A Voice in the

site navigation

free newsletter

January 19, 2011

Return to: Q/A's
Q/A Topics:
Glorious 1611-2011?

I get really disgusted when Christians have "sales" on "christian" materials. (2Co2:17 don't read this in the KJV...it's wrong) What? They decide, for the sake of 'sales', that they don't need quite the -normal- 'profit' margin? I also mutter back at the e-mails (aw shut up!) when I see the headings related to the "Glorious KJV". Yes, the KJV has been the default 'standard' in the English language -translation- of God's Word for 400 years. But while there are a lot of 'little' faults all over within the KJV, there is one -BIG- glaring thing, for which reason I will never again be stuck with the KJV-only.

Are the Holy Scriptures (Ro1:2, 2Ti3:15) "oracles"? (Rom3:2) Or is it God's WORD? Was the "Holy of Holies" in the tabernacle/temple an "oracle" (1Ki6:5,16,19,etc), or did it represent God's presence? ...as it says of Moses, that he met with God "face to face" (Ex33:11); not some hallucinogenic trance state.

Did some damsel/virgin pilgrimage up to a mountain top where cracks in the ground allowed hallucinogenic gasses to leak out and overcome her, putting her into a spiritually hypnotic state, where she uttered vocal noises which people then wrote down? [link]

God used "holy men...who spoke as they were propelled along by the Holy Spirit" (2Pt1:21)

We are not being misogynistic. These are the facts. And when a product of Babylon replaces God's 'Word' and God's 'presence' with the pagan oracle, likening the works of God to the workings of satan... well... in ignorance as a youth I didn't know any better. But now I do.

Let me be bold and make a statement that, to my memory, I've never made before. I've made strong statements, but I don't think this one: To the extent that the KJV promotes "oracles" as it does, TO THAT EXTENT the KJV is "antichrist". OK....now let the sparks fly! But evaluate that statement against the facts, and decide if that isn't a true statement.

If anybody wants to argue the point, here it is out of the (world's) dictionary:

oracle (r'e-kel, ahr'-) n.
 1. a. A shrine consecrated to the worship and
       consultation of a prophetic deity, as
       that of Apollo at Delphi.
    b. A person, such as a priestess, through
       whom a deity is held to respond when
    c. The response given through such a
       medium, often in the form of an
       enigmatic statement or allegory.
Oracles were part of the label of things Israel was told to tear down, break into pieces and destroy. And John closes one of his epistles with, "Little children, keep yourselves away from idols" (1Jn5:21)

Enough for now. But this is 2011, the 400th anniversary, and the KJV-only crowd is 'rejoicing'. So this little bit needed to be said. They praise -the- 'KJV' at every opportunity. But around here we proclaim "Thus says the Lord"

There was a whole nuther long paragraph written, but just can't bring myself to leave it in here. This topic and its details represents Sooo MUCH EVIL! And the evil is perpetrated by those claiming to be "christian"..!!

Aaaaaaah!!! (screaming in my spirit) Come Lord Jesus! Straighten around everything we pitiful sinners have messed up!

    "Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons." (1Co10:20)


If one uses a modern, worldly dictionary, one can look hard enough and justify any fool argument. Using a modern Webster's, one can even find corrupted definitions for MANY Biblical terms (God, Marriage, Repentence, etc.).

I (as do many Christians) prefer Noah Webster's original 1828 Dictionary which is still available. Many (most?) of his definitions are Biblically based.

OR'ACLE, n. L. oraculum, from oro, to utter. 
1. Among pagans, the answer of a god or some 
person reputed to be a god, to an inquiry made 
respecting some affair of importance, usually 
respecting some future event, as the success 
of an enterprise or battle.
2. The deity who gave or was supposed to give 
answers to inquiries; as the Delphic oracle.
3. The place where the answers were given.
4. Among christians, oracles, in the plural, 
denotes the communications, revelations or messages 
delivered by God to prophets. In this sense it 
is rarely used in the singular; but we say, 
the oracles of God, divine oracles, meaning 
the Scriptures.
5. The sanctuary or most holy place in the temple, 
in which was deposited the ark of the covenant. 1Kings 6.
[vw: a few more definitions, 6-8, not related to this discussion]

Last week wasn't something said about a "long paragraph" that was left out. Perhaps it should have been left in..!!!

This is really rich! Now we have a "christian's" dictionary.

