Waymarks Magazine

Waymarks Contender No.64

2011-02-21T02:43:00.001-08:00

Waymarks 64

Report of Open Air Preaching

November 24^th LUTON Town Centre. A man came and stood too close to me for my liking. He told me he was a Zimbabwean. He claimed, as he puffed cigarette smoke in my face, that he was a believer and had been helped by Jacob and Moses and a few others. I understood him to mean they had appeared physically and had helped him. I hoped he would soon go away as he seemed somewhat demented, and I was preaching close to where a policeman had been knifed to death by a schizophrenic not long ago.

At last he went, without incident, I am glad to say. And I preached on.

The Big Issue boy arrived and flashed his gold teeth at me. But I preached on.

I have wanted to write about Bill for some time. He is now no longer with us and so I give a little of his story. I met him first here in Luton Town Centre. He came and stood alongside me while I preached. I turned to speak to him and after a few minutes he warned me not to look up at the offices behind us.

“We are being watched.” He warned. The offices belong to Lloyds Bank.

He suffered from paranoia and had a persecution mania.

After several meetings in the open air, Bill asked if he could collect water from my house (He always carried water bottles with him) because “they” were poisoning his water supply.

Bill responded to the gospel with interest and eventually came to our Hall to hear the gospel.

He told us at the end that he was saved and asked for baptism. He was interviewed and gave a good reply so we arranged the baptism.

On the evening of the baptism we sat waiting for the meeting to start when he turned to me and told me he did not believe a word of anything we had taught him. I rose, pulled the plug in the baptistry, and started the meeting.

Bill was not the least bit moved by my response and asked if on the way home we could visit the Eddlesborough church cemetery where his mother was buried.

This church, built in the 13^th Cent is on a hill and has been out of use for a very long time but the graveyard is open.

When we found his mother’s grave Bill became agitated.

He cried out that the body had been stolen. He knew this, he told me, because the ground had sunk a few inches. I pointed out to him that it was merely the earth settling above the coffin but he would not have it and began to get distressed.

Then he asked me to pray for his mother. I explained to him why I would not do this so he said he would himself pray for her soul.

At this I warned him I would immediately leave him but he began to pray.

It was dusk. The wind was blowing and clouds were scudding across the sky.

As I got to the Lynch Gate I turned and saw him silhouetted against the sky, his hands clasped in front of him; a gaunt figure with his raincoat flapping round him.

We took him home but I resolved henceforth to avoid him if at all possible. It wasn’t!

Sometimes we make mistakes but we take people at face value until we have a reason to do otherwise. We offered Bill friendship and help. He didn’t refuse it but he was too damaged to respond properly.

Many of those I meet while preaching in the street have deep personal problems. They are sad individuals but seem unable to respond to the gospel. They cannot grasp that salvation is the greatest blessing that any soul can enter into.

AV Verses Vindicated

Galatians 1: 15

But when it pleased God (o theos), who separated me from my mother’s womb….

“But when he who had set me apart before I was born….” ESV

The Westcott/Hort Greek Text has o theos bracketed.

The Net.Bible suggests that scribes would have no reason for omitting the words. The shorter reading, it is claimed by the critcs) is usually the correct one.

However, Net.Bible admits there is strong manuscript evidence for keeping o theos.

Colossians 3: 2

Set your affections phroneo) on things above,

“have your mind on the things that are above” JND

“keep your minds fixed on things there,” GNB

Our AV translators were well aware that phroneo can be translated mind (as well as several other English words). They knew also that if one’s desires and longings were not centred in heaven, the mind would never be set there.

The affections of the modern critics appear to be very much earth and self-centred.

Hebrews 1: 2

….by his Son….

“….in his Son….” RV

“….in the person of the Son….” JND

“….through his Son….” GNB

“….by his Son….” NIV

Adam Clarke, in his commentary, wrote,

By his Son. It is very remarkable that the pronoun autou, his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read en uiw, BY A SON, or IN A SON….

We would not place too much reliance on Clarke’s works, seeing that he considered Christ to have a fallen nature.

Some preachers are telling us that “his” being in italics, should be omitted. This reduces the phrase to gibberish. The English language demands a pronoun, which our translators have supplied. The preachers will hasten to tell us that the omission adds quality to “Son” by emphasising His nature. Why have not the producers of our modern versions noted this necessity for omission? In fact, Greek is a highly reflexive language and therefore pronouns are frequently not needed.

There are at least twenty instances where a pronoun has been inserted in the Hebrew epistle. They are easily identified in the Authorized Version, being placed in italics, that the reader might understand the sense of the passage.

Sometimes, in a modern version where the italic pronoun has been removed, the meaning of the passage is changed. See Heb. 12: 2, The author and finisher of our faith (the body of doctrine we share) in AV Bible becomes in modern versions (personal) “faith” (the author and finisher of faith)— over which therefore we have no exercise. If Christ is the author and finisher of faith, then the believer cannot effect it.

Revelation 16: 5

….Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be…..

“Righteous art thou, which art and which wast, thou Holy One….” RV

“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and who was….” ESV

O Lord is omitted, and also and shalt be in modern versions. “Thou Holy One” is inserted in modern versions.

This is a favourite battle ground for the critics as there appears to be little manuscript evidence for the AV reading. However, Beza found Greek manuscript evidence and the AV translators plainly considered this to be the true reading.

We believe these men to be led of God in producing for us one definitive English Bible.

By the Way….

This year marks the 400^th anniversary of the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible. The anniversary is being celebrated by various organisations. One we need to take note of with much caution is the King James Bible Trust.

This trust has Prince Charles as its patron. We need hardly make further comment! Charles is pagan in outlook and is a notorious adulterer. He has no love for the Scriptures. The vice patron is Richard Chartres, Bishop of London.

The trustees include several active members of Bible Society, an organisation dedicated to the destruction of the AV Bible.

The aims of the King James Bible Trust are;

To promote the cultural importance of the KJB.
To understand the politics of the KJB
To illustrate Christianity’s hand in developing our society.

Events will be taking place at various locations during the year.

Richard Dawkins, Andrew Motion, and Patricia Routledge will be reading from the KJB on You Tube.

The aims of KJBT reveal its rejection of any spiritual significance or value to the Bible. It’s supernatural origin is treated with scorn. The “old” Bible is a glorious museum piece. Its worth is solely in its literary value, but it can be used now for political and social gain.

That Dawkins is giving his support to this endeavour is highly significant. He is the nation’s leading God-hater.

A 1611 AD Authorized Bible is being republished to celebrate the 400th anniversary. It is being reprinted “with all its original errors”. We think one purpose behind this is to cause doubt in the minds of present day Bible believers.

There were indeed many typological errors in the first edition. These were corrected and later many spellings were corrected and the use of u for v, and f for s in printing were changed.

There was never anything wrong with the text or its translation.

Go to You Tube and watch David Cloud on the History of the King James Bible if you want a reliable account.

□ We are told yet again “The King James Version is not perfect,” (M Sweetnam; How we got our Bible (10), Truth and Tidings). This statement is put out as a matter of fact and not as an opinion.

The words of Christ, found within this allegedly imperfect version, are Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. Matt. 5: 8. If Sweetnam is correct these words are cant and humbug. If they are the truth, Sweetnam is a liar and a deceiver. Or confused!. A perfect God, demanding perfect followers, yet cannot produce a perfect book!

But because God is perfect, He can work wonders with poor fallen but saved men and women. They can become perfect while living on this planet. They are complete spiritually, mentally, and morally. (so says Strong).

When a critic of God’s Book pours scorn on it, though he be mightily endowed in natural intelligence, and has a piece of paper signed by others similarly endowed to say he is an expert in this world’s intelligence, we who know the God of heaven, and walk with Him, know that He has given us an English Bible which is perfect. It is complete. There is nothing lacking down to its final jot and tittle that was not first settled in heaven.

If this is not so, I do not have a God I can trust. But having walked with Him for 55 years I have learned His faithfulness and competence to preserve His own word.

It is not difficult to determine where it is preserved.

□ Romans 16: 17, 18 urges us to mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

The simple are good folk (literally they are “not bad”). They are not necessarily naïve, but they are innocent and unsuspecting. They believe they are in a safe community where they will not be infected with divisive material. Such are many of our brethren and sisters.

We have to take heed of the warnings in Scripture. Their inclusion indicates the danger. The earliest divisions were caused by the Judaisers who wanted to introduce some of the rituals of the ceremonial law into church life.

Seriously divisive men today try to foist depraved and perverted versions of the Bible on us. Others bring their Calvinistic errors into the assemblies of God’s people. Others want to bring in divorced and remarried persons, described by the Lord as adulterers and adulteresses.

We are to avoid these. We are not bidden to dialogue with them.

□ Revelationtv.com broadcast recently a debate on King James Bible Exclusivism. Dr J White spoke for modern versions and Dr J Moorman defended the KJB and its underlying text. What disturbed me was the ease with which White could lie on air. His attack convinced me yet further of the deceitfulness of so many who defend modern versions.

Dr Moorman said that Count Tischendorf found (pages of) the Codex Sinaiticus in a waste basket awaiting being put on the fire. This was refuted by White who said it was brought to Tischendorf on a cushion.

Tischendorf’’s own account is preserved for us:-

. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.

This extract is taken from Constantin von Tischendorf, When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript (New York: American Tract Society, 1866).

(The whole can be downloaded foc by going to Google > Books and entering “Tischendorf When were our gospels written”)

More Lies and Forebodings from Truth and Tidings

The Text of the New Testament by Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman provides, in its earlier chapters, an excellent discussion of the production and transmission of the earliest copies of Scripture. Its later chapters, which discuss textual criticism, provide a clear account of the history and practice of the discipline. Some of the widely-accepted conclusions of textual criticism have been challenged by Eta Linnemann in Biblical Criticism on Trial. Her argument is complex, and heavily statistical and not, perhaps, for the faint of heart.—Truth and Tidings; January 2010; How we got our Bible; M Sweetnam

M Sweetnam is not aware, or does not wish his readers to know, that there are other critiques of Textual Criticism available which show this form of criticism to be corrupt.

