King James Version ONLY?
Part 5 of 5
Y to J Issue – Removing the Fog of Religion is Easy
Presented by Your servant, Dan Baxley
Email comments to – email@example.com
The following is part of an article taken from one of the major supporters of the KJV Bible ONLY people. Their concept is simple; the KJV was inspired by God Himself and is therefore His words exactly as He meant them to be written. This would include all words and wording that may seem, to some, to be errors. This view means there can be no argument, the KJV is God spoken and approved and “authorized” by God. Unfortunately, the reference to the KJV bible as the “Authorized” version is not from the God of Heaven at all but from the King of England. This version was “authorized” by the King and is called, in the preface, in the dedications to the King of England as his version commissioned into creation and by his seal of approval becomes the “authorized” version among many other version of the time. In other words, this version, “authorized” by King James is the only version of the Bible approved by the Government, the Monarchy of England. If you can obtain the 1611 AD version you can read this truth for yourself. The whole of the KJV is dedicated to the King of England.
This twisted deception that the KJV is God speaking, as opposed to translators working under the guidance and permission of the King of England lead to the following kind of statements. Statements not made by the insane but by a man of great intelligence, a man of letters, and he is not alone in the opinion he expresses as a truth. This, for me and for others seeing through this deception proves we must always keep our guard up, keep our eyes and mind in the Scriptures with prayer for guidance from our Master Teacher, YaHshua.
The following is presented in the search for truth. My comments are inserted and not meant to disparage John Hinton but seeing this is his article and it voices the opinion and the defense of a false doctrine and view of many others. He is but the example of what many others are saying and believe.
I will insert my comments along the way in response to what John Hinton has written in defense of the KJV as God breathed and his attack on those seeking to restore our Savior’s birth name to their worship. I hope and pray this will be a beneficial study and you search out this truth so as not to fall prey to this “religious fog” – as we progress we can and will remove the fog of religion.
Presented for your consideration:
Ridiculous KJV Bible Corrections:
Who is Yahweh?
by John Hinton, Ph.D.
Ex 6:3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
Ps 83:18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
Isa 12:2 Behold, God is my salvation; I will trust, and not be afraid: for the LORD JEHOVAH is my strength and my song; he also is become my salvation.
Isa 26:4 Trust ye in the LORD for ever: for in the LORD JEHOVAH is everlasting strength:
The above quoted verses are the four verses where the name of God is pronounced in the KJV (as well as the ASV, and a few other English versions). There is a popular movement to replace the name of God, Jehovah, with the name Yahweh. This is being pushed especially hard among those in the Identity and Christian patriot movements, and especially among the alternative news community prominent on the shortwave, which some Christians perceive of as being a source of more purer form of broadcasted Christianity. There are exceptions, but overall this is nonsense because the shortwave Christian broadcasts are frequently every bit as commercialized (just different products) and apostate as the "Christianity" that is broadcasted on TV.
My Comment: From the very beginning of John Hinton’s article we see a basic error – he assumes the name JEHOVAH is the correct name for the God of Israel. Why? Because the KJV says so. In Old English, when the KJV was first translated this name, JEHOVAH was pronounced different, mainly because the letter “J” was pronounce like a Y, as in Yod. By not updating this pronunciations and error is entered in by John Hinton. You have to blindly accept the KJV as the Word of God over all other translations. Nearly all biblical scholars, to date, point out the error of the KJV use of the name JEHOVAH, as it is pronounced today, is in error and never existed prior to this time. Even the Jehovah Witnesses admit they were wrong and the English transliteration for the Name of the God of Israel should be and should have been YaHWeH, not Jehovah. See Aid to Bible Understanding, page 884-885, 1971, Watch Tower Society, under, The pronunciation of “Jehovah” and “YaHweh”. If they, having based their whole work on the name Jehovah, have come to realize their error then why shouldn’t others? Even though the Jehovah’s Witnesses admit to their error they still live in it.
Y to J Issue
By John Hinton, Ph.D.
The final issue that must be addressed concerns the conversion of Y to J. This is such an utterly silly and ignorant criticism that I find it embarrassing that there are actually Christians that present it as an argument.
