282 thoughts on “Lots and Lots of (KJV) Bumper Stickers”

    1. Well, according to Wikipedia (which I know can be questioned but so can this guy lol) Biblica is the copyright holder of the NIV, and it leases it out to Zondervan and Hodder and Stoughton.

      As far as I can tell, the copyright holder of The Satanic Bible would be Anton LaVey. Its publisher is Avon books.

      What did he mean by ‘the owner of both these books?’ Does he think there’s only one copy of each and somebody is sitting there with them both on his coffee table??

      1. On a more serious note, the fact that he would just *lie* about these books reveals a pretty serious psychological condition which I will not mock because he might be truly sick. Certain clinical forms of paranoia allow people to completely ignore basic (and easily accessible) facts in order to reinforce their conspiracy theories.

        1. Good point. But how many of those who listen to him will actually take the thirty seconds to check out these facts before accepting his word? That honestly concerns me.

        2. I don’t think it’s a deliberate lie. He probably just heard a rumor, and made a bumper sticker of the rumor without checking out whether or not it was true. The “fact” is still false, but he doesn’t know he’s lying.

        3. We are also effectively teaching people to consider facts debatable. Last week when subbing, I had to give 8th graders a sheet with some statistics from a research study on it. The assignment was for them to read the statistics then write sentences about whether they agreed or disagreed with them. Basically, they were taught that day that data is a matter of personal opinion.

        4. Data are debatable, but the debate is properly based on evidence, not on personal preferences nor hearsay.

          If you say there are 16 people in America, and I can find, say, 20 people in America, I have a good case that your numbers are wrong. If you then say, “well, maybe that’s true for you, but it isn’t for me” (which is how many public discussions seem to go these days), we aren’t having a debate, we’re just flapping our jaws.

        5. I noted the “owner” thing as well — I think he meant “publisher”, not the owner or the copyright holder.

        6. So… it is good or bad if I buy a KJV from HarperCollions (they have one; I checked)

        7. @Big Gary–The latter is exactly what these kids were told to do in the assignment even when their personal experience was not at all comparable to the experiences the data evaluated. It was an exercise, essentially, in applying reader response literary criticism to the evaluation of statistical research. Something no scientist or sociologist who isn’t drunk or stoned would do.

    1. Like many of you, all of my memory verses are KJV, and that’s fine. “I like the rhythm, it’s easy to dance to… I’ll give it a 9…” But here’s my question; Is it not possible for a person to come to faith in Jesus Christ through reading a paraphrase like the Living Bible? Or for an English speaking person, living in the tropics, to get more meaning out of a verse that says “though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as the inside of a coconut.”? I think yes.

      1. The problem is that the very question deceives. It isn’t the text which leads to faith, and this is the root heresy (I think) of the whole KJVO crowd’s position. It is GOD who saves, faith comes through the Spirit. If the form of the words which are proclaimed matters, then we’d have to start by teaching people Koine Greek (at the least) in order to proclaim the Gospel to them.

        1. Perhaps you missed my point. You say, and I agree, that it is “God who saves, faith comes by the Spirit”. Would you also agree that “faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the word of God”? And so to my point- understanding God through special revelation (ie Scripture) is valid in any colloquial language. World without end, amen. (Or, to paraphrase: “It always bees dat way, homesqueeze!”)

        1. Not to a KJV-onlyist it doesn’t! How dare you take the holy “eth” off those words! You can’t change a word of Scripture, they would say.

          (There are KJV-only sites that attack the NKJV.)

    1. Bhagavad Ghita, Upanishads, Vedas, Tao Te Ching, and assorted Buddhist Sutras are all older than the Bible, and many of them exist in better-preserved manuscripts.

      1. The Papyrus of Ani, a copy of the Book of the Coming Forth by Day, also known as the Egyptian Book of the Dead, is about 3,250 years old. The manuscript is in beautiful condition, except that E.A. Wallace Budge, the man who purchased it in 1888 as one very long scroll, cut it into sheets.