Eta Linneman was a prominent advocate of TC until she was saved through the witness of one of her students. She then set about demolishing TC. (Her life’s work!) We note Sweetnam does not fault her findings, but he could also have mentioned Dr Jack Moorman, probably the world’s leading authority on the subject of manuscripts and the Received Text. We have also Dr D Cloud, and Dr D Waite and several more beside.

Metzger and Ehrman are unreliable sources for the believer. D Cloud wrote concerning these two:-

BRUCE METZGER believed Moses did not write the Pentateuch, Deuteronomy was not written until 700 years before Christ, the Old Testament is a mixture of “myth, legend, and history,” the record of the worldwide flood of Noah’s day is exaggerated, the book of Job is a folktale, the miracle accounts about Elijah and Elisha contain “legendary elements,” Isaiah was written by Isaiah plus two or three unknown men who wrote centuries later, the record of Jonah is a “legend,” Daniel does not contain supernatural prophecy, Paul did not write the Pastoral Epistles, Peter did not write 2 Peter, etc. All of these unbelieving lies can be found in the notes to the Reader’s Digest Condensed Bible, which were written by Metzger, and in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, of which Metzger is a co-editor.—Wayoflife.org

BART EHRMAN is the author of “God’s Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question--Why We Suffer.” Ehrman is a “biblical scholar” who rejected his fundamentalist roots for the deadly wilderness of agnosticism. Today he majors in criticizing the New Testament Christian faith even while pretending to respect it. Because of his unbelief, he has become something of a mainstream media darling. He has been interviewed on the History Channel, the Discovery Channel, National Public Radio, National Geographic, BBC, the Washington Post, CNN, and others.
Ehrman holds the chair of religious studies at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, where he is busy destroying any Christian faith his students might possess, and he has published many books tearing down the Bible for a wider audience.—Wayoflife.org

Double Talk. From Fred Tatford

1 "[We] should be eternally grateful to those valiant souls whom as the world was emerging out of the Dark Ages, risked life and limb to bring to mankind the word of God in [our] own tongue. Names such as John Wycliffe(1320-84) and Wm. Tyndale (1484-1536) whose translation efforts were responsible for the major portion of our present beloved Authorised Version, should still be remembered with joy, as we recall that it was such men as these heroes of the faith who paved the way for us today to have the Word of God so freely available....it appears to have been miraculously preserved and protected, despite all the bitter onslaughts of its enemies throughout the past 400 years." Is the Bible Reliable? ¹ by Fredk. Tatford; Believer's Magazine; Jan.1981.

Until I came across this article recently, I had thought that the Preservation of Scripture was a doctrine totally untaught among the 'brethren'.

In the same article F.T. went on to say "Under the guise of scholarship, and latterly Humanism, we find a subtle move afoot to 'destroy the foundations' by a process of whittling away, or eroding the authority of the Word of God as represented in the old established version." Dr. Tatford was a one-time Director of the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority. Was somebody just about to call him a poor ignorant untaught clod?

¹Sadly, we discover that Fred was not so “pro-AV” as might be thought. I came across his little book recently and read this:

Unfortunately for the case of the critics, the Bible does not say that Jonah was swallowed by a whale. In Jonah 1: 17, it is said that God prepared a great fish (rendered in the Septuagint by the Greek word keetos—a sea monster) for the purpose, and in Matt. 12: 40, our Lord declared that Jonah was in the belly, not of a whale as stated in the Authorized Version, but of a sea monster (Greek word keetos).—p. 39.

I refer my readers to my AV Verses Vindicated; Matt.12: 40 for a refutation of this attack on Scripture.—

For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, that whales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton.

ketos is found here only in the New Testament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation.. The literal translation of ketos is “sea monster” and the only sea monster known to man is the whale. Great fish” translated into Greek becomes megalo psari and this is not found in the Greek NT. The three Greek NT words for fish are optos, icthus, opsarion. None of these means whale or sea monster. It is better then, simply to believe the Bible

The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2, Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou art as a whale.

We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow a man whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures are mentioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized with the fishes of the sea.

(See online www.avbibleversesvindicated.blogspot.com )

Lying Talk. From Jack Hay

2 "It is generally accepted that the Revised Version is the more accurate translation by virtue of the fact that much earlier manuscripts were available to the revisers." How I study my Bible by Jack Hay; Believer's Magazine; Jan.'80.

Of course it never was "generally accepted..." And it was demonstrated long before 1980 that the perverted mss. used by the revisers were well enough known to the 1611 A.V. translators. I hope Jack has read Fred's article.! —Waymarks Aug.1995

Twenty years later, we find apostasy rampant among the Brethren. The Believer’s Magazine, a product of J Ritchie Ltd, is markedly hostile to the Authorized Bible.

What’s in a name? AV or KJV? Who was James anyway?

LAYING BARE THE EVIL (quoted in Berean Call)

"Some one, then, must undertake the ungracious task of probing and laying bare the evils of the age; for men must not be allowed to congratulate themselves that all is well. If others will not, he will.

If others shrink from the obloquy of such a work, he will not.... He loves his fellow-men too well. They may upbraid him; they may call him a misanthropist, or a prophet of evil; they may ascribe his warnings to the worst of motives, such as pride, or arrogance, or self-esteem, or malice, or envy; but he will give no heed to these unjust insinuations.

He will prefer being thus misunderstood and maligned, to allowing men to precipitate themselves upon a ruin which they see not. Rather than that they should perish, he will allow his own good name to be spoken against. He will risk every thing, even the hatred of brethren, rather than withhold the warning. If they give no heed to it, he has, at least, saved his own soul. If they do, he has saved both his own soul and theirs.”

-- Horatius Bonar (Scottish pastor, 1808-1889)

WAS THE KING JAMES BIBLE AUTHORIZED? By David Cloud

Was the King James Bible Authorized? This point has been debated aggressively, because no record of authorization has survived. (All of the documents from the Privy Council from 1600. 1613 were destroyed in the Whitehall fire of 1619.) Whether or not it was actually authorized by a king is not really important, of course, as there can be no doubt that God put His stamp of approval upon it, and that is what matters. But since this is a point that is debated, I will give four reasons why I am confident that it is proper to refer to the King James Bible as authorized,

ANSWER:

1. At the Hampton Court conference in 1604 King James I made a formal decision to approve the new translation for use in all the churches. It was done by royal order and under royal watchcare. It has never been explained to my satisfaction why this in itself does not constitute "authorization." William Barlow's report of the Hampton Court conference (Barlow was one of the KJV translators and was present at Hampton Court in 1604), stated that the decision was made by the king not only that a new translation would be made but also that it be "ratified by his Royal authority; and so his whole Church to be bound unto it, and none other" (Barlow, the Sum and Substance of the Conference, reprinted in Alfred Pollard, Records of the English Bible pp. 46, 47). Barlow's report was published with the king's approval.

2. The crown of England has held the copyright to the King James Bible from the beginning.

3. The title page to the first edition of the King James Bible stated, "Appointed to be read in Churches."

4 .In 1616 the king issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England. The King James Bible was printed by royal order was printed by authority of the Crown of England, and was appointed to be read in all the churches. I see n reason why this does not constitute formal “authorization” —The Bible Version Question/Answer Database; Way of Life Literature; 2005; P.132

For Love of the Bible By David Cloud -excerpt

We hold to the King James Bible because we reject modern textual criticism.
Consider some facts about modern textual criticism:
Textual criticism is the application of modern linguistic theories to the recovery of ancient documents. The theories of modern textual criticism were initially developed over a period of roughly 100 years from the late 1700s to the late 1800s. During that introductory period its popularity was limited to textual scholars, for the most part, while it was resisted by Bible believers in general. After the publication of the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament in 1881, the theories of modern textual criticism quickly gained dominancy in the field of biblical scholarship.
Modern textual criticism was devised largely by men who treated the Bible as another book and who either did not believe in the doctrine of Bible preservation or refused to predicate their textual theories on this doctrine. Consider two examples. Karl Lachmann, the first textual critic to entirely reject the Received Text, was a "classical scholar" who approached the Bible in the same way that he approached ordinary classical books. Bruce Metzger, who says Lachmann is one of the most important names in the history of modern textual criticism, admits that Lachmann "ventured to apply to the New Testament the criteria that he had used in editing texts of the classics." (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, p. xxiii). Westcott and Hort, the editors of the influential Greek New Testament of 1881, operated under the following principle: "In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to be treated like any other ancient book. No special considerations are to be made concerning its claims of inspiration and preservation." (Westcott and Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881).
Modern textual criticism claims that the Traditional Greek Text, the Text underlying the Reformation Bibles, is corrupt and has a special distaste for it. This was recognized in the 19th century by Presbyterian scholar Robert Dabney:
Their common traits may be said to be AN ALMOST CONTEMPTUOUS DISMISSAL OF THE RECEIVED TEXT, as unworthy not only of confidence, but almost of notice; the rejection of the great mass of the codices of the common text as recent and devoid of nearly all authority; and the settlement of the text by the testimony of a very few MSS. for which they claim a superior antiquity, with the support of a few fathers and versions, whom they are pleased to regard as judicious and trustworthy (Robert Dabney, Discussions: Evangelical and Theological, pp. 354, 55).
Westcott and Hort despised the Greek Received Text. Following is what F.J.A. Hort wrote in 1851, when he was only 23 years old and before he had developed his textual theories or done any serious research in this field: "I had no idea till the last few weeks of the importance of texts, having read so little Greek Testament, and dragged on with THE VILLAINOUS TEXTUS RECEPTUS...Think of THAT VILE TEXTUS RECEPTUS leaning entirely on late MSS.; it is a blessing there are such early ones." (Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, vol. 1, p. 211). Textual critic Ernest Colwell observed that Hort‘s goal was to dethrone the Received Text (Colwell, Scribal Habits in Early Papyri, The Bible in Modern Scholarship, Abingdon, 1965, p. 370). Wilbur Pickering observes: ―It appears that Hort did not arrive at his theory through unprejudiced intercourse with the facts.
Rather, he deliberately set out to construct a theory that would vindicate his preconceived animosity for the Received Text. (Identity of the New Testament Text, ch. 3). Note, too, that Hort was deceived into thinking that the Received Text leans "entirely on late manuscripts."
Bruce Metzger calls the TR "CORRUPT" and Christian people‘s love for it "SUPERSTITIOUS" (Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, 1968, p. 106). He further calls it "DEBASED" and "DISFIGURED" (Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 1975, xxi, xxiii)

This book can be obtained via wayoflife.org

Quote

From a prison visitor.

