually have done nothing to help tear down that stronghold of Satan that was in my life, and in fact would be concealing the stronghold by your justification of removing “Lucifer” from Isaiah 14.”

The scripture itself understood as it was intended is more than powerful to pull down the strongholds you mentioned. Understanding Isaiah 14:12 as it was intended is the best defense against New Age heresies concerning “Lucifer”. To illustrate, I have a friend at work – also into death metal music – who said (I’m paraphrasing):Friend: “Both Jesus and Lucifer are called the ‘day star’.

Me: “Yes, but “Lucifer” in the Bible is not talking about Satan, but rather the day star, meaning the planet Venus. In Isaiah 14, the only verse where Lucifer is used, the death of the great king of Babylon is being compared to a planet falling out of the sky.”

Friend: “Oh, that makes sense. Never mind. 😅”

Now ask yourself, what exactly about Gail’s arguments helped you? What part of the idea that “day star” is an evil blasphemous translation helped cast down Satan’s strongholds? Or did her teaching of things already clearly taught in the Bible help you? Also, what spiritual benefits have you reaped from being encouraged toward fearing and hating any other translation?

“And I think you said in the livestream, in order to justify the removal of the word “Lucifer” from Isaiah 14:12, that Satan is an angel not a star, but again, as I mentioned in the last sentence in the previous paragraph, the passage could simply be communicating that Satan was aspiring to be the day star in his heart and to possess and overshadow its glory; “day star” and “morning star” in the King James Bible are references to Christ.”

I don’t remember saying that Satan is an angel, not a star. But if I did, I do not consider it an important argument to my point. Being “day star” was obviously no one’s aspiration in the passage and I’m not sure why you would say that. “Morning stars” are also angels, not just Jesus, but you already know that.

“This made me think that perhaps modern Bibles’ removing Lucifer’s name from Isaiah 14:12 is their way of liberating Lucifer/Satan from his fall as God documented in His word in Isaiah 14. In so doing (that is, in removing “Lucifer” from the text), I see how it could be their way of restoring Lucifer to his risen position; do you see what I mean? Symbolically, in removing the only place Satan’s name of Lucifer appears in the Bible, they are covertly (known to them at a deep level as to why but to the masses not so much) signalling the restoration of Lucifer. So I would posit corrupt Bibles are placing Jesus, who is clearly called the “morning star” in the King James Bible, in the fallen position in Isaiah 14:12 by removing the word “Lucifer” and putting instead some other term which is a reference to Jesus, and simulataneously in so doing they are removing Lucifer from the fall in the chapter, thus removing his fall from the Bible. This would be an act that would have significant meaning, both overtly and symbolic, to them.”

Satan’s fall is clearly taught by Christ in the Gospels and John in Revelation, not removed from modern Bibles. There is no need for the double application of a prophecy against the king of Babylon to Satan’s fall, although there could be one as John Gill allows. King James shows in his Daemonologie that “Lucifer” is not a legitimate name for Satan, but only used of him in scripture as an allegory compared to the day star Venus. He also implies that Satan has deceived his followers into calling him this so they would think he is bringing them secret knowledge. (King James’ statement also illustrates how one can believe the passage is relevant to the fall of Satan while knowing “Lucifer” is synonymous with “day star” and is also not a real name for Satan. This strongly suggests that had the KJV read “day star”, King James would still have applied the prophecy to Satan.)

“If you want to chisel away at people like Gail Riplinger’s, Sam Gipp’s, Dr. Ruckman’s, Brandon Peterson’s, and others’ work, that is your business, but realize you are going beyond that and into the territory of actually opposing the spiritual side of the issue and what is taking place in the Bible version issue, and opposing the truth itself. To be polite, it would appear you could be an enemy.”

As I said before, “Lucifer” is an accurate translation if understood properly, but so are “day star” (as acknowledged by the KJV translator note), “morning star”, “shining one”, and “planet Venus”. The “truth itself” is not synonymous with the work of any of these individuals. If they are wrong they are wrong and the spiritual thing to do is acknowledge it.