The Webster's 1828 references and defines many 'KJV' terms. [link] But to whatever degree the KJV has errors, the Webster's is not, thus, defining "Biblical" terms; it is defining erroneous KJV terms IN THEIR ERROR, as people have come to accept them. (Remember, 99.999% of those calling themselves "christian" are NOT. Rom9:6b, Mt7:21-23) [link] When the KJV uses pagan "oracles", and people with time, over the years, have changed the pagan meaning/understanding; the passing time in error did not change the original pagan into Godliness! When unbelievers change God's "truth...into the lie" (Ro1:25), the reverse is not also true: changing a lie into God's truth. If it -was- a lie, IT'S -STILL- A LIE!

And... NO LIE "IS OF THE TRUTH" (1Jn2:21)

Yes, my most-used (American Heritage) dictionary (yes, I also do have the Websters, but the AH is better) also had some of these "theological" definitions. If an expression is used often enough, and society adapts to it and accepts it, even if in error, eventually the dictionaries are going to define the new useage. But such useage and subsequent dictionary definition does not mean it is true. Wasn't it Hitler who said: Tell a lie often enough and long enough, people will accept it as truth. But notice that, even in the Websters, the first and primary expanded definitions are from the PAGAN understanding.

And if unregenerate men are devising to translate God's Word, under the auspices of a Romish-based church and king, are steeped in their Babylonish understandings of the supernatural, understanding only satan's ways, but not knowing God, will they not (naturally) use terms they understand and are familiar with; as events are experienced in that church, the church for which they are compiling the translation. If their religious leaders consult oracles, and they see in Scripture that God communicated with men, is it not only natural for them (not knowing God, themselves) to 'assume' it is an "oracle", like their unregenerate spiritual leaders engage the activity.


e.g. (for example)
What is "peace"? If one defines it based on communism, "peace" is achieved when all the world has been changed over to communism. What is "unity"? According to "Ut Unum Sint" (by John Paul II 1995) [link], unity will be reached when all religions have 'returned' to "mother church" at Rome. Thus also, -dictionaries- can be written to define anything a person wishes. In the same way, if the KJV is in question, the Webster's 1828 was devised to 'support' -it-.

Martin Luther was excommunicated in 1521. John Calvin was establishing Calvinism (protestantism) in the 1530s. The Geneva Bible is dated 1599. The Geneva was considered the "protestant Bible". The Geneva uses "oracle/s" in just about every place the KJV does (I did not check 'all' the references; what I did check was quite enough). But as we have addressed many times: protestantism was merely the flip side of catholicism, but they are both of Babylon. Many of the false doctrines of today's 'church' come from the Reformation. The ecclesiastical, hierarchical, 'clergy/laity' relationships are nearly identical; as are many of the "altar" furniture and accoutrements. In many cases if one walks into a catholic or protestant church and looks up the main aisle towards the altar area, one might be hard-pressed to see any difference. Back when Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ" [link] was all the rage, we addressed what they consider to be the 'power' of the -Latin- Mass and its demonic roots. The Vatican is steeped in Illuminati, Masonry and paganism, and engages in satan (Lucifer) worship. In fact, the name "Lucifer" does not exist in the Bible; it is "shining one" or "light bearer", etc; "Lucifer" is also Latin-derived, and is the name by which satan-worshipers address the devil. Satanic groups are often known as "luciferian" societies, etc.etc. (Interesting, too, in a strange twist of irony, that the Alexandria-based versions don't say "lucifer" in Is14:12, but variations of "day star, "shining star", "morning star"...in that matter, those perversions are more correct than the KJV/NKJV) "lucifer" is not the name given to him by God. ("that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan" Re12:9) One of the popes (I forget which) is buried with Skull-n-Bones across his casket. As I've read from time to time the satanists, thus engaged, also use the KJV as their text of choice when chanting their rituals. The Mormons (the name, itself, being that of a demon) features the KJV...often I have seen the TV ads by the Mormons, giving away free KJVs...for the added opportunity to also give away their Book of Mormon. But the ads never say, simply, "Bible" ....but it is always the "KJV Bible"

So then I got past my Online Bible software to the browser where I also have the Wycliffe and Tyndale. (for whatever reason OLB would not create note modules out of them, without producing error messages) And yes, they each have their own errors, separate from this discussion.

But where KJV says "oracle" in 1Ki6:5, the Wycliffe says, "Goddis answeryng place" (not "oracle")

Wycliffe is 1384 and Tyndale is 1525. (before the Reformation) The Tyndale Bible is not complete because he was martyred before it was finished. Guess who he was martyred by...