Servants comment: This is a tactic used by critics of evolution and of haters of the Bible – calling anyone with a different opinion as “ignorant”. This means, of course, that the author is the opposite of the ignorant and has the real truth. As we progress through John’s comments we will see who is really demonstrating a certain kind of ignorance.
John continues: I already dealt with the issue in my article on the name of Jesus, but I will restate some of it here with some additional historical linguistic information provided by Dr. Riplinger. Y becomes a J in every name in English, French, and Spanish. In English the J is pronounced like J in Japan, while in French it is pronounced like S in pleasure, in Spanish it is pronounced like an H, in German it is pronounced like Y. This is a phonological and orthographical issue, not a theological one. There is no theological issue at stake in how one language interprets a certain phoneme.
Servant’s Comment: Dr. Riplinger wrote a book comparing all of the differences between the NIV (New International Version) and the KJV and called every updated word or phrase and error. Why? Because it disagreed with the KJV and its Old English terminology. Talk about being ridiculous this book by Riplinger caters to the KJV Only people – the blind leading the blind. No, the Apostles Peter and Paul did not use the KJV and the only person to “Authorize” the KJV as the Bible to be read in the Churches was King James, and he is not and was not God.
John continues: In every case of a name in Hebrew that begins with a yod (Y) it is pronounced with the appropriate phoneme for that language. This came about through phonological and orthographical changes in the developments of those languages. Even Hebrew itself went through huge phonological and orthographical changes in its long history.
Servant’s Comment: Don’t let the big words throw you. This is some more of that “Religious Fog” I keep mentioning. Another big word that is avoided is, “transliteration” and for good reason, as to transliterate a name kicks the props out from under John’s flawed reasoning here. He is telling you the truth but not the whole truth. Want to know what he is saying?
Phoneme – “Any of the abstract units of the phonetic system of a language that correspond to a set of similar speech sounds”
Orthographical – “of, relating to – correct in spelling”
Phonological -- “the Science of speech sounds .. “
The definitions can be much longer. I have given you the basic and mean interpretations.
What he means by correctly using all of these big words is that different letters are used in different languages for a similar or the same sound as that of the original. He plants the seed of doubt in the Hebrew by suggesting the Hebrew has gone through several changes. But the real point to using these definitions is pointing to the producing a like sound with different letters from another language, and this is called “transliteration”. A transliteration is the reproduction of a name from a different language into your language. That is all he had to say, but this does not create the fog he seems to be building. While the name or word may look different in appearance the transliteration would produce the same or very similar phonetic sound – the same sound, not a different sound or pronunciation. This, of course is not what many want you to believe. Now, that is what he is supposed to be saying but let’s go further into what he is really trying to tell you while covering your thinking with the use of terms most are not familiar with.
John continues: God's name is not a magic word to be chanted for power as the name cult seems to suggest for both the names of God and Jesus. My name comes from a Hebrew word meaning given by God, which begins with a Y in Hebrew. It is Jean (zhan) in French, Juan (hwan) in Spanish, Giovanni in Italian, Hans in German, Yani in modern Greek, Ivan (eevan) in Russian, Yahya or Hanna (with a heavy H) in Arabic, and other variations exist in other languages. They all translate as John and I have no trouble adapting to any of them within the respective cultures and there is no reason for me to be insulted by any of these names. On the other hand, being addressed by a made up name based on a pagan deity would insult me.
Servant’s Comment: Where to start? Wow, the “fog” machine is wide open. First, John says his name in Hebrew begins with a “Y”. This is not true, the “Y” is the English for the Hebrew, not the Hebrew. Back to the transliterating of a name, the producing of a sound that is similar or the same as that made in the original language. John wants to avoid that by clouding up the issue by suggesting names all change into something else from language to language. He give all of these examples to prove his point while ignoring the fact that Old English is different from New English. His name, for example, in Old English would have been pronounced as Yawn, which would be the “transliteration” of his name, John, back into the original pronunciation. Does this change matter to John, no, not unless he is looking into his genealogy to build a family tree. But does this have any importance when it comes to the Name of our Savior? You bet it does –
(Act 4:12) Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.