Was it spiritual when Gail applied a double standard and skipped over what King James, the Matthew’s Bible translator, the Geneva Bible translators, and the Old Latin said about “Lucifer” while choosing to pick on the Latin Vulgate, modern translations, and modern translators even though they all flatly contradict her ridiculous conclusions? Was it part of Satan’s plan to demote Jesus Christ when Martin Luther translated the word “morgen stern”? Are you speaking from a state of genuine spiritual concern or only presumption because you have not looked into this matter for yourself? I likewise encourage you to step back and look at the bigger issues at stake.

By the way, Brandon acknowledged to me that it is important to remain open to the idea that Satan’s fall was not the intention behind Isaiah’s prophecy against Babylon. I was disappointed that David Daniels was far less open and that all I could get out of him was that the KJV is the “chosen translation” and nothing else matters.

“The Roman Catholic Church appeals to a broad spectrum of things in order to establish their identity and church and doctrines; the Bible believer however ultimately appeals to God’s word, a singular source. The Bible believer may also appeal to history and other things, but never to subject God’s word to the external source as you do in your justification of removing the word “Lucifer” from Isaiah 14.”

The Bible is not subject to your subjective experiences, KJV-only convictions, our opinions, Luciferian terminology, or Gail’s ridiculous novelties either. I’m not saying it’s a mistranslation. I’m saying it needs to be understood better. The historical understanding is based on the context of the Scripture itself taking the entire prophecy into account starting in Isaiah 13 and not choosing to ignore it or 14:4 as so many careless interpretations do. I did not reach this conclusion because of what others say, but because of what the Bible says. However, I do appreciate that there is so much historical information supporting what I see in the Scripture.

You’re appealing to the historical understanding of the passage when you are simply affirming the popular modern tradition-based understanding which is largely divorced from the historical perspective of the word “Lucifer” and how it is used in Scripture. What I’m saying is that we need to consider information that could enhance our understanding even if it contradicts closely held KJV-only presumptions. Following is a small sampling of what I mean.

Before I start giving a few quotations which illustrate my point, I must emphasize that I do not believe any of these men are infallible. Obviously the scriptures are not subject to their opinions any more than they are subject to yours, Gail’s, or mine. However, what they wrote is more than sufficient evidence that the well-informed and historical understanding of “Lucifer” is not what we assume today.

Matthew’s Bible text reads “Lucifer”, the note says:

“He compareth the death of Nebuchadnezzar to the falling of Lucifer the morning star which he calleth the child of the morning because it appeareth only in the morning. The meaning is: no such thing ought to have happened unto thee, that in earth was like the morning star, which no man can take out of heaven: And thou that wast so mighty that thou destroyedst what people thou wouldest and unto whom it was a pastime to overthrow nations, hast received such measure as thou broughtest. Such a like thing is there in Ezek. 28. Against king Cyrus.”

Geneva Bible text reads “Lucifer”, the note says:

“Thou that thought thyself most glorious, and as it were, placed in the heaven for the morning star, that goes before the sun, is called lucifer to whom Nebuchadnezzar is compared.”

John Calvin:

“How art thou fallen from heaven!

Isaiah proceeds with the discourse which he had formerly begun as personating the dead, and concludes that the tyrant differs in no respect from other men, though his object was to lead men to believe that he was some god. He employs an elegant metaphor, by comparing him to Lucifer, and calls him the Son of the Dawn; and that on account of his splendor and brightness with which he shone above others. The exposition of this passage, which some have given, as if it referred to Satan, has arisen from ignorance; for the context plainly shows that these statements must be understood in reference to the king of the Babylonians. But when passages of Scripture are taken up at random, and no attention is paid to the context, we need not wonder that mistakes of this kind frequently arise. Yet it was an instance of very gross ignorance, to imagine that Lucifer was the king of devils, and that the Prophet gave him this name. But as these inventions have no probability whatever, let us pass by them as useless fables.”

King James’ Daemonologie:

“Philomathes: And what makes the spirits have so different names from others?