Let's look at Romans 3:2

    "...for the spekyngis of God `weren bitakun to hem."

    "Fyrst vnto them was committed the worde of God"

The "speakings" or "word" of God.

The word "logion" -> "logios" -> "logos" have to do with "words" and "speech" (not hallucinations) God -spoke- and holy men wrote down WHAT GOD SPOKE. Did God -dictate- word-for-word? We have addressed on occasion how God gave men His Word, and they spoke/wrote it according to their own personality, education level and idioms. It is easy to tell the difference between (educated) Paul or Luke vs the (simple) writings of John and Peter. But these people did not go sit in a little booth, puff on some 'weed', get 'high', and blabber off mindlessly in incoherent ramblings, which others needed to come along to 'interpret'...as is the case with pagan oracles. God speaks in PLAIN LANGUAGE... "EASY TO UNDERSTAND" (1Co14:9) That's part of what is wrong with the whole "tongues" and "slain" movement. They gibber/jabber, and nobody can understand.

    "Woe to those who call evil good... who put darkness for light..." (Is5:20)
Yes, "oracle" comes from the Latin, "to speak". But Rome also has the demonic "-Latin- Mass", and priests always mumbo-jumbo in Latin (not understood by the common laity). The primary function of the word has been the pagan aspect. If "oracle" simply means "to speak", why is it not used of David's "last words", or of Jacob's blessings of his 12 sons on his death bed, or of Peter's sermon on Pentecost, or Paul's sermon on Araopagus? Why are these mailings not called "oracles"? When people communicate with each other, they do so with 'speech' and 'words'. Why are those communications, based on the dictionary definitions, not called "oracles"? Because it's PRIMARY UNDERSTOOD MEANING is NOT about "speaking" and -understood- communication, but of supernatural trance-state enigma and allegory; communication between humans and demons (the spirit world).

When I just said "to speak", that's not -quite- right. Speech indicates communication with -words-; whereas uttering can indicate merely the making of -sound-. Speech is uttering. But uttering does not necessarily connote speaking with -words-. Uttering -can- include speech, but it can also include grunting, howling and making whatever other noises might be made with the vocal apparatus, such as muttering, babbling, moaning, sighing, etc. Are we understanding the difference?

And when they take what is commonly understood as spiritist (demonic) manifestations, and claim it is of God, that is calling "evil good". Essentially, this is the same battle as is engaged with pentecostalism and charismania. They empty their minds and become demon-possessed ("spirit-filled"), and call it God's blessing and anointing. That is calling "evil good". They use a pagan concept, "oracle", and claim that it is how God gave His Word. That is calling "evil good". Isaiah is quite clear...

    "Woe to those who call evil good..."

    "The entrance of Your Words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple." (Ps119:130)

Paganism and demonology is "works of darkness" (Eph5:11) They take the workings of satan and his darkness and claim it is how God gave His Light.
    "Woe to those who put darkness for light..."
What more needs to be said?!


There was something on NPR (national public radio) the other morning about Wikipedia. Apparently teachers and professors typically do not accept research from their students based solely on Wikipedia. Based on the submission somebody did for the vw-edition, I understand first-hand. Another time when I was searching around to see where "paul becker" might appear on the internet, I discovered in a Wikipedia entry (referencing something posted at the vw website) that I was a "Bible school graduate". I'm not. I -attended- Bible school, but graduated from a state university with a music performance degree. Just because something is published, doesn't mean it is accurate or correct. Same with dictionaries.

Nor are history books. The recording of history is done by the "winners". The losers were often -dead-. Or if alive, they were in servitude to the victors, with no rights, and could not record "their side" of the conflict. And once compiled, needed the 'approval' of whoever to ascertain "political correctness", rather than factual accuracy.

A few weeks ago somebody challenged something, asking if these writings are "peer reviewed". Wikipedia insists on having external sources... if you will... peer review of whatever is posted. A lot of 'links' equates with 'accuracy' to them. But that didn't help them in their inaccuracies. The Webster's 1828 is the same thing to the KJV (translation). It might be like Wikipedia's 'peer reviews', but it does not indicate accuracy of the translation. Any thug can gather a bunch of his goons around, who all 'agree' with his words; but it does not authenticate TRUTH...just like all the false prophets that were telling Ahab to go to battle and have great success, but lone Micaiah told TRUTH, which differed from all of satan's goons, that Ahab was going to die in battle.

So... OK... have we beat this dead horse enough?


Return to: Q/A's