“Still waiting for an opportunity to take a Bible study in — Prison. I am back to

square one, having been approved by one chaplain, I have now been told that a new coordinating chaplain will need to give his permission when he takes up his position. But the

Lord’s timing is always right! So I will apply again and keep waiting.

Advice to this prison worker:

Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly. Ps.1:1

Email

Dear Ron,

I just noticed in John Grant's article on Egypt in page 15 of Jan 2011 BM that he states that the Old Kingdom (which followed the Early DYnastic period) started in BC 2700.

That places it a few centuries before the Flood (following Ussher or other conservative bible-believing chronologists).

So how did he arrive at that?

Just wondering.

best wishes

S—

Dear S—
I suspect that JG has a copy of the rationalistic and evolutionary Chronological Study Bible, where we read on p.2, "Later pharaohs of the Old Kingdom, beginning about 2700 .C., became famous for their pyramids."
It is a great tragedy that men who purport to be leaders and teachers of God's people draw so freely from the wells of infidelity. I don't suppose more than one or two readers of BM were aware of this piece of nonsense. I must confess I hadn't bothered to read it. Thank you for alerting me.
kind regards,
Ron

(Answers in Genesis places the Flood in the year 2304 B.C. This is based on convincing evidence. The article in BM appears to lack anything spiritual).

"They Stand For Ever"

"These are archaic words," complains the modern lout,

"They're fusty and old-fashioned so we'll chop the whole lot out

And fill in with our modem terms, though sibylline and vague.

And boast we've got the blessing". (They're really struck with plague!)

It is a festering hatred for God's most holy word

That causes men to swoop on it like some polluted bird.

They snip and snatch and hack at it with venal-critic's pen.

But stands the Word unscathed. (And doomed, nefarious men.)

R.S.

“No Enemies”

You have no enemies, you say?

Alas, my friend, the boast is poor.

He who has mingled in the fray

Of duty, that the brave endure

Must have made foes, if you have none,

Small is the work that you have done.

You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,

You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,

You've never turned the wrong to right,

You've been a coward in the fight

Charles Mackay.

Waymarks Contender No. 61

2010-05-19T02:53:00.000-07:00

Waymarks 61

Report of Open Air Preaching

5th March LEIGHTON BUZZARD. By the Cross. I was pleased to see a man standing nearby and listening to the gospel. When I finished preaching he came over to me. After some conversation he told me he was “with the Brethren” and he was delighted to hear the gospel being preached in Leighton Buzzard. It transpired he was an exclusive. I should have guessed by the way he kept his hands behind his back. He was not going to risk a handshake. Eventually he departed to his illegally parked car.

9th March DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. This is the centre of Dunstable. Half the shops around me are closed down and I can see only 20 people walking by. But maybe 20 people need to hear the gospel, so we proceed. Immediately there is a response. A woman starts shouting “praise the Lord”. A few moments later a man shouts abuse. They are listening. This is a good sign. Others, not shouting abuse, are attracted by the commotion and maybe, at the Bema I shall discover yet one more star in my
crown.

10th March LUTON. Town Centre I made a mistake today. The Big Issue boy was seated next to where I wanted to be. I gave him a pound and smiled at him. I thought this would cause him to listen intently to the preaching. As I handed the coin over to him I realised this wasn’t the usual man I have to deal with here. I now realize there are several of these fellows in the High Street, but they all look alike!

13th April LUTON T.C. the original B.I. boy was waiting for me with his hand outstretched. As I finished preaching a man introduced himself to me as a Christian from West Africa. He talked and asked me a few questions and I concluded he was a member of an Evangelical Church. I discovered after half an hour’s conversation that he was a Catholic. Yet he was impressed with my preaching and gave a good answer to all my questions.
While we were speaking a lager lout came up to me with a can of same in his hand. He made a few inane comments before breaking into obscenities. As I began to rebuke him he turned away from me and made off.

20th April LUTON T.C. Market Hill. I headed for my usual place by Don Miller’s but S— was already there giving out tracts. If he had seen ,me he would have run for cover, but I saw him first and made for Market Hill. He has some weird doctrines and doesn’t like me commenting on them.
As I preached two women approached and obviously intended to interrupt me. As they drew near I realised that one of them had spoken to me several years ago. They were Messianic Jews, and attended a local Anglican Church. The younger woman invited me to a powerpoint presentation of oil paintings and hoped to raise funds to go and tract the most evangelised country in the world —Israel.
Next, a man carrying a case told me he had a bag of bananas in his case and would I like one? He looked very serious and had just heard me warn that thieves, adulterers, sodomites, and all sinners would go down into the lake of fire. I declined his kind offer, so he went away.
A woman, suddenly hearing me, stopped in her tracks to cross herself, before she dared walk past me.

22nd April LEIGHTON BUZZARD. By the Cross. This day was made for open air preaching. It was warm, the air was still, traffic noise was minimal., and the benches were full of folk enjoying this Spring day. In front of me hung an object lesson. High up on the building by me was a pigeon, trapped by its leg to a piece of wire. Its mates sat on nearby ledges and were quite indifferent to their suffering friend. The people sat by me, trapped by their sin, and few around them caring for their plight,
The pigeon eventually freed itself, and a few minutes’ preaching soon cleared all t he benches.
How strange to be told that there is a cure for their sin with all its misery and eternal woe, and to reject it for a fleeting sensual pleasure.
One man, however, stood and listened to the whole message before getting into his truck and driving off.

AV Verses Vindicated

Mark 9: 44, 46, 48
....Where their worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched.

Modern versionists cannot tolerate this statement of Scripture, given thrice for emphasis. They remove the first two references and hope the third goes unnoticed.
Robertson’s Word Pictures has,

The oldest and best manuscripts do not give these two verses. They came in from the Western and Syrian (Byzantine) classes. They are a mere repetition of Mark 9:48.
Hence we lose the numbering Mark 9: 44, and Mark 9: 46 in our verses which are not genuine

This is a lie. The manuscript evidence for these two verses is extensive (see Moorman; Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. A Closer Look)

The omission of verses 44,and 46 is a deliberate attempt to weaken the doctrine of hell.

John 6:20, 8:24,28,58, 13:19, 18:5,6,8
I am he (ego eime)

The AV Bible translates this as I am he in each case excepting John 8:58 where we read Before Abraham was, I am. The two Greek words may be translated either with or without the personal pronoun depending on the context. It would not make sense to place “he” in 8:58 for that would suggest that the Lord was Abraham before Abraham was. The “I am” here speaks of the deity of the Lord Jesus, a claim clearly recognized by the Jews as they took up stones to stone Him. They did not fall to the ground as those did in 18:6. In ch.18 “he” is clearly required in order to make the statement intelligible in English.

The Lord spoke the words I am he in ch.18 to fully identify Himself as Jesus of Nazareth, thereby protecting His disciples and fulfilling the Scripture (v.9)

That this had a supernatural impact on those present is evident in their falling to the ground but we do not see this as an act of worship as some do, because it did not happen on previous occasions when the Lord spoke the words. Here they quickly picked themselves up and proceeded to take the Lord prisoner.

We note the careful use of italics in the AV Bible. Words are given in italics to indicate to the reader that the word is not found in the Greek but is required in the English translation for the sake of accuracy and meaning. There are multitudes of such additions in modern versions without any indication to the reader.

Those who claim these words to be an expression of deity, and that he should be omitted from the reading will have to grant the same for the man who received his sight in John 9: 9.
He identified himself likewise with the words “I am he,” (ego eime)

Romans 5: 18

Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon (eis) all men to condemnation;

“So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation;” RV
“so then as it was by one offence towards all men to condemnation,” JND

When eis is translated “toward” in the NT it is usually an indication that the destiny has not been reached. An example is in Luke 13: 22, and in many other places, And he went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward (eis) Jerusalem.

From this we see the serious error produced by JND, and hardly any other translations. Darby could not bear to think of the whole race condemned. The RV also is misleading. Unto may mean rather close but not right there. Upon means all men are UNDER condemnation. Can there be an elect company excused this condemnation? We think not.

The Critical Text keeps eis.
By the Way....

The teaching that Christ made propitiation for our sins during the three hours of darkness is now firmly embedded in Brethren folk-lore. We read in Believer’s Magazine March 2010, p.76,

The present writer [Dr David West] believes that it was during the three hours of darkness, when accomplishing the work of propitiation, that Christ “was wounded for our transgressions”(Is 53.5).....The physical sufferings of Christ at the hands of men had no part in the work of propitiation.

It should be acknowledged that J R Baker (Believer’s Magazine, January, 1993, p.26) took a different view from this.

What J R Baker wrote was this:

As far as the writer is aware there is no scripture to support the statement that the only atoning sufferings took place during the hours of darkness.....We are wiser to stay within the language of scripture when speaking of such matters and not go beyond what is written.

D West has gone beyond what is written. This is a serious error now prevalent in modern Brethenism. The implication of this view is that Christ need not have died. The work of reconciliation was complete before the Lord died.
Going beyond Scripture is warned against in Jude’s Epistle. In v.9 we read Whosoever transgresseth and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. It is a movement towards mysticism . We shall have an elite band of men who believe they are receiving special extra scriptural revelations.

My personal study notes, made many years ago, at this verse read,

If one does not remain in the doctrine,then one moves outside of it, and this is transgression. It is the “doctrine of development” or improvement on the things once surely believed among us.

It was an absolute necessity that Christ should shed His blood in death for our redemption. In connection with this we note that the error taught by John Macarthur still lies embedded in the Hebron Hall, Bicester, website. There we read,

True, His body was incorruptible in the grave (Psa 16:10), but the discharges from that body were never ‘incorruptible’ during His life. Heb. 9: 12 says Christ entered into heaven by His blood (dia), not with His blood; that is, by virtue of His blood, not literally carrying it.

The type seen in the High Priest entering the Holiest of Holies with the blood therefore can have no antitype. The blood of the Passover Lamb applied to the doorposts and lintels can have no fulfilment in Christ.
According to Brethren teaching the death of Christ has little purpose.