Epistemon: Even the knavery of that same Devil, who as he deludes the necromancers with innumerable feigned names for him and his angels, as in particular making Satan, Beelzebub, and Lucifer to be three different spirits, where we find the two former but different names given to the prince of all the rebelling angels by the Scripture. As by Christ, the prince of all the devils is called Beelzebub in that place which I alleged against the power of any heretics to cast out devils. By John in the Revelation, the old tempter is called Satan, the prince of all the evil angels. And last, to wit, Lucifer is but by allegory taken from the Day Star (so named in diverse places of the Scriptures) because of his excellence (I mean the prince of them) in his creation before his fall. Even so I say he deceives the witches by attributing to himself diverse names, as if every different shape that he transforms himself into were a different kind of spirit.”

John Gill:

“How art thou fallen from heaven

This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see ( Luke 10:18 ) but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, ( Revelation 12:7-9 ) and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him:

O Lucifer, son of the morning!

alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, ( Job 38:7 ) and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,“how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.”Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation: how art thou cut down to the ground;like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see ( Isaiah 10:18 Isaiah 10:19 ) ( Ezekiel 31:3 ) ( Daniel 4:10 Daniel 4:22 ) and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, ( Revelation 18:21 ) : which didst weaken the nations!by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:13 Revelation 17:15 Revelation 17:17 Revelation 17:18 ) . Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna F4, and explained in the Talmud F5; and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see ( Ezekiel 21:19-23 ) . The Targum is,“thou art cast down to the earth, who killedst the people:”a fit description of antichrist, ( Revelation 11:7 ) ( Revelation 13:7 Revelation 13:10 Revelation 13:15 ) .”

Glossographia by Thomas Blount (1661):

“Lucifer (Lar.) properly the Star arising before the morning, as messenger of day-light, the Day-star: but figuratively the King of Babylon, Nebuchadnezar; an arch Devil.”

I have also found two out of three KJV translators who identified “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14 as a synonym for “day star”, “morning star”, and Venus, namely Lancelot Andrewes and George Abbot. They also use “Lucifer” in the traditional sense of Satan. I expect to find more as I review their writings.

I encourage you that you should not make claims regarding a historical understanding when you seem unaware of the historical understanding and only seem concerned with reaffirming and dogmatizing upon views that were first put forward in the early ‘90s by a woman with no religious learning whatsoever.

I would also like to request your permission to publish our correspondence on this issue. I will remove your last name and email address to protect your privacy. Please let me know as soon as you are able.

Many other points could be discussed at length, but I feel this is sufficient for this email. Replying via email is very time-consuming, as you know. If you wish to discuss this further, you have my phone number. I’ve had lengthy conversations via Facebook Messenger with Brandon and David Daniels on this subject as I mentioned above. I enjoyed the exchanges very much and Brandon said he did too, but I’m not quite sure David shares the sentiment. As always, I deeply appreciate you taking the time to read this and the time you have invested in this exchange.

God bless,

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

This content was originally published on our Buy Me A Coffee page on Feb 17, 2025. buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/how-i-adressed-concerns-lucifer

Everyone Gets this Wrong About “Lucifer”

Everyone gets this wrong about Lucifer! 😈 In light of my friend Brandon Peterson’s (Truth Is Christ) recent video called “The REAL Reason KJV Translators Chose Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12, I had to share a sneek peek of some info we’re posting on our developing page addressing the question of “Lucifer” or “day star”.

John Gill (1697-1771), a British Calvinistic Baptist and “Spurgeon’s favorite scholar” contradicts closely held KJV-only convictions about Lucifer. Gill is frequently and selectively cited by KJV-only advocates when he agrees with their arguments, especially Gail Riplinger – from whom we have inherited many misplaced convictions, especially those about “Lucifer”. But of course, when he fails to toe the KJV-only line, his scholarship is relegated to “man’s wisdom”. …But it won’t be so easy to get away with pious double-standard this time.