What is this verse saying? It does not take any special interpretation, does it? What Name was Peter using when he said this? What Name were the Apostles preaching and teaching in and under? Can we “transliterate” His birth Name in today’s modern languages? Absolutely. In fact, there is a whole book in the English Bible that is named the Name of our Savior – JOSHUA. This name is with us today and yesterday and the days before that, it is only men that have refused to use it and have replace this name, and name given to our Savior at birth, with a false name, with a bogus name, with a name that never existed until about 400 years ago. So, why use a made up name, or substitute a different name for the Name that is in our language already and has been all along. Joshua is the Old English transliteration for our Savior’s Jewish Name, a common name, a name found among men, just as Acts 4:12 says and a name by which we MUST BE SAVED. Again, why use any other name? There is no reason – the deception is strong. There is no excuse, but men like John Hinton spend a great deal of time dancing around and away from our Savior’s birth name to support a fictional name made up to replace the name by which we must all be saved. Remember, John said the first letter in his name would be a “Y” (The modern English transliteration for the Hebrew/Aramaic) so if we restore the proper letter for the proper modern translation to pronounce this Old English transliteration we can then say the Name just as the Old English said it and as it was said by the Jews of our Savior’s day – from Joshua to Yoshua – the closer and more correct in the modern English of today would be YaHshua. This is nowhere near the false name, JESUS, even if you correct the “J”, it gets closer but is still off the mark.
This brings up another point. If Yesus would be more correct then why continue to use the less correct, Jesus? Some in the Messianic groups do use the name, Yeshua. The defense in not restoring His Name can only have one source. How can learned men such as John Hinton go to such lengths to cover up this simple truth. Once again, the name of our Savior is in the Bible but when it comes to the New Testament the translators and some very educated men insist on using a bogus name that is not connected to our Savior’s birth name but is another name all together. Remember the story -- Joshua fought the battle of Jericho? Also, it was Joshua that led the people of God into the Promised Land? The name of this individual is the same name our Savior was named. His name is still with us, it is in the Bible except when it comes to the New Testament – so, how changed it? The KJV only people, like John Hinton will try to tell you that God did. This would make all references to the Name of our Savior as false.
John continues to cloud the issue: If these name cultists find the J so objectionable, why don't they refer to Elijah as Elaiyah, Jeramiah as Yeramaiyah, Jacob as Yakov, Jonathan as Yanatan, Jerusalem as Yerushaleem, and so forth. For that matter why don't they use the Hebrew pronunciation for all of the names in the Bible, such as Dahveed, Moshe (Moses), Shmu'el (Samuel), Sha'ul (Saul), Shlomo (Solomon), and so forth, if they consider the issue to be so important. Since those who call God by a name that is not even Hebrew at all, and since they do so without a scrap of evidence to override the very solid evidence to the contrary, why do they have any constraints at all about inventing whimsical pointings for other names in the Bible? Why not call David Dahwid, Duwad, Diwad, or Deewud. Or how about Da'ud as Arabic pronounces it? Since Yahwe sounds like an Arabic word (except for the long A) this should go over well. Better yet, why not Dood. After all, as I have already pointed out, the vav is read as a long U when there is a dot in the middle of it. The modern translations that want to relate to the modern youth could spell him Dude. Think of the great "Christian" rock lyrics that could come from that. While we are at it why not call Moses Mose instead of Moshe so it fits the atheist scholars view that his name is related to an Egyptian pharaoh with a similar name. Moshe could also be Masih (Arabic for Messiah), Shlomo could be Sulemaw, and Shmu'el could be Smiwal?
