Video: Bottles, wine skins, and phony King James Bibles

So is it bottles or wine skins? And what’s the New Scofield Reference Bible got to do with it? Some comments about the “Mandela Effect” in my post on the Lion and the Lamb (a verse that does not and never has existed in the Bible) prompted me to record this video.

Here’s an outline of the video content.

  • Comments on Misremembered Bible Quotes (Lion and the Lamb) shows the confusion caused by phony “King James Bible updates.”
    • A visitor throws in with the “yea hath God said” chorus offering evidence of stealth changes to the King James Bible:
    • Supposedly, the real King James Bible has “wineskins” but this has been changed to “bottles.” The comment says “WAKE UP! THE KJV now has DOCTRINAL, SPELLING, GRAMMAR, PUNCTUATION errors, and nonsense verses.”
    • His “evidence” is that his 1967 AKJV “still has” wine skins. He thinks it’s “nonsensical” to have “bottles” here because he thinks bottles must be made of glass or plastic.
  • No King James Bible has “wine skins” anywhere. The King James Bible uses the word “bottle” in 25 verses. Example:
    • Joshua 9:4 (KJV) They did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old, and rent, and bound up;
  • What’s this guy actually talking about?
    • This person is unaware that the so-called “authorized” KJV they’ve got is actually a fake Bible – a phony “update” to the King James called the New Scofield Reference Bible.
    • In 1967, some people figured there would be some good money in updating the Old Scofield Bible. They change Scofield’s notes, and they inserted their own “helpful updates” to the King James Bible text itself.
    • The fake text of the NSRB: bottles is changed to skins and rent is changed to torn.
      • Picture
      • Note the marginal note that even says the KJV has bottles. How nice of them to leave it in the margin for us. Too bad the guy who posted his comment didn’t take the time to read it—but that is the point, the margin is usually not read as the text is.
    • Notice that despite their change in the Bible text itself, they still call it an Authorized King James.
      • picture
    • The word in the King James is bottles. The only people confused by this would be ones who don’t know what a bottle is.
      • Webster 1913: A hollow vessel, usually of glass or earthenware (but formerly of leather), with a narrow neck or mouth, for holding liquids.
      • OED 2: a A vessel with a narrow neck for holding liquids, now usually made of glass; originally of leather.
    • Why does the NSRB change this? It can’t be because skins is clearer, since people can wear Bottles is obviously the correct and more precise noun. A bottle is a container for liquids with a narrow neck. It can be made of anything and was probably leather. Skins can be clothes or something to write on or a million other things. The change is obviously inferior.
    • What about some of the other changes? Time precludes a detailed example, but let’s take this verse in the King James:
      • Genesis 3:5 (KJV) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
      • The NSRB thinks it’s helpful to change as gods to like God.
        • Picture
      • There is nothing archaic about gods in Genesis 3:5. Say what you want, but this is a straight-up change of the highest order. They aren’t fixing a printing error or adjusting the grammar. They are changing the text.
      • You know who else changes as gods to like God here? The New King James Version. The NIV does. And the list goes on.
    • One more:
      • Isaiah 5:14 (KJV) Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
      • NSRB changes hell to the transliterated Sheol.
        • picture
      • The NSRB editors claim their updates are helpful. Changing a translation to a transliteration is not helpful. They think they are correcting mistakes in the King James Bible with this, not just “updating” old words.
      • You know who else makes this “update?” The NKJV. And the ESV.
      • Don’t try to argue that hell is a mistake here. Fine. You go get yourself an ESV and read that if you think so. Don’t change words in the King James to make it line up with modern translation and keep calling it a King James.
    • So why do they do this?
      • Obviously, God is not the same as gods, and gods is not hard to understand. We know what gods
      • Obviously, Sheol is not easier to understand than hell, so that is not just “updating” the language either.
      • And nobody is going to be overwhelmed with Biblical understanding because somebody changes bottles to skins. So why?
    • A gateway to the Critical Text of the modern versions
      • All you need to know is written in the introduction, where it says:
        • “improvements and further helps to the reader…” because “additional light has been thrown upon the Scriptures by textual scholarship…”
        • You know, all those helpful corrections you find in modern versions because of textual criticism—they’re just helping you out by introducing a few of those to you in the NSRB. They call it an Authorized King James so you’ll trust it.
      • The NKJV is no different in this goal. To wit:
        • Under the pretense of “updating the language,” the word-count for blood dropped from 447 (KJV) to 424 (NKJV), and not surprisingly, bringing it closer to the modern translations based on the Critical Text.
        • The archaic and quaint hell went from 54 appearances in the KJV to a much less difficult 32 in the NKJV, instead using transliterations of the Hebrew and Greek since the English was so difficult.
        • Of course, blood and hell are not difficult for the modern reader; the goal is to introduce what the editors think are corrections to the text that you are missing out on by not using the NIV or NASB.
      • Don’t see the pattern yet?
        • 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
        • When the 1885 English Revised Version was published, the word science was changed to knowledge
          • 1 Timothy 6:20 (RV) O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;
          • Later, the American Standard Version (1901) and Revised Standard Version (1946) also made this “helpful substitution.” Isn’t the science of textual criticism grand?
        • NSRB, claiming to be the Authorized King James, changes science to knowledge.
          • picture
        • NKJV changes science to
        • NIV (1973, 1984, 2011—take your pick) changes science to knowledge.
        • ESV changes science to knowledge.
        • NASB changes science to knowledge.
        • The NRSB says it’s an Authorized King James Bible. Yet the King James Bible used the word knowledge 172 times and not in this verse. The translators were well aware of the word knowledge but used science For some reason, those textual critics… who regard what they do as a science… figured that we should “update” science to knowledge, matching all of the modern critical-text-based translations in doing so.
        • And by the way, the next time you hear a preacher using a King James come to 1Ti 6:20 and then pull out his Strong’s Lexicon to “helpfully substitute” the word knowledge here, you might wonder why he thinks he needs to make your Bible sound more like a New International Version than a King James…
      • And in the end, if this doesn’t move people closer to the false modern Bibles, it certainly ends in confusion!
        • Yea, hath God said? (Ge 3:1) Look back at the blog post comment that got me started on this. Somebody thinks that the real King James Bible is “nonsensical” because it has the word “bottles” while his so-called King James (the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967) has “wine skins” (so does the NKJV and other modern versions).
        • In the end, this guy and many others have been confused and deceived because of these changes made under the pretense of “updating the language.” They can’t spot a real Bible because of it.