□I had cause to take another look at N Mellish’s Commentary on Revelation recently. It was written, so the author claims, because the Brethren had got it wrong until now.
One of the curious interpretations cropping up in it is concerning whether angels in the Scriptures are described as singing. There are no mentions of this occurring in the Bible but Mellish has found one. He wrote:

The Song of the Heavenly Hierarchy. −Some, to strengthen their teaching that these are not a heavenly order, state that angels do not sing. They did in Job 38: 7 on creation’s morning. – Revelation. From tribulation to triumph. N Mellish; Gospel Folio Press; p.131.

In Job 38: 7 we read, When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy? So which are the angels? The stars, or the sons of God? The stars (ko-kawb) are consistently translated in the O.T. as the physical stars, seen in the sky. The sons of God shouted. They never sang.
It is poor exegesis to base a doctrine on a false interpretation of a passage. This “heavenly hierarchy” also appear to be redeemed, according to Mellish, even if they are stars/heavenly bodies/angels/believers.
□We find in the May 2010 issue of Believer’s Magazine,p.141, a potted history of William Tyndale. The reader may at first be impressed by the erudition of its contributor, R W Cargill, but there is a phrase in it that caught my attention, causing me to give closer attention to the article. It is this,

A more recent scholarly review states, “....Although the Authorized King James Version is ostensibly the production of a learned committee of churchmen it is mostly cribbed from the Tyndale with some reworking of his translation”.

Cargill does not quote his source. Cribbing is plagiarism. A little investigation suggests to me that Cargill has plagiarised his whole article. It can be read on the Ultimate Bible Reference Library website where phrase after phrase occurs which then appear word for word in Cargill’s article. Neither his nor the UBRL article give evidence of scholarship.

The fact is the original article was published in the Contemporary Review, Dec. 2000 by Dr Joan Bridgman under the heading, Tyndale’s New Testament. There she promoted the cribbing theory, and was far more scathing in her contempt for the AV translators than our present writers reveal.

The AV translators were not deceivers as Cargill wishes his readers to think. We regret that the deceivers are to be found largely among the modern scholars, so-called.
It will be sufficient to give one quote to wipe out the smear presented by Cargill. A smear we point out that has been taken up with great gusto by the Russellites, who also hold the AV Bible in contempt

The rules laid down for the translators [of the 1611 AV Bible, and set by King James] were of this kind.

In the first place caution was given that an entirely new version was not to be furnished but an old version, long received by the Church, to be purged from all blemishes and faults; to this end there was to be no departure from the ancient translation, unless the truth of the original text or emphasis demanded.— Records of the English Bible; Report of the making of the version of 1611 presented to the Synod of Dort

The translators had a mandate to follow Tyndale’s translation as closely as possible.

Who is the Carnal Man of Romans 7?

For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin....O wretched man that I am. Vv. 14, 24.

Is Paul describing an unconverted man; a converted man struggling with the flesh; or was this Paul’s own experience as an awakened Jew in his pre-conversion days?

The popular view is of a converted man struggling with the flesh and given by Paul as a picture of a normal Christian. A Leckie wrote,

This verse [7; 14] is a problem to some who ask whether it could be true of a child of God that he is ‘carnal, sold under sin’. ‘Carnal’ refers not to the unconverted state of being in the flesh, obeying only the mind of the flesh, nor is its meaning the same as in 1 Corinthians 3 where it describes a Christian who is not spiritually mature. Here ‘carnal’ is not used in a moral sense at all but simply means that we are formed of flesh. It is therefore true of all men.— Romans A Commentary on chapters 1-8

There is a major problem with this statement. It requires the mutilation of Scripture to support it. Leckie denies ‘carnal’ has the same meaning in 1 Cor. 3. But here as in Rom. 7: 14 the same Greek word is employed, which is sarkikos. (pertaining to the flesh, temporal, unregenerate.- Strong.)

If we accept Leckie’s interpretation then despite his denial, Paul was rebuking the Corinthians for being in the same state as himself. In order to overcome this difficulty, sarkikos is exchanged in both places for sarkinos which is the Westcott/Hort text. This only worsens the problem. The Corinthians are accused of being formed of flesh!
The translation of sarkikos in Col. 2: 18, and 1 Peter 2: 11, fleshly mind, fleshly lusts assure us that these are not traits one would expect in a believer.
But could Paul be writing of his present condition when he wrote sold under sin? Leckie suggests believers are merely under its influence, seriously weakening the statement. The emancipated slave, once set free, was no longer ‘sold’. The slave master had no influence over him. He that is dead is freed from sin. 6: 7.
This is the ninth and last time in the New Testament that piprasko (sold) is mentioned and in the eight other references it is always in connection with a financial transaction, a change of ownership taking place. Paul wrote that he was owned by sin. It was his master at all times. This is not the confession of a believer.
Surely also a believer cannot confess himself to be ‘wretched’? This is the condition of those in Laodicea, totally unaware of their spiritually barren state.(Rev. 3: 17)
And what about the perpetual struggle going on? He found himself unable to do what he knew he ought to do, and was always doing what he assented to as being wrong. He did not say he sometimes did what he allowed not. This was his controlling nature.

And why had he not accepted his own remedy before he put pen to paper, which was to trust in the deliverer?

It is plain to the Bible believer that Paul was writing in Romans 7 of his pre-conversion experiences.
He lacked the capacity to live a holy life. It was not that sometimes he failed. He did not write, ‘what I would, that occasionally do I not. It was a persistent state he refers to.

What did Paul mean then when he wrote I am carnal? To understand this we need to note the developments in Paul’s exposition of the gospel of Christ found in the Roman epistle.
In Ch. 6 Paul asks the question, How shall we who are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (V.1). He that is dead is freed from sin. (v.7) But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you. (v.17)

Sin was the slave master. Being dead with Christ caused the slave master to lose his slave.

When we come into ch. 7 we learn that not only are we dead to sin, we are also dead to the law, wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law. (v.4). To illustrate this, Paul gives himself as an example. He says, For I was alive without the law once. (v.9). There is only one way this could be possible. As a Hebrew child he was not subject to the law, but at the age of twelve he was initiated into all the responsibilities and privileges of the Hebrew faith.
Paul, or Saul as he was known then, looked forward to serving the Lord to the full. But it didn’t work out like that. This holy thing, the law of God, only provided occasion for sin to take advantage. So , says Saul, it was sin, not the law, working death in me.

How could sin work death in Saul? The answer is plain, We know that the law is spiritual but I am carnal, sold under sin. (v.14) Saul is continuing to describe his Jewish experience. He could not live by the law after all. He was carnal. A carnal being cannot respond to the spiritual. They are opposites. Saul was still unregenerate. The slave master, sin still owned him. The flesh had sold him.

The outcome was that Saul had made promises to love and serve God but found in practice he lacked the ability. He had made promises to abstain from evil but knowing now what was evil, sin enticed him into it. In his mind there was a delight in the law, but another law was operating in his members which held him in captivity. He must serve the slave master sin He could not serve God.

Saul then cried out O wretched man that I am! (v.24) Some teach that Paul is describing his Christian conflict. It is a strange view which teaches that conversion brings a soul into wretchedness. Saul’s early days had not been described as wretched. This is the cry of a poor soul, having desires to please God but finding himself incompetent to do so. Suggestions that an unconverted soul could never seek after God ignore Scriptures such as Seek ye the Lord while he may be found.
They ignore also the evidence of Judeo-Christendom at large, and to a degree the struggles of many world religions where God is acknowledged but remains unreachable.
Saul cried out Who shall deliver me from the body of this death? He had the answer, through Jesus Christ. This is further proof that Paul was not writing of his continuing struggle, otherwise he was not even then be delivered.
So the mind will serve the law of God. The flesh can only continue to serve the law of sin.
The conflict is over. The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin an death (8: 2) The believer is not living in Romans 6, neither is he living in Romans 7. He is firmly embedded in Ch 8 and cannot flit back and forth.
For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nether indeed can be.
So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. (8: 6-8)

Who is the carnal man of Romans 7? Not the spiritual man of Romans 8. The carnal man is unconverted but knows there is a God in heaven but cannot please. Where do you live? At no.7 or no.8?

The early view, expressed by several of the early fathers, is given by R D Jennings ,