In Gill’s commentary on Isaiah 14:12, he applies the fall of Lucifer not only to the ancient king of Babylon (Isaiah 13:1) being compared to the planet Venus (“Lucifer” in Latin, “day star” in English), but also to Roman Catholicism and the Antichrist. 😳 I hope you will find this as fascinating and enlightening as I have.

(Note: My apologies for the formatting of the following quote. Like I mentioned, the page is under construction. 🚧 😅 You can see more about this passage and John Gill’s thoughts at https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/isaiah-14/)

“How art thou fallen from heaven

This is not to be understood of the fall of Satan, and the apostate angels, from their first estate, when they were cast down from heaven to hell, though there may be an allusion to it; see ( Luke 10:18 ) but the words are a continuation of the speech of the dead to the king of Babylon, wondering at it, as a thing almost incredible, that he who seemed to be so established on the throne of his kingdom, which was his heaven, that he should be deposed or fall from it. So the destruction of the Roman Pagan emperors is signified by the casting out of the dragon and his angels from heaven, ( Revelation 12:7-9 ) and in like manner Rome Papal, or the Romish antichrist, will fall from his heaven of outward splendour and happiness, of honour and authority, now, possessed by him:

O Lucifer, son of the morning!

alluding to the star Venus, which is the phosphorus or morning star, which ushers in the light of the morning, and shows that day is at hand; by which is meant, not Satan, who is never in Scripture called Lucifer, though he was once an angel of light, and sometimes transforms himself into one, and the good angels are called morning stars, ( Job 38:7 ) and such he and his angels once were; but the king of Babylon is intended, whose royal glory and majesty, as outshining all the rest of the kings of the earth, is expressed by those names; and which perhaps were such as he took himself, or were given him by his courtiers. The Targum is,

“how art thou fallen from on high, who was shining among the sons of men, as the star Venus among the stars.”

Jarchi, as the Talmud F3, applies it to Nebuchadnezzar; though, if any particular person is pointed at, Belshazzar is rather designed, the last of the kings of Babylon. The church of Rome, in the times of the apostles, was famous for its light and knowledge; its faith was spoken of throughout all the earth; and its bishops or pastors were bright stars, in the morning of the Gospel dispensation:

how art thou cut down to the ground;

like a tall tree that is cut down, and laid along the ground, and can never rise and flourish more, to which sometimes great monarchs and monarchies are compared; see ( Isaiah 10:18 Isaiah 10:19 ) ( Ezekiel 31:3 ) ( Daniel 4:10 Daniel 4:22 ) and this denotes that the king of Babylon should die, not a natural, but a violent death, as Belshazzar did, with whom the Babylonish monarchy fell, and never rose more; and this is a representation of the sudden, violent, and irrecoverable ruin of the Romish antichrist, ( Revelation 18:21 ) :

which didst weaken the nations!

by subduing them, taking cities and towns, plundering the inhabitants of their substance, carrying them captive, or obliging them to a yearly tribute, by which means he weakened them, and kept them under. So the Romish antichrist has got the power over many nations of the earth, and has reigned over the kings of it, and by various methods has drained them of their wealth and riches, and so greatly enfeebled them; nay, they have of themselves given their power and strength unto the beast, ( Revelation 17:12 Revelation 17:13 Revelation 17:15 Revelation 17:17 Revelation 17:18 ) . Several of the Jewish writers observe, that the word here used signifies to cast lots; and so it is used in the Misna F4, and explained in the Talmud F5; and is applied to the king of Babylon casting lots upon the nations and kingdoms whom he should go to war with, and subdue first; see (Ezekiel 21:19-23 ). The Targum is,

“thou art cast down to the earth, who killedst the people:”

a fit description of antichrist, ( Revelation 11:7) ( Revelation 13:7 Revelation 13:10 Revelation 13:15).”God bless!

Joseph Armstrong

bibleversionconspiracy.com

This content (minus the meme at the bottom which was inspired by our facebook conversation with Joey Faust) was originally posted two our Buy Me A Coffee page on Feb 07, 2025. https://buymeacoffee.com/josepharmstrong/everyone-gets-wrong-about-lucifer