16 thoughts on “Video: Bottles, wine skins, and phony King James Bibles”

  1. Thank you very much for this video. My wife and I currently can’t find a church that actually believes the bible so we do our own home church.

  2. Another thing about having ‘updated’ versions, I believe, is that it is also designed to make people confused if they wish to memorize Bible verses. Which version do I memorize there are so many to
    choose from ?????? Scripture memorization can go in the ‘too hard’ basket, and I won’t memorize anything at all, cos I don’t know which is best!!!!!

  3. Thanks for your interesting analysis. Always good to listen to your posts. I think changes to the AV are made often on an emotional basis, e.g. “bottles” seems to conjure up plastic/glass for most readers, so is it clear? I still prefer your reasoning. On “science” in 1 Timothy, why did the KJV translators think it necessary to use the word? Was “science” used as a word denoting a certain kind of knowledge? – if so, what?

    1. I think this warrants deeper study. My current thinking is that science in this case indicates an act of knowing, not just knowledge, and is tied in with a process of obtaining knowledge. We have so many “sciences” that are teachings on how to become knowledgeable that are themselves false — not just false knowledge but false science. Those are just my thoughts off the top of my head.

    2. ..tossing a few cents into the ring..
      When I study this word (science falsely so called) and see the superior use by the AV in this… I notice that it makes a clear distinction apart from the other uses of learning knowledge which support True Knowledge.

      Gnosticism was and is still, a direct opposition to the Knowledge of Christ as God in the Flesh. Because to the Gnostic doctrine, knowledge and wisdom (Sophia) are spiritual in nature, and never physical, for to be physical (matter) is to have a fallen state of evil, and the one producing a physical state, is evil of the highest order (they maintain Jesus Christ to be an Emanation only). This opposition against the Truth by those who promote “science falsely so called” –can be seen as the doctrine which is being refuted by Paul here (and admonishing Timothy to refute as well ) and in other NT books/epistles. That fight is not over and done, and is still with us today.

      Here is what others from days of the past consider “science” (Naves topical, as found in SwordSearcher 8.2)
      •Observations of, and deductions from, facts
      Job 26:7-14; 28; Ec 1:13-17
      •So-called, false
      1Ti 6:20
      •The key of knowledge
      Lu 11:52; Ro 2:20

      Gnosticism would teach…
      –Because the Law is physical, it could only be produced by an evil being–
      Yes they do teach that God our Father is evil to the core and imprisoning the earth which he created.
      “Fall out” Gnostic doctrine today in the church can be seen in Antinomianism and many other places. Ideas taught like… “repent” doesn’t really mean turn from sin (that’s just physical anyway), it’s just meanz all ya gotta do is turn to God and believe he exists…”

      ^^^ And this is just the short version 😉 of a whole huge pile more to learn about this topic. Thanks for posting the question

  4. Just a quick typo correction…
    NSRB (above)
    SHOULD BE
    NRSB (New Revised Standard Bible)

    I’ll save my other comments for later

      1. sorry…!! I’m just so used to seeing the NRSB and the others which all want to change the Word of God in lists similar to this… that I just skimmed your article without reading closer…

        Then I right clicked on NSRB and “ask Cortana” trying for a quick answer because I wanted to check if maybe there was yet another fake bible with that acronym, and no “bible” was listed by it in the first few hits so I figured it must just be a typo and carried on. Because you could* say pretty much the same things about all of the fake bibles and their changes and attempts to change the Bible, as you pointed out anyway, and while I was attempting to save time by skimming initially, I ended up watching the video anyway and heard what I expected to hear about changes and so on. And now I just toss the NSRB on the heap-o-junk pile too.
        But.
        There is a root issue and ME (Mandela effect) that I was skimming to see if you touched on, but did not see it.