Servant’s Comment: If John Hinton were informed in ths matter he would not have written what you just read. A cursory investigation into the Sacred Names and the Hebrew Roots Movement, to most vocal on our Savior’s birth name, would reveal these groups do just that. It has to be these groups he is talking about, the people he calls “name cultist”. These so called “name cultist” do exactly what he, John Hinton, say they do not. This is an out and out lie, or he is totally uninformed. These “name cultist” have produced some really good bible translations that have restored our Savior’s Name to its proper place in the New Testament. From the first sentence all of his examples mean nothing and only go on to prove his lack of research. Again, John Hinton is trying to muddy the waters, to throw up a fog of doubt. It is actually a childish demonstration of throwing dirt in the air. The fact is, some of the Sacred names groups have restore so many of the English words with Hebrew/Aramaic transliterated words in their bible restoration works I find them difficult to read as many of the words are appear so unfamiliar, but they do demonstrate the ability to “transliterate” names from one language to another. But, and this is big, there is only one NAME by which we must be saved – so – this is the Name that counts, all else is secondary only has meaning when it point to HIM, our Savior.
John Continues: For those who still who are still confused about the phonological issue of sound changes between and within languages, the following historical-linguistic summary from the World Book Encyclopedia concerning the Y to J conversion as it relates to English should be helpful.
"The sound of the Hebrew letter jod came into English as the letter 'I,' used as a consonant and having the soft 'g' sound, like today's 'j.' In the past the letter 'I' was used as both a vowel (i) sound and as the consonant 'j' sound. The OED says that the sound of 'j,' though originally printed as 'I,' was pronounced as a soft 'g' (Oxford English Dictionary, Unabridged, 2nd Edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991, s.v. J). The 'JE' sound in JEHOVAH was spelled 'IE' and pronounced as 'JE.' To distinguish the consonant sound (soft 'g') of the letter 'I' from the vowel sound of 'I,' many scribes in the 1200s began putting a tail on the soft 'g' 'I',' making it look like our modern 'J.' The Spanish, in the 1500s, were the first to more consistently try to distinguish the consonant I (soft 'g') sound as the shape of a 'J.' At that same time English printers used 'J' and 'I' fonts interchangeably (as documented elsewhere in this book). During the 1600s, most languages began consistently using the extended 'I' form, now called a 'J,' to represent the 'j' (soft 'g') sound." [quoted in Riplinger, p. 418]
Servant’s Comment: This is all true but notice, this is all about the Old English. If you were living several centuries back in the past all of this is very sensible, but today this has not been updated. The demonstration of the change in letters and sounds and appearance are notable. In today’s language the “Y” is the called the “Yod”, demonstrating how it is to be pronounced today, not as the “J” as modern language has change it. If we are to restore the “J” then JEHOVAH would be YeHovah – do you see? The IE was pronounced first YE then the “I” changed or was joined by the English change to a “J” letter and for years the pronunciation of these two letters were the same. Around the time of the KJV translation in one of the later revisions the “I” was changed to the “J” which had changed in its pronunciation, no longer following the English Hebrew “Y” or “Yod”. All of what is quoted above is from an outdated definition and while it is informative it is not a corrected understanding, unless, of course, you live in the 1500s.
John Hinton continues to use Riplinger’s work as a source. For those of you that do not have a copy of her work let me tell you, she is not the first attempting to make the KJV Bible the only Bible ever to be trusted, as though it is God breathed while all other translations are from Satan. I am not exaggerating. If any modern translations corrects, or dares correct a word error in the KJV they are doing the work of Satan. Even the errors found in the KJV are seen as truth and not errors because the Holy Spirit inspired the error. No, I am not kidding, this is what they teach and intelligent men like John Hinton teach. When you understand this you will then see why the vehement and false accusations are made against anyone that desires to worship our Lord and Savior in His true name, His birth Name, YaHshua, or Joshua as it is seen in the Old English.
What it boils down to is that modern rebels wish to change the names of God, eliminate them, malign them, and assimilate them into false religions. It is more than just a way to puff themselves up as possessing arcane metaphysical knowledge lacking in others, but as a way to get around the issue of having to be born again. To these rebels the possession of this Kabalistic knowledge, and its usual return to the Old Testament law (which they only do in words, not deeds), replaces repentance and rebirth. Conversion, repentance, and living by Christian standards has been replaced by using a mantra that is based upon using a "corrected" name of God, and a "corrected" name of Jesus (I dealt with his name in RBC #58). Unfortunately for them, God's Word tells them in John 3:3 that ". except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God." We are also told the same thing in John 3:7 and 1 Peter 1:23:
Servant’s comment: Again John Hinton demonstrates his lack of knowledge when it comes to those desiring to restore our Savior’s birth name to their worship that are not following some Kabalistic (Jewish Mysticism) cult. There are many different groups and while it is true some are trying to restore the Old Covenant, mistaking this knowledge of our Savior’s birth Name as a call to return to the Jewish side of our Christian beginnings.