        1. To be fair, if he kept rolling and unrolling the thing he would have destroyed it eventually and he didn’t own a wall long enough to display it like a tapestry.

          But, yes, it’s not only one of the best copies of The Book of Coming Forth By Day we have, it’s also utterly gorgeous. Somewhere out there there’s a full-color, actual size bound reproduction with complete transcription and translation below the images, but I can’t remember whether it’s the one by Wasserman or the one by Faulkner. Budge’s is more useful for the line reproductions of the art than for anything else these days; as a translator, he had a bad case of King James-itis.

        2. I have the translation by Faulkner. Both the translation and the photographs of the “pages” are superb.

  1. I just did a search on Bible Hub, and all of the phrases shown on his big sign as not being in the KJV are also NOT IN ANY OF THE OTHER BIBLE VERSIONS EITHER!

    1. Dear Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:

      On the other hand, the KJV does use the words:

      — Stupid
      — Immorality
      — Abuse

      Fundies often show that they believe in these.

      Christian Socialist

  2. It’s a sin to use a bible that isn’t the KJV.

    “I used one of those NIVs for 15 years before I found the truth.”

    Did this guy find Jesus or Jimmie?

    1. That first line was paraphrasing what he said, in case that wasn’t obvious. I certainly do not think it is a sin to use a bible other than the kjv.

      1. Pretty sure “Everybody’s Got Something to Hide Except for Me and My Monkey” is not in the 1611 KJV… But “Anna” makes an appearance, and the inferred fundy credo, “You Can’t Do That” can be found in many a proof text.

  3. I think believing in one Bible version over any other is one of the “traditions of men” that he decries.

    “This book will tell you you’re a sinner, but then this book will also tell you how to get away from sin.” Argh, Mr. Bearded Man. The NIV does the same thing. So does the ESV and the NASB and the NLT (all versions I read and study). This is a logic fail.

    1. Dear pastor’s wife:

      I think believing in one Bible version over any other is one of the โ€œtraditions of menโ€ that he decries.


      Christian Socialist

    2. Well said. But the accusation of standing on the traditions of men can only be made against the traditions of other men. Silly us for thinking other wise.

  4. “This book that was first translated into the English language in 1611.”

    โ— โ— โ— โ— โ—

    How can someone be so ignorant?

    1. At 6:36 he said, “You can judge us according to the book.”

      OK, here goes:

      “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.” (Eph. 4:25)

      “Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned: from which some having swerved have turned aside unto vain jangling; desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm.” (1 Timothy 1:5-7)

      1. Really, this guy is so confused, and so firmly convinced based on so little understanding of so few facts, that I mostly just feel sorry for him. It’s kind of hard to even laugh at such a simple soul, any more than I can laugh at my neighbor who believes the Illuminati are controlling the government.

        1. After watching the whole vid, that was my conclusion, too. I stared at my screen, feeling very sorry for him. He comes across as so…reasonable, but he’s saying some really illogical stuff. ๐Ÿ˜•

        2. I knew by the music, his beard, his KJV position, and the calmness of his voice that he was part of that crowd.
          I have a suspicion that there are 4 or 5 families living on several acres in North Carolina together.
          I’ve not looked at his website, but I’d also wager that he’s practicing Jewish festival customs.

      2. Ex 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:

        I know I saw an image of someone that was supposed to be Jesus on one of his bumper stickers!

    2. Dear pastor’s wife:

      But and yf eny man be ignorant let him be ignorant’ [1Co 14:38 — Tyndale’s Translation, 1534].

      Christian Socialist

      1. Yes. And I also think of the verses in Proverbs that say not to correct a fool.

        The KJV issue is a sensitive one for me because my parents hold to the KJV-only position, not to the point of bumper-stickers but definitely to the point of considering themselves vastly superior to me for reading other versions. Their condescension and condemnation is hurtful.