        A lot of these attacks against the REAL -AV-, are passed around with the “bong” of the dopey followers of those who also can’t say the name “Jesus” because … well… thar ain’t no “j” in the Greek… and yada yahooda yeshua or was that yahmaha and so on bunch of rising smoke as they want you to trust their “new better translation” same ole song, different dance. It all starts with casting doubt on the Truth, and any ole doubt will do, and the sucker who sucked in is filled with the same smoke.

        But. #2
        While “M.E.” is another vehicle used as a new tool to the end of deadly Doubt-Fire against the AV, there are other examples of ME that are not so easy to explain away as mis-remembering alone; and that topic needs more investigation, and that with those who are of the type that saw whole neighborhoods disappear, or buildings pop up in empty lots in the space of 1-2 hours or finding they were married to a different named person after spending years with them; and others who had their children and every physical trace of them disappear… and spent all they had to try and find them. Others who admitted themselves to professional mental health institutes because of these types of dramatic events. — what I am saying is— there is a lot more to the M.E. than is touched on. And it pre-dates the current M.E. “mis-remembering stuff”… trend. I keep my nose to the ground looking for those others and such as understand and know about them. Sorry I missed your NSRB name explained in the topic at first; I just kind of don’t key on bibles with all the commentary anyway anymore because they all pitch new and different doctoring than what is in the Bible, and these commentaries have become a modern Catechism or rule of agreement needed for making new members of certain denominations … like [“if you don’t believe pre-trib and dispensation doctrine well; — move on buddy you ain’t even saved let alone welcome to join our church”].

        Thanks for the work and video!

  5. Well, the true church isn’t a place, but a people, anyway. If you actually look at what the scriptures describe, regarding the church, it looks exactly like a house gathering. I just have a difficult time finding brothers and sisters locally that want to gather together in the name of our Lord. Outside of the corporations that label themselves as “churches” (falsely so called).

  6. Thank you for this, I only use the KJV Bible but the only comment I can make on the proliferation of modern translations is that Satan has used them greatly to deceive. It is like when he tried to tempt Jesus on the mount by misquoting Scripture the same as in Eden. Change a word here and there…and we have the very same thing with these versions. It is bad now that people buy what they think is KJV and there are changes sneakily put in. Thank you for the warning!_We need to always be on guard. I am looking for a single column KJV but the new Cambridge one I have heard also has changes. Is this correct? Do you know of any available in single column that are the true King James?
    Thanks again, and may God bless you for your timely warnings. We need them more than ever.

  7. Brandon, I have found places the NSRB changes words that go with the critical text without telling you! How deceptive!

  8. Dear Brandon,
    I am not a robot!!! ?
    I am a Bible believing Baptist!!!?
    I have been blessed by Gail Riplanger’s outing of the Counterfeit COMMUNIST bibles.????
    I liked your reference to, ye shall be as god’s . These Conterfeit COMMUNIST bibles are written to make you believe,You can be God today !!.. by paying for this copyright.
    As I’ve heard it said before, these guys need to earn an honest living. I believe McDonald’s is hiring smiling faces, not incompetent Conterfeit COMMUNIST bible makers.
    May the Lord bless you and Gail Riplanger for the work you all doing.
    Great website!!! Blessed to find it because I was wanting to understand the etymology and meaning of the ,4000 PORTERS , David assigned before he died and the temple was built.

    Revelation 3:8 KJVS
    I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name.
    Your friend in Christ, Chris Carreno

  9. Hey Brandon, I just want to thank you for getting on the battlefield and fighting the good fight and providing a resource where we that believe in the doctrine of preservation can use when needed. I have been trying to show my mom for a few years now why her RSV is not trustworthy and just sent her a link to this post. I have sent others to your site before also. we need more resources to show it all boils down to which Greek? Between my av1611 Holy Bible, you, Gail and a couple of Pastors in Missouri…Reg Kelly and Michael Hoggard I have been very blessed to have an arsenal at my disposal when needed. Thanks for all you do and God Bless!

  10. I really thought my bible said wine skins and now it doesn’t. I’ve had the same bible for 27 years. Where would I even hear the term wine skins? I don’t believe in the Mandela affect but that freaked me out a little.

    1. As I explain in this video, “wineskins” is a modern translation (and a silly one at that), and has been inserted into fake so-called “king james bibles” like the New Scofield. So you probably heard someone repeating this modernization, and your memory took it as part of the King James Bible even though it isn’t. I have gone through this myself, having read an NIV for years before becoming a King James guy. To this day, I still deal with this occasionally, making sure I am not incorrectly quoting something because of what I read in the NIV all those years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *