The War Against God and His Word

Have you ever stopped to think about why, when someone experiences sudden pain or anger—like stubbing their toe or hammering their thumb—they often blurt out the name of Jesus Christ as a curse? It's seldom the name of any other religious figure, such as Buddha or Muhammad, and you never hear people profaning the names of their beloved family members, like their mother or father, in such moments. This selective targeting isn't random; it points to a deeper, spiritual antagonism toward the one name that embodies divine authority and salvation. As the Bible states, "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father".(1)

Jesus anticipated this kind of hatred, warning His followers: "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you".(2) Authentic Christianity, anchored in the unaltered gospel of Christ, inherently challenges the world's systems and values. In contrast, false teachings and compromised doctrines are readily welcomed. Scripture foretells this shift: "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables".(3) The world rejects the exposing light of truth because "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil".(4)

This ongoing spiritual conflict doesn't stop at misusing Jesus' name; it aggressively assaults the Bible itself, especially the King James Version (KJV) and its underlying Textus Receptus. If the KJV weren't the preserved Word of God, why does it face such vehement opposition from diverse quarters? Academics question its phrasing, skeptics deride its authority, and occult leaders have explicitly criticized it.

 Occult Thinkers and Their Views of Biblical Texts

An intriguing historical observation is that several influential occult or esoteric writers openly expressed distrust of the traditional received form of the Bible while favoring scholarly reconstruction based on older manuscript traditions.

One such figure was Manly P. Hall, a well-known occult lecturer and comparative religion writer in the early twentieth century. Writing in 1944, he commented on efforts to revise the Bible text:

“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 is wanted 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.”(5)

Hall’s statement clearly reflects approval of scholarly attempts to produce revised biblical texts based on critical methods rather than the traditional received form.(6)

Similarly, Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, founder of Theosophy and a major figure in nineteenth-century occult philosophy, strongly criticized the reliability of the traditional Bible and spoke favorably of attempts to reconstruct earlier textual forms.

In *Isis Unveiled* (1877), she wrote:

“The present volumes of the Bible are not the original Scriptures.”

She also described the Bible as:

“A collection of fragments… disfigured by translations, revisions, and arbitrary interpretations.”(7)

Blavatsky consistently praised scholarly efforts to recover what she believed were older textual readings and viewed such reconstructions as closer to the original writings than the received ecclesiastical text tradition.

Thus, both Hall and Blavatsky—figures deeply associated with occult and esoteric worldviews—expressed clear preference for critical reconstruction based on earlier manuscripts rather than the traditional Textus Receptus underlying the King James Version.

When avowed adversaries of God favor these alternative manuscripts and translations, it should raise serious red flags for believers. The Bible cautions against such tampering: "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar".(8)

The evidence mounts when considering the origins of these critical texts. Manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus hail from Alexandria, a center of Greek philosophy and Gnosticism, where early figures like Origen infused Scripture with pagan influences, allegorizing texts to downplay key doctrines such as the Trinity and Christ's deity.(9) These ideas echoed Gnostic teachings that separated spirit from matter and questioned biblical literalism. By contrast, the Textus Receptus stems from the Byzantine manuscript tradition, preserved in areas less affected by such corruptions, reflecting the majority of extant Greek texts.(10)

Accepting these modern translations as superior would suggest that God's Word was obscured or lost for over a thousand years—confined to isolated monasteries or altered by corrupt institutions during the Middle Ages. Yet Jesus promised eternal preservation: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away".(11) He also declared of His church: "upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it".(12) This assurance is reinforced in the Psalms: "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever" Psalm 12:6-7, KJV.(13) And Isaiah affirms: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever" Isaiah 40:8, KJV.(14)

Historical records validate this divine safeguarding. Faithful communities, such as the Waldensians in the Italian Alps, protected manuscripts aligned with the Received Text, enduring severe persecution while copying and disseminating them.(15) The Albigenses in France similarly upheld pure Scriptures amid brutal crusades.(16) Reformers continued this legacy: John Wycliffe produced an English translation in the 1380s from similar sources; William Tyndale, executed in 1536 for his work, translated from Hebrew and Greek texts in the Byzantine tradition, emphasizing accessibility for the common people.(17) Others like Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the producers of the 1560 Geneva Bible paved the way for the KJV, completed in 1611 by 47 scholars under King James I's commission.(18) These individuals acted as God's instruments to ensure His Word remained available, not hidden away.

In conflicts where human opinions clash with Scripture—be it from scholarly arrogance, occult influences, or ecclesiastical power plays—the divine standard is unequivocal: "God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar" (Romans 3:4, KJV).(19) The onslaught against the KJV transcends debates over vocabulary; it's a strategic effort to undermine confidence in God's immutable truth, as warned: "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God" (2 Corinthians 2:17, KJV).(20) In this enduring battle against God and His Word, those who cling to it are promised triumph: "For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith" (1 John 5:4, KJV).(21)

 Footnotes

1. Philippians 2:10-11, King James Version.  

2. John 15:18-19, King James Version.  

3. 2 Timothy 4:3-4, King James Version.  

4. John 3:19, King James Version.  

5. Manly P. Hall, “Asia in the Balance of the Scales,” Horizon Magazine, Spring 1944.  

6. John William Burgon, *The Revision Revised* (1883), critique of textual revision methods.  

7. Helena P. Blavatsky, *Isis Unveiled*, Vol. 2 (1877), critiques of biblical transmission and praise for textual reconstruction efforts.  

8. Proverbs 30:5-6, King James Version.  

9. D.A. Waite, *Defending the King James Bible* (1992), on Alexandrian Gnostic influences.  

10. Edward F. Hills, *The King James Version Defended* (1956), on manuscript traditions.  

11. Matthew 24:35, King James Version.  

12. Matthew 16:18, King James Version.  

13. Psalm 12:6-7, King James Version.  

14. Isaiah 40:8, King James Version.  

15. David Otis Fuller, *Which Bible?* (1970), on Waldensian preservation.  

16. Ibid., on Albigenses.  

17. Gail Riplinger, *New Age Bible Versions* (1993), on Tyndale's work.  

18. Ibid., on Reformation translations.  

19. Romans 3:4, King James Version.  

20. 2 Corinthians 2:17, King James Version.  

21. 1 John 5:4, King James Version.