John Hinton and others want to deny the Jewish branch of Christianity, forgetting the first converts to our Savior were all Jewish. Some misguided people see this truth in His Name and the Name of the God of Israel and seek to return to the Jewish roots of the Christian faith. To call brothers and sisters of the Word evil names is counterproductive. John Hinton and many other leaders and teachers make false accusations and work to discredit sincere seekers of the truth, while they proceed in their own ignorance, just as this article by John Hinton demonstrates. What Name does John Hinton call on, pray to and say you must be baptized into? What name is it that John Hinton and others say you must be saved in? What name is it John Hinton and others say you must confess or you are of the antichrist? Do you see, all of the accusations they make concerning those wanting to restore our Savior’s Name are on their own heads. These accusers say not to use His Birth Name but to use the name they say is HOLY, the name they worship and baptize under, the name they treat as having magical powers -- for healings and miracles. Do you see what John Hinton and others are doing? Their accusations fall on their own heads. It is they that are calling on a name of fantasy, a made up name, a name our Savior never heard and the Apostles never taught in – a name that never existed until some 1,600 years after our Lord went to the cross for us. Again, why are they so against restoring His Birth Name to the scriptures? Why are they and why were the translators of the KJV against restoring His true Identity when His Name was and is in the Bible? I must as this question again, and again, because they have no answer for this question -- The Name JOSHUA is the Old English transliteration of our Lord’s Name and it is found in the Old Testament the KJV translators translated, so why did they use a different name in the NT they translated? Why do men of letters, remember, it is John Hinton PhD (PhD means Doctor of Philosophy), like the educated of our Lords day on earth whom He had words with, men of high educational backing that He confronted, the Pharisees of His days in the flesh that pretended to know so much but understood so little that our Lord corrected again and again. Again, and again I will ask this question, Why use a different name when His Name is present and available in the Bible?
In the very beginning of his (Dr John Hinton, PhD) summary he accuses the so called “rebels” of changing things for a religion they want to create. However, if we were to go back in time we would find the name Joshua (pronounced Yahshua) being used, that would be the sound we would hear in our ears when our Lord was called on and it is the name His disciples would have been using, not the name JESUS, a totally different name. So, who is it that rebelled and changed His name? First the Greeks and then the Roman Catholic Church but even they kept His true name in some of their services and only recently said they would stop using HIS NAME out of respect for the Jews -- http://www.yahshuaservant.com/catholc-church-banning-the-use-of-sacred-name.htm. The Greeks first attempted a transliteration of His rightful Name and this is where the “I” came from and in today’s language this would properly be transliterated as the English “Y”. In other words the Greek “I” in the first century AD produced a sound that relicated the Hebrew/Aramaic sound of their letter for the first letter in our Savior’s Name. Hundreds of years later the sounding out of this letter changed. Also, the Greeks and the Latins had a habit of making things they accepted as their own. This is where the “s” sound comes from, and we see this “s” added to many names of words from the Greeks and the Latins, the Romans. His true Name has never been lost and has always been in your Bible, the translators merely decided to use a different name, another name, but not His Name.
The Romans followed the Greeks in this and as the language changed in its pronunciation they kept the “I” then the English came along and transliterated the Name as Iesus. This changed name is found in some of the earliest translations of the Bible of 1611 as Iesvs and Iesus. It was not until later revision of this KJV Bible it was changed to the “J” or Jesus. Today we have this bogus name in most of the English translations. So, who is it that is changing the Name? It is not the Hebrew Roots people and it is not the Sacred Names people and it is not people like me that believe what the word says when it comes to His Name.