        1. It is hurtful, isn’t it? I haven’t thought of it in quite those terms before, but to have my parents condemn us for using “perversions” and going to a church that has a “band” as if we’re less spiritual is just that.

          But the worst was easily when my Dad forwarded a David Cloud “article” that condemned much of what we spent several years of our lives doing – overseas missions with a non-denominational organization. It really made us wonder what their vocal “support” of us during that time really was.

  5. I love how he says the KJV 1611 was the first English translation. Because, you know, Tyndale, Wyclif… Not important. Certainly not before Jesus gave the apostles a KJV 1611, no.

      1. Actually, when the KJV was first published, it was criticized by much of Christendom. Many Protestants were devoted to the Geneva Bible (“Breeches Bible”) and considered the KJV a product of the English crown and therefore suspect. It was treated sort of like the NIV has been treated by many devout KJV onlyists.

        For the record, I use the KJV for my personal reading and public preaching ministry for a variety of reasons, but I don’t go around attacking others who don’t. I have memorized thousands of Scriptures from the KJV and am familiar with the type of English used, so trying to use and understand the newer translations are actually harder for me. My mom once inadvertently bought my sisters and me NKJV’s and even had our name put on the front. When I began reading mine, I really had a hard time because so many of my favorite passages were so different. I was staying in the home of a soldier temporarily in my late teens right after the first gulf war who had been given a Good News for Modern Man Bible in desert camo. I tried to read that particular version and again had a hard time!

        In my private study of Scripture, I use Greek and Hebrew lexicons (I actually took a couple of years of Biblical Greek and a semester of Biblical Hebrew and understand somewhat the tenses and cases), a plethora of English translations, and commentaries that use all sorts of English translations.

        I have read many of the more wellknown passages in the ESV, NIV, NLT, NASB, HCSB, NKJV, etc… and still prefer my old KJV. If that makes me a rabid anti-Christian, I guess it is what it is.

        But again, I take exception to many IFB preachers who make belittling statements about anyone who would use an NIV. I don’t agree that all the modern translators are willing pawns of Satan dedicated to perverting the Scriptures. I think many English translations are translated by people who truly want to make God’s word more accessible and more easily understood. Many of them hold a high view of Scripture. I don’t want to attack a person’s Bible–I am glad he or she is reading and studying it!

        Anyhow… Just a few rambling thoughts.

        1. I think it’s wonderful that you enjoy your King James Bible! personally have no problem with the fact that you prefer it.
          You cannot use any other versions for all the reasons that you shared. That’s totally fine. I would have a problem with it if you had insisted that EVERYONE must use the King James and that your way is the ONLY way to study the Bible. You didn’t say anything like that, however. So it’s all good.

        2. I agree with Vanessa! I love the KJV and most of the verses I have memorized are in the KJV. My issue is not with the translation but with those who turn one particular translation into a polarizing doctrine over which they condemn other believers.

        3. It’s only natural to have a favorite version. I used to have a hard time accepting other versions because they didn’t sound authoritative enough. Now I know that was just a personal opinion and not a hill to die on.

          So long as you don’t start telling us the KJ is the ONLY and the BEST and that we MUST use it, we don’t take issue with you. If it’s important enough to fight about, I think it should be backed by clear Bible verses that speak to the issue. If you can’t back it with a verse, then it’s just a preference. Fundies confuse the two.

  6. I tried to watch this & started to snicker @ “King James Video Ministries.” I’d imagine if King James did have access to videos, they would be of a much different genre.

    At “Hello, there.” I went into a laughing fit & had to stop the video. It reminded me waaaay too much of high school out cruising the strip with friends. ๐Ÿ˜†

    (Desperate guy trying to act cool & aloof): Hey. (nods) You checkin’ out my ride? Pretty sweet, huh?

  7. Went to the website: “King James Bible Ministries has closed down due to new ministry opportunities. Follow us at sermon audio. Only rely on the King James Bible!!!”