The earliest existing writer to comment directly upon this passage was Irenaeus of Lyons (120-202) in the second century. In Against Heresies he connected Paul's statement "that there dwells in my flesh no good thing" as typical of human infirmity which Jesus came to deliver men from [3:20:33]. In commenting upon the parable of the two sons in which one represented the repentant sinners of Jesus' day, the other the unrepentant Pharisees (Matt 21:28-32) Irenaeus described the Pharisees using Romans 7 [4:36:8].
Clement of Alexandria (c.150-c.220), a North African Christian teacher, in Stromata, a refutation of Gnosticism, indicated his belief that when Paul emphasized the war between the law of God and the law of his mind (Rom 7:22-23) it was only to show that Jesus rescues men from this through salvation [3:76-78].
Tertullian (c.150-240), another North African Christian leader, indicated that the Holy Spirit makes men free from the law of sin and death in our members (Rom 7:23). After this experience of being set free, "Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they have been set free" [On The Resurrection Of The Flesh, Ch. 46]. Elsewhere he noted his understanding that Paul was referring in Romans 7 to his pre-Christian days as an unbelieving Jew stating that "even if he has affirmed that 'good dwelleth not in his flesh,' yet he means according to 'the law of the letter,' in which he 'was'; but according to 'the law of the Spirit,' to which he annexes us, he frees us from the 'infirmity of the flesh'"[On Modesty, Ch. 17].
In his commentary on Romans, Origen (185-c.254) stated, "Yet when he says, 'But I am of the flesh, sold into slavery under sin,' as if a teacher of the Church, he has now taken upon himself the persona of the weak . . . Paul becomes fleshly and sold into slavery under sin and he says the same things that are customary for them to say under the pretense of an excuse or accusation. He is therefore talking about himself as if speaking under the persona of these others . . . it seems to me that whoever assumes that these things have been spoken under the persona of the Apostle smites every soul with hopelessness. For there would then be absolutely no one who does not sin in the flesh. For that is what it means to serve the law of sin in the flesh."
Methodius (d.311) wrote that "the expressions: 'That which I do, I allow not,' and 'what I hate, that do I,' are not to be understood of doing evil, but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or not to think of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon them. Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, 'The good that I would, I do not'" [The Discourse On The Resurrection: A Synopsis Of Some Apostolic Words On The Same Discourse, Part 1].
Lactantius (260-330) wrote in response to those who said it "is my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and weak flesh . . . I am led on against my will; and I sin, not because it is my wish, but because I am compelled that Jesus refuted them by being "clothed with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue . . . that by overpowering sin he may teach man that sin may be overpowered by him" [The Divine Institutes, 4:24]. Elsewhere he very plainly says in refutation of those who taught that Paul referred to his Christian experience as "wretched man that I am" that "it is impossible for a man to be wretched who is endued with virtue" [3:12].
In the anonymous third-century documents that have come to be called the Two Epistles Concerning Virginity it states in reference to Paul's statement "For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwells no good thing" that Paul could say this of his himself "because the Spirit of God is not in it"[First Epistle, Ch. 8].
Macarius the Egyptian (c.300-390) noted his understanding of Romans 7 connecting it back to Adam who, in his sin sold his soul to the Devil and it was for this reason that Paul cried out "Who will deliver me from the body of this death?" He then went on to compare life in the Spirit as the answer to life in the flesh as it was portrayed in Romans 7 [Homily 1:7 on Ezekiel 1:4-2:1].
Epiphanius of Salamis (c.310? -403) was a dedicated scholar of the early church whose area of expertise was heretical groups. In commenting upon Origenism he quoted the above-mentioned Methodius' interpretation of Romans 7 without any indication of disagreement [Panarion, Heresy 64:56:8-59:6. See also 64:62:8-13]. In fact Epiphanius referred to Methodius as "a learned man and a hard fighter for the truth" [63:2].
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.315-c.386) in commenting upon this passage noted for his students to "learn this also, that the soul, before it came into this world, had committed no sin, but having come in sinless, we now sin of our free-will. Listen not, I pray thee, to anyone perversely interpreting the words, But if I do that which I would not" [Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 4:19]. He then went on to quote Isaiah 1:19-20, Romans 1:19, 1:28, 6:19, Matthew 13:15, and Jeremiah 2:21. In another place Cyril commented upon how Paul used the phrase "But I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity" to describe how the Devil had used the flesh against mankind since the time of Adam but that Jesus in taking upon himself human flesh had saved man's nature [Catechetical Lectures, Lecture 12:15].
Basil the Great (c.330-379) in commenting upon Romans 7:14-17 states that Paul was developing fully the idea that it is impossible for one who is in the power of sin to serve the Lord and then goes on to indicate who will free a man from that kind of struggle with sin. He then continues that, in view of God's free offer to redeem us from the life portrayed in Romans 7, that "we are under the strictest obligation . . . to free ourselves from the dominion of the Devil who leads a slave of sin into evils even against his will" as is happening with the man in Romans 7 [Concerning Baptism, 1.1].—The Patristic Interpretation of Romans 7:14-25: fwponline.cc

Letters

Hi Ron,

Glad you read my article in BM, though sorry you did not agree with it. Was there anywhere in the article that equated 'many' with 'the elect'? Seeing as I do not believe that the one equals the other I was sorry to see that your article suggested that I was writing about 'the elect'. I don't the least mind you disagreeing with me in your magazine but I think that your comments should be fair so that you do not give a wrong impression of what was originally written.
By the way, are you sure that Leon Morris is right? Surely propitiation is more than the removal of divine wrath.
In the Lord,

I—

Dear I
thank you for your very gracious email.
Maybe I read too much into your article, so I was pleased to receive your refutation of "many" meaning the elect. I've heard several brethren insist they are the same so I wrongly assumed you were in agreement with them. But I am not quite clear on what you do mean by "many" if they are not the elect.
I 'll include your response in the next Waymarks to clarify the matter.

Propitiation obviously has produced more than the removal of divine wrath. It certainly cleared the way for justification and peace with God .I think Morris did expand the subject in other chapters.
I continue to enjoy your ministry, which is more positive than from some we listen to.
yours in the Lord Jesus
Ron

Dear I—
you emailed me a second time to answer my question as to who you thought the many were if not the elect as you appeared to be saying.
Your answer; “the ‘many’ are those who believe.” But these are not the elect??? The elect are not believers??? I’m sorry I—, you have me more confused than ever.
Much of your confusion seems to be due to a misunderstanding of the Greek prep. Eis which you say means ‘unto’ or ‘towards’. It also means INTO and therefore your Darbyite theology collapses.
You stated: “Adam’s act had a bearing towards all men without exception.” This can only mean that the consequences of Adam’s transgression nearly affected the human race. You make a boast of holding to the AV Bible, but not here apparently!
Questions to Answer

1. Do you believe in the special providential preservation of the Holy Scriptures?
2. — if not, how can you believe in infallible inspiration? Would God give verbal inspiration if He did not intend to preserve them?
3. f you do believe in preservation — how? In popish monasteries or through usage of believers?
4. If preserved by believers, did preservation end with the invention of printing? Did God preserve Scriptures at some times and not others?
5. If preservation did not cease with printing, was the Textus Receptus providentially guided? If not, which New Testament text was providentially provided?

A strange view

“I believe that the Bible, the original text as written by the authors, is the Word of God. No translation is completely true to that original” −. Believer’s Magazine, March 2010, p. 69

W Stevely teaches that the title “The Word of God” cannot be applied to any book produced after the 1st Century AD. But not to worry; “almost all the currently available versions capture so much of the sense of the documentary evidence to the first manuscripts that the truth of God shines through to the reader.
Stevely does not tell us which versions DO NOT capture much of the sense. Does he know? Are we to be satisfied with “much of the sense” and not all of it? May we no longer believe that EVERY WORD is preserved for us?Do we accept that the Word of God does not exist today? Must we join the Stevely band and continue down into apostasy?

Stevely must consider the Lord’s words, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Matt. 4: 4). as false .He would expect to read, “...but by most of the words that shine through”.
We thank God that The Word of the Lord Endureth for Ever. It endures for us in the Scriptures, found preserved in entirety in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.

Who are the Textual Critics?

Textual criticism is the attempt to determine what is the true text where variant readings occur. It can be done either from a faith point of view, or from a rationalistic stand point.
The faith point of view follows historic church usage and the rationalist view relies on modern critical methods.

The sixteenth century produced an outstanding believing scholar. He was Desidierus Erasmus and the Greek New Testament he produced became known as the Received Text. The Authorized Version (New Testament) was translated from this text.

The critical text was developed in the nineteenth century by Westcott and Hort and was based on rationalism. The Bible was to be treated like any other book and there was nothing supernatural about it. Critical decisions regarding variants were to be on the basis that the oldest Greek manuscripts were superior to later manuscripts. Almost all modern versions are based on these surmises.

God’s word was first challenged in the garden of Eden when Satan asked, “Hath God said....?” So the seed of doubt was sown in Eve’s mind. It has been challenged by apostates ever since.
Two early critics were Origen, the Father of Russellism and inventor of the Septuagint, and Eusebius who was a disciple of Origen. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus can both be traced to this man. Both these men altered Scripture to suit their views.
Griesbach, a German rationalist ( ) produced a critical New Testament, followed by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf, culminating in the monstrous work of Westcott and Hort, whose work continues to strongly influence almost all subsequent critical texts and translations.
They are some of the names to note. They were hostile to the evangelical faith and were godless men.

Some of our brethren have a misplaced respect for these men, thinking that scholarship is next to sainthood. We have seen that scholarship in the hands of apostates is very dangerous. We looked up to many of our Bible teaching brethren until we discovered them to be blind leaders of the blind. One, J Hunter, urged us on several occasions to accept the Critical Text and reject the Received Text. In a private conversation with me he said that Westcott and Hort were on a par with the AV translators in every respect. Almost all Brethren preachers think the AV Bible to be defective in many places.
I have personally challenged several and none yet has been able to defend his position. Some have stated they rely on the scholars – N Mellish, in his frequently unintelligible commentary on Revelation, writes concerning Rev. 5: 10,11
,
The main problem is that of the true reading. Not being proficient in the Greek text we are dependent on scholarship.

Mellish lets his readers know he does not approach Scripture on a faith basis. Godless men must tell him what the Bible really says. There are many other alleged teachers of the Bible who follow the same principle.

The Anvil of God's Word

Last eve I paused beside the blacksmith's door,
And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime;
Then looking in, I saw upon the floor,
Old hammers worn with beating years of time.

"How many anvils have you had," said I,
"To wear and batter all these hammers so?"
"Just one," said he, and then with twinkling eye,
"The anvil wears the hammers out, you know."

"And so," I thought, "The Anvil of God's Word
For ages skeptic blows have beat upon,
Yet, though the noise of falling blows was heard,
The Anvil is unharmed, the hammers gone."