I am not as concerned about any other names in the Bible finding their Hebrew roots because it is HIS NAME the Name given to Him at birth, a Name that not only defines who He is but also points toward our Heavenly Father, but the Name by which all that come to salvation are to be Saved, today or tomorrow, that Name of Salvation, pointing to HIM cannot and has not change. Scripture says there is “no other name found among men by which we must be saved”, so it is our responsibility to be sure we have and are calling on the correct Name. A Name that is found among men, so what Name would that be? During the time of the creation of the KJV His name was present in the form of JOSHUA and it was ignored and changed to JESUS in the NT, why? This question cannot be asked too often because it give you the answer and exposes the false name men and women that are sincerely seeking Him are being sidetracked and deceived.
(Php 2:9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
(Php 2:10) That at the name of ____________ every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; KJV
Fill in the blank – “that at the Name of YaHshua (Joshua) every Knee should bow …” When Philip was inspired to write this as a revelation to us the name JESUS did not exist, but the name JOSHUA, did. So, which name did Philip say “every knee should bow…”? Philip knew his Lord’s Name and it was not and is not JESUS. Like the Pharisees of old men seeing themselves as possessors of great knowledge, calling themselves Doctor and other titles like, Pharisee, leading thousands down the wrong path of worldly understanding ignoring what is, many times so plain – in effect, ignoring the true Savior and the True God by calling on another.
The name JESUS is not an equivalent and it is not a transliteration, it is a completely different name. So, again, who is it that changed the name and should be called the “cult” of JESUS. The flimsy arguments fall back on the critics in their vain attempts to protect a name that is pronounced HeyZeus by much of the world, others actually pronounce this false name, JESUS as ISIS while the English speaking people say GEEZUS, which is not a god at all, not even a pagan god, it is a different god altogether – a name our forefathers in the faith did not know, had never heard. They had heard of Zeus and of ISIS but not Geezus (Daniel 11:38 – some identify this as the coming Beast). Is knowing His Name that important? It seems that our Savior thinks it is and even foresaw what people would do.
(John 5:43) I am come in My Father's Name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive. KJV
(John 5:43) I have come in my Father's name, and you do not accept Me; but if someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him. NIV
John Hinton continues:
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
What is amusing is that those who make a big deal out of the conversion to J, and who contradict the Bible by calling God Yahweh while still calling themselves Bible-believers generally know about as much about Hebrew as the average Australian aborigine knows about Lithuanian. It troubles me how very few people realize that the god that they now worship, named Yahweh, is derived from a storm god created by atheist scholars following in the steps of the late 19th century skeptics, and that these atheists are feeding them much of their theology (although this was the last thing that any of them intended).
Servant’s Comment: John Hinton’s reasoning and accusations are so infantile as to be hardly worth a response. By the statement he makes here it is difficult not to accuse him of be used or influenced by some outside force. His remarks are insane and hardly worth a debate. He has not idea what he is talking about and if he does then he is in the depths of deception and desire company or he is a volunteer of those spiritual forces trying to destroy the people being called to the true God, to the one true Savior. It is John Hinton and those of his kind that are following myth and made up things. The name JOSHUA has been around for thousands of years the mythical name JESUS has only been around for the last 400 years. The transliterated name the Apostles taught and baptized in was JOSHUA. The modern English transliteration is YaHshua. The false name JESUS is treated as a magical name with more power and authority than the real Name our Lord and Savior was given at birth.