    Wow, and here I thought I was to only rely on God. ๐Ÿ™„

  8. Can he be considered fundy if he admits that the bible doesn’t say “Go to church”?

    “All you need is love” – The phrase may not be in the bible, but the message is.

  9. I’m sure his video is interesting, but I couldn’t get past the Ken Burns-esqueness (can I coin a word?) of it all. The music, the beard, the guy’s voice. I expected to hear Morgan Freeman’s or Sam Waterston’s voice break in at any minute.

    1. Amazing to me that Harper Collins publishes so much stuff….oh yeah that’s right, they’re a publishing company.

      I bet they publish stuff on

      Sex, Religion, Satanism, History, Internet, Movies, Churches and a variety of things too…

        1. Hoe Lee Crap… BG, you’ve found the line and blasted past it with a vengeance.

        2. Oh … sorry if anyone finds that offensive. Maybe I should have put a warning on that or something. The authors of these dinosaur “novels” were profiled in the New York Times yesterday, so their writing was fresh on my mind.

        3. I mad because I didn’t think of it first.
          Supposedly, they’re making a lot of money from it.

        4. Big Gary, I’m not sure why I clicked that link, but I did. And I will never, ever again be able to say or hear the words “giant lizard” or “T-Rex” with a straight face. *snerk* ๐Ÿ˜ณ ๐Ÿ˜†

  10. To the tune of “Milkshake”

    “My version brings all the fundies to the yard

    and they’re like ‘it’s beter than yours’

    $*#$ right it’s better than yours…” ๐Ÿ™„

  11. Around 2:55 he says, “Here’s the real issue, folks,” and talks about salvation. Ironically, most of the video is NOT about the Gospel, the thing that he supposedly says is most important.

    “Here’s what life is all about: your relationship with Jesus Christ.” Yes; yes, it is. And by focusing on a translation, he ends up NOT focusing on Jesus.

    1. Dear pastor’s wife:

      That’s as far as I got in the video. Since then, I’ve been ransacking my long-retired KJV for the phrase, ‘if you were to die tonight.’ So far, no luck. Can you help?

      Christian Socialist

    2. not only does his ranting on the KJV only subject keep him from discussing the Gospel or Jesus–it also makes his discussion of the Gospel sorely inadequate. When he finally discusses the “Gospel” it is all about where you go when you die. It is such a small understanding of hte message of Scripture and the Gospel.

  12. Y’know, if those were magnetic stickers, he’s have the perfect get-away vehicle. Peel them off, do his crime of choice, then put them back on. Because A) that truck covered on bumper stickers would be pretty hard to describe, all you’d see would be the stickers. And B) who would suspect the owner of robbing liquor stores?
    Yeah, I read waayyy too many crime novels. ๐Ÿ˜Ž

  13. Anyone notice he was pointing with his middle finger around 1:40 when he points out that “All you need is love” is not in the King James authorized version 1611 tried and purified 7 times holy, the only inspired, version of the Bible”?

    I’m sure I violated several English rules in that previous question and somewhere, an English teacher just killed a kitten. But I don’t find “use proper English” in the AV1611 God’s holy word Bible.

  14. The Bible doesn’t also say have the words Trinity or Rapture! Burn! Seems like he talks more about the KJV than God, loving your brother, and Jesus.

    1. Marcie said
      His focus on promoting the King James Version allows him to ignore loving his neighbor. ๐Ÿ™

      My experience with the KJV Only loons (in the olden days, when I used to bicker with them on religion forums) is not only do they ignore ‘loving their neighbor’ when talking to Christians who aren’t KJV Only, but they are downright abusive.

      Some of the KJVOs will accuse you of being un saved, a heretic, and all sorts of things.

      It goes beyond being a sin of omision with these guys to being lots of sins of commission are acted out.

      1. The sad thing about fundamentalism is they do not know what love looks like. They would say their calling you an heretic and attempting to scare you into heaven is because they do love you. Somehow they do not see their actions and even abusiveness as unloving but their expression of love.

        1. NO! I wasn’t allowed to watch Sesame Street growing because of the Rock ‘n’ Roll, still last I checked the letter H is NOT a vowel. Maybe if you have the sort of British accent that pronounces heretic as ” ‘eretic “, then okay, you may use “an”.

          How accommodating of me!

          You’re welcome.

        2. @Michael: “h” used as a vowel: 2nd syllable of “rhythm”? Kind of? No? Oh, well… It’s been AN Honor responding to you… ๐Ÿ˜‰

        3. “th” voiced lingual-dental fricative–not very vowelish.

          For a nominal consonant often acting functionally as a vowel, consider the R or W (besides the obvious Y).

          The H “honor”ably abdicates its primary position to the vowel O necessitating the “an”. Unless you must wear an hat to serve an horseradish to an hippie.
          Much ado about something? I believe my strong reaction stems from pent-up annoyance over a NYC affectation that insists on simply forgetting the initial H before a “iu” diphthong thereby making the “an” appropriate. E.g. Houston pronounced Yooston; huge becomes yooge. Though native Yoostonians get a pass, there is no excuse for yoogeness. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          As the Good Book says somewhere: “Eschew divers idiomatic obfuscations. And if you don’t, you should. Because I do.”

        4. Michael (aoom)
          I don’t mind the lesson, but stick to consonants. Remember which country you are in. A diphthong is not proper apparel here.

        5. Yeah, you don’t want to see me with just a diphthong. Though if I could borrow your unisex chili apron it might be okay. ๐Ÿ™‚

        6. WHAT?! ๐Ÿ˜ฏ

          Oh! You thought… ๐Ÿ˜ณ

          No dude, that’s my new missionary pilot uniform. Going native in our new not-as-Baptist mission agency. ๐Ÿ˜€

        7. @Michael: Sorry… I was only kidding. (Hanging my head and walking slowly out of the room, closing the door quietly behind me)

        8. Troublewit: no, don’t go! ๐Ÿ˜ฎ

          No offense intended.

          After Der_Berater’s “props for using ‘an'” before “heretic”, I was hoping such an enthusiastic affirmation would be founded in a grammatical reason. I’ve always wondered why people do that. I can come up with all kinds of reasons why not to do it, and so far I’ve not heard a satisfactory reason why to employ such awkward usage.

          Waiter, there’s an hair in my soup?
          An heaven to gain and an hell to shun?
          I got an hat for Christmas?
          I see an hawk circling in the sky?
          My new car has an hitch?
          I bought the baby an highchair?
          He is eating an hotcake?
          C’mere, give me an hug?

          They all sound awful to me.

          OK, Google is my friend. If you like you can use “an” before an H-initial, unstressed initial syllable word. E.g. historic, horrendous, heretical.

          Grammar Nazi signing off. ๐Ÿ™‚

        9. @Michael: no worries! I was only gone for An Hour, and it was An Honest misunderstanding… Really, your post was very informative, and I can relate to your agonizing over grammatical foibles. There are certain ones that drive me crazy as well. I have a friend who says “irregardless”, and misuses “atypical” when he really means “typical”. (Banging my head slowly against the wall).
          Soooo… You are my kindred spirit of grammar, syntax and usage. I just can’t resist irony sometimes (He said, smiling, while offering Michael An Hors d’oeuvre) (see what I mean? Sigh!)

        10. “Irregardless” arrgh ๐Ÿ˜ฅ

          I would love an hors d’oeuvre as long as the “re” comes AFTER the V!!! Not “or derv”! Nobody pronounces Louvre as “lerv”.

          If you’re afraid your French will need a pardon, just say “appetizer.”

          Reminds me of a small town pizza restaurant at which my longsuffering wife and I worked during the skinny days of deputation. The proprietress would ask customers buying the French dip sandwich, “You want au jus with that?” pronounced “aw juice”. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ I tried to explain that ‘oh zhu’ is not a separate item but a descriptor of the dish, like “with fries”. “You want ‘with fries’ with your sandwich with fries?”

          Just say French dip! It’s okay.

        11. Michael, that made me smile. Coming from a background where my maternal grandparents are first generation Americans (Greek grandpa and French grandma), hearing people mispronounce Greek and/or French dishes is always a treat. “Gyros” is usually pronounced ‘jahy-rohs’ if they were some sort of spinning wheels mounted on axes. My mom calls them ‘yeh-dohs’ (the ‘d’ sound is actually a truncated rolling ‘r’.) God forbid they should ask for tzatziki sauce with it..

          Ah, well… C’est la vie…

  15. The whole “These words aren’t found in the KJV” deal reminds me of a discussion I had with a KJVO one time. He would harp again and again anytime someone brought up a phrase not found in his puny god, but repeatedly claimed that Paul was the author of Hebrews as if this were an accepted fact. Drove me nuts.

    1. JeremyC,

      If you run into that guy again, you can show him in his KJV that Paul himself told us himself that he did not write Hebrews:

      2 Thessalonians 3:17 The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write.

      The first word in all 13 of Paul’s epistles is the salutation of “Paul”.
      He said this token is in EVERY epistle. Hebrews is lacking the token of the “salutation of PAUL”

      And if he thinks salutations are only at the end; the “law of first mention” has Mary speaking of the salutation from the angel where he spoke when he arrived and said “Hail, thou that ….”

      1. I doubt I’ll ever run into him again, but yes, you raise one of the many good reasons to not adhere to Paul as the author. Thanks for sharing that.

  16. The AV1611 starts off immediately venerating men!

    “To the Most High and Mightie Prince, James”

    This guy banned me from commenting on his videos last year.

    1. You’d think this very thing would shut down all the KJV-onlyists!!! How can their perfect book that was the definitive and final version for English-speaking people have gotten that part so wrong?

    2. Erasmus was a Roman Catholic guy who put together the KJV’s underlying text, the TR, and with KJVOs being rabidly anti Roman Catholic, you would think this would concern them, but no.

      Also, some books came out several years ago alleging that King James had a homosexual fixation, or relationship, with some other man – his love letters to the guy were printed, or something.

      KJVOs decry the NIV because on one edition years ago, a linguist lady who happened to be a lesbian was consulted on a minor stylistic concern with the text.

      Why are KJVOs okay with a homosexual, suspected or otherwise, working on their fave edition or being involved with it somehow (King James) but condemn other versions that may have consulted a homosexual?

      KJVOs have double standards on a lot of things. They will excuse the KJV for the very things they reject the modern translations over.

      1. Just so we’re clear– King James I commissioned the translation we know as the King James version. He did not write it or do any of the translation.

        Many of his biographers do conclude that he had sexual relationships with other men.

        1. Of course, if you have to be sinless to do a valid Bible translation, then no translation into any language is to be trusted. They were all made by sinners. That does not exclude the KJV.

        2. I’m with BG on this one. King Jimmy’s sordid sex life is basically irrelevant. I’m not saying that background doesn’t affect translation committees, but KJ wasn’t on his own committee, and there doesn’t seem to have been any pressure to acquiesce to his tastes. Now the issue of the monarch as head of the church, on the other hand…

        3. While that’s true, the kjvo’s try and make a big deal of the fact that a homosexual did some slight copying work on the NIV or some such. So it is worthwhile stating as it shows their own petty illogical arguments for what they are.

        4. James VI and I (Scotland and England) had an extreme view of the divine right of kings. The Geneva Bible and footnotes were decidedly not divine right. That was one of the reasons James commissioned the work. He had trouble proving his point from the Geneva wording in places. Another key reason was that the Archbishop wanted it done, to separate from the Puritans and other non-Anglican groups.

          That doesn’t take anything the KJV being an excellent translation. As scholars have found more and older manuscripts, though, the need for proper textual criticism combined with a changing language has brought the need for newer translations, some of which are better than others. To paraphrase the 1611 translation team, any serious scholarly attempt at translation is the Word of God.

      2. And something else I thought I’d throw in (that was mentioned a while ago in another post related to the KJVO group).

        Generally many of these people also tend to hold the Separatists/Pilgrims/Puritans in fairly high esteem. I wonder what would happen if someone pointed out that the same King James also persecuted these groups for wanting to purify/separate from the Church of England.

  17. The KVO only movement is sectarianism at best, a cult at worst.

    Paul writes:

    “For I have been informed concerning you, my brethren, by Chloeโ€™s people, that there are quarrels among you. Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, โ€œI am of Paul,โ€ and โ€œI of Apollos,โ€ and โ€œI of Cephas,โ€ and โ€œI of Christ.โ€ Has Christ been divided? Paul was not crucified for you, was he? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

    Ah, stinketh…that’s the NASB.

    1. I’ve just been informed by one om my eagle-eyed friends that I’ve totally missed what were talking about here!

      I thought we were talking about the the minimal flow rateโ€”keep vein open (KVO) rateโ€”for catheters!


  18. No where in the KJV does it say that the KJV is THE one and only version for the English crowd. To misquote Mr Montoya, that verse doesn’t mean what Bumper Sticker guy thinks it means. (See what I did there?)

    Sunday school is not a Bible concept. Neither is YouTube or the interwebz.

  19. When you have to explain the bumper stickers, you might be doing it wrong.

    When you decide the words of your faith must be found in a culture-limited translation of the Bible or in fact in any Bible, you might be doing faith wrong….especially as people pointed out that there are plenty of words we use in our faith that are not found in Scripture.

    When you decide the real question is “if you die tonight, will you be in hell or heaven?”, you might be doing the Gospel wrong.

    And Harper Collins also publishes a King James Bible so um, how does that work?
    It always amazes me the logic they use to discredit any other translation is not based in the art of translating or even in reality.

  20. um, er, It’s just that…um…
    I mean don’t you…well, huh?, er, ah.
    Seriously, where do you get…..ugh.
    What the….?
    Oh forget it.
    I have no words. ๐Ÿ˜ฏ ๐Ÿ™„

  21. The video reminded me of the Red Green Show:

    “If women don’t find you handsome, they should at least find you handy!”
    Or, the Men’s Prayer:
    “I’m a man.
    I can change.
    If I have to.
    I guess.”

  22. I think we have seen this guy before. There was a video Darrell posted of him critizing Christian catalogs and if I am not mistaken, I think he was the guy with the KJVO singles dating website (I think that video was taken down).
    Off to see if I can find these other posts.

    1. After watching that 9-minute video, I know the point:

      “Go ye therefore and bedizen thy oxcart ufing fundrie ftickers laden with wordes of chastifement.”

      Jason 3:14

  23. “I wonder what he would say if we told him that โ€œtrinityโ€ and โ€œRaptureโ€ are not in the King James Bible either?”

    The WORDS are not but the DOCTRINES are and that is the point, which i suspect you (and the others here) know as well but since this is the way you MAKE A LIVING, by MOCKING God’s word. Your “father” MADE you do it and you justified it for the sake of INCOME.

      1. Wouldn’t that be something? I only wish.

        Of course if they would like to make their claims self-fulfilling there is a donation button up there somewhere…

      2. Dear Darrell,
        TKS’s reasoning is rife with “loose associations”. He doesn’t think like a normal person, whatever ‘normal’ is.

      3. I hazard a guess, however, that TKS is making some sort of a reference (‘your father made you do it’) to the old Flip Wilson comedy routine. Seen in that light, I don’t think he’s complimenting either you or your business plan, Darrell.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.