—John Clifford, D.D.

waymarks contender issue no. 59

2009-11-21T02:47:00.000-08:00

Contender 59

Report of Open Air Preaching

September 9th LUTON TOWN CENTRE.. S- was there when I arrived today. He had arranged a selection of gospels and tracts along the top of the wall. He gets his supplies from reliable sources so in this he is doing a good work. But he is very confused doctrinally and rejects the Trinity. He doesn’t stay when I come, for which I was thankful.
A lady spoke to me and told me she was a church member but seemingly has never been saved. She took a tract. Then a man came by who told me he had often listened to me. He had been a keen believer, he told me, in his young days but questioned God’s omnipotence. He did not believe God could create the universe out of nothing. He obviously believed in something far more fantastic; the eternality of matter.
He also was very jealous of me because I had faith and he had none. He then gave me a little of his history; born in Ukraine 1939. His name is john.
He is desperate to find peace with God but had to learn it could not be obtained on his terms. I told him to go home and get alone with God. He should repent of his sins and put his trust in Christ. He accepted a gospel of John and asked me to be sure to be here next week. I will do my best.
While we were yet speaking, another came. It was Peter. He has many doubts despite having confessed faith in Christ on this spot some twenty years ago. He is back in his flat and has a social worker to keep an eye on him.
September 16th LTC. Alas, John did not show up. A wino demanded a pound from me. I do not support winos so he was told he would get nothing from me. Before my reader judges me for such lack of benevolence I will point out that I have on a number of occasions bought food for those I thought to be in need. This man pronounced me to be the Antichrist and added numerous obscenities to his description of me. I had on me three 50p coins and no more. Exit from the car park required one pound.
listen and then to talk. They told me they had listened to me several times in the past but I did not recognise them. They claimed to be Christians and I thought they were probably Baptists, or from somemainline evangelicals. They are accepted, not because they have modified their heretical views but because the evangelical world is apostate anyway and doesn’t see anything wrong in their doctrines.
They deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. They deny the existence of the devil, and much else that is false.
November 4th LTC. A Big Issue seller was on my usual spot when I arrived today. I gave him a copy of John’s Gospel and he responded by putting one of his magazines in my carrier. I felt obliged to give him something for it. He then remained next to me and listened to 20 minutes gospel preaching. To which he made no response.
A Nigerian man prayed over me. This is an occupational hazard. Those who do it are usually charismatic and will get no Amen from me.
November 11th LTC. The Big Issue seller expected another donation today.
I preached and a Muslim stood listening. I did not wish to engage in a profitless debate with him so I preached and preached. Eventually I had to stop and he stepped in. He was very polite and courteous but reacted as do the JW’s; change the subject if he couldn’t answer and deny all facts presented. This included the fact of Calvary. He told me the Lord wasn’t crucified but was taken alive into heaven.
He tried me also on the integrity of the Bible. They are all different apparently! How like the Koran, I replied. He was quickly put right on the integrity of the AV Bible, which was written by Henry V. according to him. Such is the deep ignorance of these people.
Then another man interrupted to tell me if I had real faith I wouldn’t need a mobility scooter. Such was his contempt for the preaching of the gospel. For a few minutes I was dealing with enemies of the gospel on two fronts. A bit like Paul with the Stoics and Epicureans maybe.
All this drew a small crowd which is very unusual these days.
(TIP. Don’t preach in the open air if you are not familiar with the Book)
AV Verses Vindicated
Mark 13: 14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not…

Modern versions omit spoken of by Daniel the prophet. They together (including the RV and JND) attack the integrity of the book of Daniel. The authority for these words in Mark is overwhelming. Daniel described an event yet future, and from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12: 11)
A denial of the prophecies of Daniel is apostasy. Suggestions that this prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 are based on unbelief.

Matthew 24: 14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all (holos= complete; altogether; every whit) the world for a witness unto all the nations and then shall the end come.

“And these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth, JND

Note that when a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (Lk. 2: 1) the Greek word holos was not used. The decree did not apply outside the Roman Empire.
JND changed the meaning of holos to “not all, but part of” He did this in many places where holos is used... He made these changes without any authority but his own.

The only place where habitable occurs in the AV Bible is Prov. 8: 31, Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
Some men live in parts of the world regarded as uninhabitable. Darby will not have these to be evangelised.

Who now decides which parts of the earth are habitable? The answer: The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development—Agenda 21. The object of this is to bring the habitable earth under the control of a ruling elite. This is why we are seeing the “Global Warming” lobby gaining strength.
We also see the religious side of the “One Ruler for the World” growing also.

This is what the Bahá'í’s have to say about it:-
The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established. Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892)
The successful execution of the programmes enunciated in Agenda 21 will greatly depend on the willingness of the peoples and nations of the world to recognise the vital link between global transformation and spiritual principles. In the Bahá'í view, "the storm battering at the foundation of society will not be stilled unless and until spiritual principles are actively engaged in the search for solutions." Primary among the spiritual principles which must guide the systematic implementation of Agenda 21 is the oneness of humanity. It is this cardinal principle that Bahá'ís believe will provide the spiritual, moral and ethical underpinnings for the successful translation of Agenda 21 into practical action in all parts of the world and at all levels of human society.

Now we see what JND started with his mischievous mutilations of Scripture. Scofield latched on to this with his “inhabited earth” footnotes. (See Lk. 2: 1). Some may conclude that the Doctrine of Sustainable Land Development is God-given. But what spirit was really behind JND in his translation?

Some information above is gleaned from libertytothecaptives.net

Luke 14: 5
Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit….
“Which of you, if his son or his ox fall into a well…” WV
“Suppose one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well…” NIrV
“Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well…” ESV

Griesbach, Greek scholar (?) and notorious Bible hater appears among the first (Critical Greek and English Testament; Bagster; undated 19th C.) to produce a Greek New Testament (1805 AD) reading uios (son) in place of onos (ass)

Bible students will need to be wary of commentaries that are based on corrupt readings. The Bible Knowledge Commentary attributes error to the Lord Jesus, by having Him say “He (Christ) said that the guests would help a son or an ox in distress on the Sabbath, so it was totally appropriate to heal this poor individual.” — BKC; J Walvoord and B Zuck.
This reduces the Lord’s charge against the lawyers and Pharisees to mere gentle chiding, whereas the Lord was exposing the hypocrisy of these God haters. Compare Lk. 13: 15.

John 7: 53-8: 11
And every man went unto his own house…..Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.

“[John 7: 53] and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.” — Adam Clarke.

Clarke was an 18th C. Methodist theologian. He rejected the eternal sonship of Christ.). He makes plain where he stood regarding the verbal inspiration and faithful preservation of Scripture. He didn’t believe it. This passage remains rejected by the Textual Critics and Christendom at large.
Bible teachers and many brethren who regard themselves as fundamentalist have allowed themselves to be influenced by the Textual Critics and rationalistic commentators.
Dr D Sorenson writes, “The Scofield Reference Bilbe, perhaps more than any other one edition, was the Bible of choice by Fundamentalists of America in the twentieth century. However C. I. Scofield also taught that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the earliest and best manuscripts available. …..
In John 7: 53, Scofield adds a footnote: ‘John 7: 53-8: 11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts.” — Touch not the Unclean Thing; David H Sorenson.
Scofield’s main reason for rejecting this passage was that it is not found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and therefore has no real authority.
The two popish manuscripts are seriously depraved and stand against the vast majority of manuscripts containing the passage. (see Few Fundamentalists Have Investigated the Issue in By The Way… below)

Acts 2: 30
….God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.

“he would put one of his descendants on his throne.” NRSV
“he would set on of his descendants on his throne.” ESV
“ of the fruit of his loins to set upon his throne.” JND

Note 2 John 1: 7, for many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. A fundamental doctrine is attacked by the changes to the AV reading of Acts 2: 30.
In resurrection also Christ was seen in the flesh. (Luke 24: 39) and therefore in His second coming He will be seen in the flesh. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.
Darby chose to reject the words according to the flesh preferring to follow the course of modern rationalism and denying the manuscript evidence in front of him. Their removal destroys the gospel set out by Paul in the Roman epistle: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
It is a fallacious argument to say that as the phrase “according to the flesh” is mentioned in Romans it doesn’t matter if it is missing in Acts. The fact is the words have been maliciously removed in modern versions.

Romans 1: 16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:….

“for I am not ashamed of the gospel:” RV, NRSV, ESV, etc.
“For I am not ashamed of the glad tidings;” JND

“The words, ‘of Christ’, which follow here, are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.” —JFB Commentary.

The “oldest and best” manuscripts are those rejected by the early churches. Hence they have been preserved in monastery dustbins and Vatican vaults.
The words “of Christ” are found in the majority of manuscripts. They have been removed too often from other verses for us to regard it as accidental on the part of scribes. This is a wilful satanic attack on Scripture.
What gospel is it where Christ is removed? All that is left is an anaemic mess that offends no one and brings none to the Saviour.

Romans 10: 15
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.

“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.” NRSV etc.

The gospel of peace is rejected in modern versions. It is not wanted by the earthling who lusts rather for material things. Peace with God is brought through preaching. It calls for repentance and faith and does not fit in with modern evangelicalism.
The words gospel of peace are well established in the majority of manuscripts and ancient translations. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isa. 57: 21

Romans 14: 10
….for we must all stand before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ.

“for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” ESV, NRSV
“for we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of God.” JND

Altering the Scripture to read judgment seat of God makes Christ a liar, for He said The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. John 5: 20.
The judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers (we must all stand). But God has a throne. It is not described as a bema. It is where all unbelievers will stand, at the end of time and it is a throne. There will be no pleading one’s case at this throne. All present will be consigned to the lake of fire. Rev. 20: 15
It is a false notion to believe that the whole human race will appear before God at the end of time.

Chronological Study Bible NKJV. Review reviewed

The CSBNKJV has been reviewed in Believer’s Magazine October 2009. It received a very favourable write up and can be bought from J Ritchie Ltd for £30.99 by any wishing to be ripped off. (£18.74 from The Book Depository). It claims to be “the first study bible arranged in chronological order so presenting the text of the Bible in the order of events as they unfolded”.

Our reviewer tells us “there are transition comments to prepare you for the text that follows”. He doesn’t tell you that the result is a regurgitation of the old Higher Criticism combined with an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture.

The authorship of the books of Isaiah and Daniel are questioned.
Concerning Isaiah we read,
The latter chapters of the book of Isaiah have for centuries been recognised as different from the earlier chapters……Many scholars [sic] hold that these oracles [ch.40-ch.55] came from an unknown prophet who lived in Cyrus’s own time….. some scholars[sic] suggest that Second Isaiah [note the capitals!] may have been the one who preserved the collection of Isaiah’s oracles found in Isa. 1-39.
…..Others though, accept the traditional association of these words with the original Isaiah……These chapters speak of a future event: the glorious return from exile that will be authorized by Cyrus the Persian.

The yet future fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy is regarding Israel is totally rejected by the final sentence of the quote above. The return under Cyrus was only partial. God called him His anointed but THE ANOINTED (Messiah) is yet to return to lead all His people into the Millennial land.

Daniel is also divided. We read on p.1067 of the CSB,

Historical specificity such as appears in Dan. 11 is rare in biblical prophecy. It is especially remarkable since Daniel’s exile is placed more than 400 years before the events so minutely described in the visio0n (Dan. 1: 1-7). Because of this, many scholars [sic] suggest that the visions of Da. 7-12 were actually written in Palestine during the persecutions of Antiochus IV (167 B.C.) and attributed after the fact to the famous exile Daniel.