John continues: Some may wonder why I know so much about these Bible-scoffing atheists of the scholarly community. It is because I used to be one of them. This familiarity is a byproduct of years of intense comparative religion study without the Holy Spirit to guide me. The Bible cannot be understood without spiritual discernment, no matter how deeply one studies philology, archaeology, history, and allied fields of scholarship. Like other secular scholars I studied Hebrew with intensity in order to understand the Bible from the perspective of a historian and philologist. I did the same thing with cuneiform languages (Akkadian, Sumerian, and Hittite), Arabic, Sanskrit, and Greek, and their associated religious traditions. I was given numerous fellowships, scholarships, and awards as a student, so I was quite successful in their world, but one thing separated me from my colleagues, which was an awareness that something was wrong with the whole endeavor. It is one-sided, spiritually empty, misguided, destructive, without merit, grossly naïve, ignorant, and void of anything resembling value, and even from an atheistic point of view it is without value (what could have value in a Godless universe?). After a while I could no longer consider my work to be a worthy labor, and I was unable to justify anything that I was doing at all. Only after I came to the point that I could no longer take serious the acquisition of knowledge for knowledge's sake alone, and face the truth of my own miserable and sinful nature and my need for salvation, did the Lord, whom I had previously denied and blasphemed, call on me to humble myself before him and seek his forgiveness and guidance. It was only after I responded that I began to really read the Bible and to understand it. I also knew immediately that the KJV was the only Bible that I could use, because it was the only one that was attacked by the atheist and apostate Christian crowd that I had come to know so intimately, and it was the only one that had the power of God upon it. Reading the NIV, RSV and so forth, were like drinking Kool Aide with aspartame instead of fresh squeezed fruit juice, or like listening to a recording of Britney Spears instead of a Bach Cantata. Reading the Anchor Bible, the favorite of many "higher" critics, was like drinking antifreeze instead freshly squeezed fruit juice, and Black Sabbath instead of a Bach Cantata. I no longer tried to view God as a local Near Eastern storm god (or plague deity), or as a god with similarities to Varuna or Rudra of the Rigveda, because I am no longer blind. Today, I find it mind boggling that many who have been calling themselves Christians for years use a name for God that is derived from the world that I left behind, not the one that I entered upon when I got saved.
I will end this essay with three questions addressed to those Christians who abuse God's word by perverting the name of God. (1) Why would you allow yourself to be influenced by Bible-scoffers who treat the Bible as a book of mythology instead of as Scripture? (2) Where did you get the authority to change both the English and Hebrew texts of the Bible when neither one of them is ambiguous in the least? (3) Do you think that God is going to honor you for doing so?
Servant’s Comment: John Hinton’s confession of faith is admirable and we all have our story. The three questions he asks are misplaced and aimed in the wrong direction. Question #1 – all of the Sacred Name people I know would agree with this question and ask anyone in the Christian community the same question especially to those of the KJV Only people, such as John Hinton, the one asking this question. Question #2 – again those of the Sacred Name, identifying our Lord by His Birth Name would as John Hinton and the others this same question, Where did you get the authority to change His Name to JESUS, when in fact, His Name, the Name He was given is present in the Scripture but has been changed in the New Testament by the KJV translators? Question #3 Will the God of the Bible honor those who worship Him by His rightful name? Or will He honor those who have changed it to something else?
John Hinton Lays on the pressure:
I hope that those of you who call God Yahwe who really do want to be Bible-believing Christians are not so proud and arrogant that you feel that you cannot repent of a clear error that you have made in ignorance. As for those of you who choose to continue to slander the Lord now that you can no longer claim ignorance, I will dust off my sandals.
Servant’s Comment: Dito -- right back at you. How can the KJV Only people, such as John Hinton be so arrogant? Is our Savior’s true name in the Bible or not. Is it a Name that is found among men, even to this day? Yes it is, the Old Testament has one whole book in the very Name our Savior was named at birth, JOSHUA, (Old English transliteration) but the translators changed His Name to JESUS. Was this name in existence when our Savior was born? NO! That false name was not around until some 400 years ago. The name JOSHUA, or YaHSHUA in the modern transliteration was around, at least, from the time of Moses and the composition of the Torah, the first Hebrew Writings and when the Name YaHWeH was revealed to Moses. Later Moses would take on a young man as his lieutenant, JOSHUA, a young man that would lead the Chosen people into the Kingdom – and interesting parallel to what our Lord is to do.
If you want to follow John Hinton and others in their misrepresentation of Scripture then I have included his sources, from him, below.
John Hinton -- For Further Reading:
Gill, John (1697-1771). A Dissertation Concerning the Antiquity of the Hebrew Language, Letters, Vowel-Points and Accents.
Riplinger, Gail. In Awe of Thy Word: Understanding the King James Bible, Its Mystery and History, Letter by Letter, 2003.
The preceding is part of a series of examples of KJV verses that arrogant would-be scholars have tried to correct and showed themselves to be fools. These examples are for the benefit of those who would like more ammunition to defend God's Word against the attacks of the arrogant Bible "correcting" modernists. I hope that some of you find them useful.
Your servant in Christ,
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent Bibles in all the languages of the world.
John Hinton, Ph.D.
Bible Restoration Ministry
A ministry seeking the translating and reprinting of KJV equivalent Bibles in all the languages of the world.
Servant’s Final Comment: It is ironic and a deception in itself by the title of his work – Bible Restoration Ministry”. What is it they are attempting to restore? The Christian World has accepted the bogus name JESUS as have those of the KJV Only people. Apparently they do not want you to read His Word in a clear language but prefer you stay in the Old English. If you have ever tried to read the KJV 1611 version, the one they say is God Breathed then you are in for a treat and you will find that even their teachers deviate from the actual 1611 AD version because it is nearly unreadable. This I believe is their power stroke – if the common reader cannot understand it, as it is written in the Old English, then you have to have their teachers explain it to you, and this, then, solidifies their power over you. Pick up a modern translation at your nearest Bible store and put the archaic and hard to be understood KJV of 1611 behind you. I use the latest revision of the KJV as a study bible as many of the word study sources are based on this version. Beside this version I have several modern translations, including a bible called the Names of God Bible published by Revell, a recognized publisher. This version can be found in most Christian book stores or online at Amazon. Revell is preparing a KJV with the Holy Name restored which is due out in November.
This knowledge is not hidden but it is being suppressed by the KJV Only crowd trying to keep you in the dark. Scripture comes to life when you begin reading your Bible, no matter what version, especially when and by restoring His Holy Name to the pages your read. When you see JESUS, read it as YaHshua or even Joshua and you will see what I mean. The world has been deceived and the deception is strong. Remove the fog of these religious men and women.
Please use this presentation to further your knowledge about our Lord and about the devious works out to destroy and keep covered his Glorious Name, a Name that leads to the Father. Above all, believe his words over the words of men, me included. His word and the words of His true and only Apostles (the Twelve) over the words of others.
(John 5:43) I am come in my Father's name, and you receive Me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive. KJV
(John 17:26) And I have declared unto them your name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith You hast loved Me may be in them, and I in them. KJV
(John 17:11) And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine Own Name those whom You have given Me, that they may be one, as We are. KJV
(John 17:20) Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; KJV
I did not write these words, they are a copy of what our Lord said, and this copy is right out of the KJV. What Name was YaHshua, our Lord and Savior talking about? The name the Christians use today and the name the KJV Only people insist on using did not exist, in writing or in any language at the time our Lord spoke these words. Restore His name and see how the scriptures come to life.
(1Jn 2:22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. KJV
But wait! Now restore His Name, the Name of His Birth, the Name delivered to Mary and Joseph to name Him, the Name the Apostle John wrote and spoke in.
(1Jn 2:22) Who is a liar but he that denieth that YaHshua (Joshua) is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. (Restored KJV)
Now, who is or who are the antichrists? Now we know why the Name was changed.
(1Jn 4:3) And every spirit that confesseth not that YaHshua (Joshua) the Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world. (KJV name restored)
(2Jn 1:7) For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that YaHshua the Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
Who does Dr John Hinton confess, whose Name does he call on? Who do the KJV Only teachers and people confess? They confess a name that never existed when the New Testament was first written -- the Apostles would never recognize the name JESUS then or now. In the first century that name never existed, but the name YaHshua, or YaHushua, or YaHoshua if you prefer, but one thing most certain is that He was Never Name JESUS, a name some pronounce as HeyZeus and others, Geezus, no where near the sound or pronunciation of His Birth Name. They do not confess the same Savior as did the Apostles. Who will you confess as your Lord and Savior?
Email comments or questions to – firstname.lastname@example.org