If this should be true, which thankfully it is not, then parts of our Bible were written by liars and deceivers impersonating the prophets.
We recommend the reading of Sir Robert Anderson’s book, Daniel in the Critic’s Den.

The CSBNKJV has a red letter heading over Exodus Chapter 14: “The Red Sea Crossing” and we read at 14: 21 “So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land., and the waters were divided”.
Yet we look at a map of the journey made by the children of Israel, and note that it does not take them over the red Sea at all. This is the view of the Higher Critics who cannot admit to a God Who performs miracles.
The Red Sea miracle is confirmed by Psalm 106: 9, He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness.

Then there is the matter of the NKJV itself.—
The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:
(1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and
(2) That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).
It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favour of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts. — Dr. M E Todd
It is regrettable that J Ritchie Ltd through its magazine, Believer’s Magazine, edited by John Grant, should attempt to foist this work of apostasy on its readers.

By the Way….
(The following article was found on the cnview.com website)
WHY I EXPOSE ERROR AND WARN BELIEVERS
I am grieved for those who cannot understand my concerns and my warnings. I am not "attacking" the ministers who are obviously in error. I have nothing against them personally. I praise the Lord for every good thing in them and for every soul saved under their ministries. But souls saved are "in spite of ", not "because of " many of their messages. God’s Word will not return to Him void. (Isaiah 55:11) I cannot and will not ignore the things they are doing "publicly" which I believe will eventually destroy thousands of sound churches and which will break down Godly walls between truth and error.
There are also those who are heretics deceiving the masses. Those ministers who deny the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the Lordship of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Eternal Sonship, etc. These I reject and alert others of their heresy. [Some of these men are found on Gospel Hall platforms, which is my reason for publishing this article here. – RS]
The Bible commands men of God to judge the teaching and ministries of other men in order to protect the truth and the people of God. We are to mark those who cause divisions contrary to apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17). This requires a careful examination and evaluation. The believers in the church at Corinth were instructed to judge one another (1 Cor. 14:29). That principle applies also to ministries outside of one’s own church, especially to very "public ministries" which influence vast numbers of people.
Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-14). Was Paul "attacking" Peter? Of course not. He was bringing him back to the truth.
Truth is more important than unity because without truth men cannot be saved and walk in the will of God. It is truth, not unity, which is the light in this dark world. John said, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 John 1:4). God tells me to mark and avoid those who teach contrary to the apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17). He tells me to earnestly CONTEND for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). "Contend" means to strive, to fight. Trouble and striving are not wrong in themselves. The Lord Jesus Christ stirred up much trouble, as did all of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. Trouble is not wrong, when it is caused by contending for the truth. . The Lord God has put a love in my heart for His Truth. He imparted to me the spirit described by King David: "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Psalm 119:128).
Ever since I was saved I have had something within me that has stirred me up for the Truth. I believe that Something is the Holy Spirit. One of His names is the Spirit of TRUTH (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 )
Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (KJV)
This verse is directed to those whose brother offended them "personally". It does not tell us how to handle "public hypocrisy or false teachings".
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (KJV)
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: (KJV)
Titus 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. (KJV)
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (KJV)
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; (KJV)
I cannot stop their mouths but I can try and warn as many people as I can.
Sincerely,
Andy Neckar
Editor, Christian News & Views
□”Few Fundamentalists have investigated the Issue (of Textual Criticism) From Touch not the Unclean Thing.
Notwithstanding men such as Scofield and Clearwaters and numerous other Fundamentalist leaders in between, it is doubtful if many of them ever did any serious research into the history and lineage of the critical text. Had they spent the time and effort that many in later years did in researching the origins of the critical text, it is doubtful they would have continued their support. It was only in the last half of OK twentieth century that conservative scholars such as Edward Hills David Otis Fuller, Theodore Letis, Donald Waite, Jakob Van Bruggen Dell Johnson, and others began to publish their research into the problems clinging to the critical text. For the most part, these men have been ignored or dismissed as right-wing extremists. However, the evidence uncovered by them has not and will not go away. Fundamentalists are going to have to confront the extensive evidence of apostasy associated with the critical text from Origen to Metzger. If separation is an inviolable foundation of Fundamentalism, Fundamentalists are going to have to admit the apostasy connected with the critical text.”
*****
Two Solemn Verses
Mark 8: 38 Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous generation, of him shall the Son of man also be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

A full appreciation of Christ requires also an unashamed acceptance of His word. The Textual critics plainly do not do this. They question many of the Lord’s words.

John 12: 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

WHY DOES UNBELEF PREDOMINATE IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP TODAY? ( Taken from O Timothy Oct. 09; “Bart Ehrmann’s Problem is God” by David Cloud.)

The fact that unbelief predominates in the field of biblical scholarship today is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and is further proof of its infallibility. Some 2,000 years ago, the apostle Paul looked down through the corridor of time and made the following prediction about the last days: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. ... 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” (2 Timothy 3:1, 5, 7, 13, 4:3-4).

Paul prophesied that the course of the church age will be characterized by increasing apostasy from the truth, by an onslaught of false teachers who will deny the faith, and that is exactly what we see today.
And the apostle Peter concurred: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall
they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2:1-3).

Jude saw the same thing: ““Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who
were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jude 1:3-4, 16-19).

These prophecies describe the coming and judgment of Bible teachers who will deny Christ as Lord, which is exactly what Bart Ehrman and his liberal buddies have done.
If the New Testament is a pack of myths and lies, how does it contain such precise prophecies?

NO FACT DISCOUNTS THE BIBLE’S DIVINE INSPIRATION

No fact of science or history or archaeology has ever proven that the Bible is not what it claims to be, the infallible Word of God. The Bart Ehrmans of this world are simply huffing and puffing.
One doesn’t have to be a historian and a multi-lingual scholar to see that the Bible is a miracle upon its very face. Its scientific accuracy, its amazing unity, its candor, its power to change lives, its doctrine of
salvation by grace without works, and many other things prove that it is the Word of God, and all of Bart Ehrman’s huffing and puffing cannot change this. I have studied the Bible diligently for 36 years and have examined the alleged “discrepancies” and errors, and I have found that the Bible is true and its critics are in error. I concur with what the late Robert Dick Wilson, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,
ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the
Spirit” (Jude 1:3-4, 16-19).

These prophecies describe the coming and judgment of Bible teachers who will deny Christ as Lord, which is exactly what Bart Ehrman and his liberal buddies have done.
If the New Testament is a pack of myths and lies, how does it contain such precise prophecies?

Jesus, and shall it ever be,
A mortal man, ashamed of Thee?
Ashamed of Thee, whom angels praise,
Whose glories shine through endless days?
Ashamed of Jesus! sooner far
Let night disown each radiant star!
’Tis midnight with my soul, till He,
Bright Morning Star, bid darkness flee.
Ashamed of Jesus! O as soon
Let morning blush to own the sun!
He sheds the beams of light divine
O’er this benighted soul of mine.
Ashamed of Jesus! that dear Friend
On Whom my hopes of Heav’n depend!
No; when I blush, be this my shame,
That I no more revere His Name.
Ashamed of Jesus! yes, I may
When I’ve no guilt to wash away;
No tear to wipe, no good to crave,
No fears to quell, no soul to save.
Ashamed of Jesus! empty pride!
I’ll boast a Saviour crucified,
And O may this my portion be,
My Saviour not ashamed of me!
Joseph Grigg 1769

Waymarks 55

2008-11-25T04:12:00.000-08:00

Waymarks 55

Report of Open Air Preaching

27th August LUTON T. C. Towards the end of my preaching a young Asian lad came and stood next to me. As he did not approach in a confrontational manner as some do, I paused to speak to him. He wanted to convert me to Islam! These folk are so brainwashed, they think all Westerners are blind to the glories of Islam and have only to be spoken to kindly that they will be won over in an instant. So I am asked, have I ever read the Koran? I reply that it instructs Muslims to kill infidels. Not necessarily, he replied. “So when it comes to it, you will make up your own mind who you kill and who you spare?” “We must kill only the enemies of Islam,” I am told. Not all infidels are enemies. I tell him Islam is the scourge of civilisation, and ask him if he is going to kill me.
I asked him about his sin and the coming Judgment. He hoped when he died he would be forgiven, but on what grounds he did not know. At this moment three shop security officers walked by. He recognised one of them who had caught him shoplifting and called to him. So Islam allows you to be a thief, and tells you at the end that a namby pamby god will pat you on the head and welcome you to your paradisical harem? He suddenly remembered he was late for his college lecture. (Which I thought rather unusual at this time of the year.)
1st October LUTON T.C. There were several police officers standing around when I arrived today. There was obviously something afoot. Could it be terrorist activity, I wondered. I preached for half an hour without interference.
I learned the following day that if I had remained for another half hour I would have witnessed Mr Gordon Brown unveiling a memorial plaque to the policeman who was murdered in Luton last year. So, unwittingly, I had preached giving a warning, after death, the judgment. This is not for believers of course.
15th October LUTON T.C. I preached and then a man arrived who wanted to talk to me. He told me he had been away from the Lord for some time (these were his words), and was now being helped toward restoration by his elders. He hadn’t lost his faith apparently, though it had become rather weak. He said he had been in the faith for 37 years. He was a J. W. and his parents had been such before him. His father had died and then his mother had thrown him out of the house because of his riotous living. His girlfriend was a street-walker, and he was worried he would pick up her diseases. He was now trying to hide from her.
Clearly this man had had enough of his evil life style and was desperately seeking for peace with God. Even so he sought to parry my attempts to bring the gospel to him. Did I know what God’s name is in the New Testament? I showed him that Christ is the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He had never heard this before.
Eventually he accepted a Gospel of John and I warned him his “elders” would tell him to destroy it. It is highly unusual for a J. W. to accept a gospel booklet, but he promised he would read it. Pray that his eyes will be opened and he will be converted. I had a conviction that I could extract a “conversion” from him there in the street, but this is not my practice.
12th November LUTON T.C. A pleasant day with one or two actually standing nearby, listening to the gospel.
There have been other occasions when the gospel has been preached here and in Dunstable. These have passed without incident. Sometimes not a single tract has been handed out but many have heard a gospel text quoted.
It is to me an immense privilege to testify publicly to God’s saving grace. There can be no greater work than this and I am thankful that most of my life as a believer has been spent in this manner.
By the Way....
Did you ever hear of a Muslim preacher who told his audience that the Koran was sprinkled with error? I have never heard of such a thing. But I have been in more than one gospel meeting where the preacher told his audience, “the Bible is wrong in this verse”. Such a man is either a dupe of Satan or is actively engaged in the service of Satan., determined to destroy faith.
This is what Sir Winston Churchill thought about Islam:

“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
No publisher would touch this stuff today. Their premises would be fire-bombed by our home grown allegedly moderate Muslims. Indeed, it appears that this passage has been expunged from the latest edition.
But the leopard cannot change his spots. Islam is as big an enemy as Rome ever was, without its subtlety. last week the daily telegraph reported that a government minister is urging that “children should be taught about the contribution Muslims have made to civilisation.” Islam remains the scourge of civilisation. We preach to these poor Muslims as they pass us in the street. It would be a very costly thing for one of them\to embrace Christ even in this land of the free.
□. Ford said history is bunkum but history has a tendency to repeat itself. If we do not learn from history we shall make the same mistakes. So because we do make the same mistakes history is ever cyclic. What about the mistakes in Jeremiah’s day? They are the errors of the 21st Century.
We read, he that hath my word, let him speak faithfully. Jer. 23: 28. So spoke Jeremiah. Now the men that mount our platforms place their bible on the dais and read from it. They read (almost invariably) from the Authorized Version of the Scriptures and then they tell\us “the good old AV is wrong here”.
A sword is upon the liars, said Jeremiah. Of course, he was referring to the Chaldeans and Babylonians. Alas, we have too many such on our platforms. What are we to do? We must obey Scripture.
The men who claim to be our teachers today rely on the works of Westcott, Hort, and similar men. The Scripture says Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. (Eph. 5: 11)
So we raise our voice against those who handle the word of God deceitfully. And we may need to do it publicly.
On several occasions I have been told “you think you are the only one who is right.” Jeremiah was right. He stood almost alone in his day. But I thank God for so many today who are like-minded with myself and who do not consider the religious system to be higher than truth. The system says, “worship scholarship”.
□A shibboleth : Get your bible teacher to read aloud the last word in Revelation 1: 12. If it sounds like “lampstands” he speaks an alien language and is not a member of the Bible believing family.
□ We recently heard a preacher tell his audience that in the light of Genesis 6; 3, if they rejected the gospel, they might find “they have crossed the line” and God would no longer allow them to get saved. He taught that one could pass the point where it would be impossible to repent. He was not speaking of death and he was not speaking of dementia.
I inferred from his preaching that God’s longsuffering could run out while a man was still fit and well physically.
I do not know of a line that can be crossed because one has gone too long in unbelief. This is not what Genesis 6: 3 teaches.

And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.
Note: v.1 adam is plural. Men are spoken of. In v.3 adam is singular. The race is seen as one. What applies to one man in this context applies to all. The striving ceases for the whole human race. It is done because of his being flesh and therefore having limited time on this planet.
Note also: spirit is with a small s. The Holy Spirit is not mentioned in this verse. It is the breath God breathed in, as v.17 reveals. The breath of life.
The fact is we are born into disobedience and remain in it until we repent and trust Christ, or death takes us out of it. Only then does God’s grace cease towards the sinner. God’s pleading voice is heard through the gospel\ of Christ and not through emotional appeals or threats. a gospel preached on the wrong application of this verse leads to confusion and false professions of faith.
□D Oliver, in October’s Truth and Tidings, writes of , (I Quote) “the Biblical teaching of gathering to His name”. He knows very well that there is no such Biblical teaching. I challenge him to find one verse of Scripture that teaches this. All right, half a verse will do! Nowhere in my Bible do I read of “gathering to His name”. It is the rallying cry of the Exclusive brethren. They invented the term.
Oliver uses this phrase to suggest that one is not a fully submissive Christian unless one is gathering to His name, i.e one must be a member of the Brethren. I quote again, “.... a believer who does not submit to the Lordship of Christ [who is not Brethren] violates God’s Word and [marrying such] cannot be His will.
So we learn from him that marrying outside the Brethren is a denial of the Lordship of Christ and is outside God’s will. There are seemingly a lot of disobedient Christians among us and a lot of them appear to be happily married.
Marrying in the Lord is to marry one of like precious faith. We are well aware, however, that there are some who are members of a local assembly but have never experienced a conversion. For a believer to marry such would constitute an unequal yoke.

We await a BIBLICAL response from D Oliver.
□The Codex Sinaiticus can now be seen online at codex-siniaticus.net. This is the Greek manuscript found in a waste bin in a popish monastery. It was rejected by early Christians because of its being seriously depraved, but excited Westcott and Hort upon which they built their perverted RV.
I looked to see if the multitude of alterations are visible and sure enough they are —on every page.
This is admitted on the website where we read
“In the Codex, the text of both the Septuagint and the New Testament has been heavily annotated by a series of early correctors.” This speaks for itself. Its depravity remains visible. Despite this, the BBC reports that
“Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences [found in the Codex Sinaiticus, and in conflict with every other manuscript} unsettling. Well, we would expect God-haters and latter-day scoffers to say this. If you found a filthy bit of paper in a dustbin and read on it that your mother was a whore, you would, in a rage, destroy your birth certificate, wouldn’t you?
The truth is, all that needs to be known about this manuscript was discovered more than 100 years ago and its uselessness was documented then by Bible believing scholars.

Roger Bolton, reporting for the BBC, concerning the digitising of this Codex, wrote
‘ "It [the Bible] should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.
Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.’

What this long rejected popish relic has to do with the Bible I read, he failed to explain. I take this and similar codices to be evidence of the hatred of men toward the things of God.

□ I hadn’t thought until recently that believers would get hooked on internet pornography. There is so much Scripture that helps keep a believer away from this kind of stuff. for instance, As he thinketh in his heart, so he is (Prov. 23: 7).
According to comScore Media Metrix, there were 63.4 million unique visitors to adult websites in December of 2005, reaching 37.2% of the Internet audience.
Another online (unscientific and unsubstantiated) survey in 2006 reported that “50% of Christian men are addicted to pornography”.
It must be a disaster for any believer to get entangled with this evil practice.
An internet organisation known as Covenant Eyes provides a filtering system where the subscriber chooses a mentor who will be able to monitor all websites visited by the subscriber.
I asked the person who told me about this website why it was not sufficient to know the eye of the Lord was upon him.
He had no answer, but there is an answer given by Job, I made a covenant with mine eyes; why then should I think upon a maid? Job 31: 1.
Job did not make a covenant with any other person., who could then use the information gained to exercise power over him or even blackmail him. The covenant is made before God. It is the kind of covenant that is character forming.
The believer keeps himself conscious that he is ever in the presence of a thrice holy God.
AV Verses Vindicated

Matthew 1: 25
And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn (protokos) son

“but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son” NRSV

This NRSV rendering is ambiguous and not only because “firstborn” is omitted. It allows the possibility of extra-marital relations in the form of fornication. This was the slander of the Pharisees, We be not born of fornication (Jn. 8: 41. The NRSV also mistranslates this verse.)
The virgin birth of Christ is questioned by the NRSV and most other modern versions. It is no longer believed by modern clerics and theologians. Archbishop Tutu has publicly questioned Mary’s morality. It is however a fundamental truth essential to our salvation.

protokos is well attested, being found in the majority of manuscripts and in ancient versions.

John 20:17
Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not;

"What He really said was, 'don't cling to me.' " says one of our preachers. The reason for abandoning the AV reading is, we are told, that the verb (haptomai) may be translated as "to cling to, to lay hold of”. But in the 36 times the word is used in the NT it is never used in this sense. An examination of some of the references shows that it cannot be used in this sense. Then touched he their eyes, Mt.8:29., He spit, and touched his tongue. Mk.7:33. He touched his ear. Lk.22:51. (Thomas was never invited to handle or touch (haptomai) the risen Lord. He was invited to THRUST his hand into the open wound.)
In 1 Cor.7:1 the sense is it is good for a man to have not even the least physical contact with a woman. If here it means that clinging to a woman is what is in view, then lesser physical contact is by implication condoned.
We are satisfied that Mary never attempted to cling to the Lord. Why would she do after His resurrection what she most certainly would never have done before? Who dare say that Mary's touch would have been more than the touching of the Lord's feet in prostrated worship?
The insinuation of our Bible correctors is a smear on the character of Mary. They do no more than to slavishly repeat the savage attacks on Scripture by those critics who have gone before them.

Ephesians 3: 14
For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ

“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father”. RV.
Modern versions almost without exception (ASV, ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc., etc. ) follow the Westcott and Hort Greek text and omit of our Lord Jesus Christ. JND places them in italics, regarding them as dubious. The NKJV keeps them.

The majority of manuscripts support the AV reading and a few Alexandrian omit. The deliberate omission is an attack on the Sonship of Christ. Note also where a similar phrase is omitted from Colossians 1: 2

Colossians 3: 6
For which things’ sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience.

“Because of these, the wrath of God is coming” NIV
“On account of these the wrath of God is coming on those who are disobedient.” NRSV

“The children of disobedience” is a specific class of people. They are elsewhere described as ungodly (for whom Christ died). They are the unconverted; without eternal life; perishing. The NIV assumes no distinction between the saved and the lost.

1 Timothy 6: 20
O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called.

Modern versions shy away from science. They prefer to call it “falsely called knowledge” (NRSV) and make it a mere contradiction and not an opposition which is open hostility to the truth. Christians are not opposed to true science. But evolutionism is not true science though evolutionists like to regard it as such. Textual Criticism is not true science either. We note that “science” disappeared from modern versions at the same time these false sciences began to appear.

Revelation 21: 24
And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it.

Most modern versions omit “them which are saved”. Bible critics do not like the idea of whole nations comprised of regenerate men and women. But this is how it will be during the millennial reign of Christ. All entering into that kingdom will be born again, all people bowing the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ. It spells doom for the Mohammedan and all\ other false religionists. There is no future for them. Today’s believers, however, are expecting the Rapture

The Received Text has these words. Though Erasmus didn’t include them , Moorman points out “the Aldus printed txt does. This indicated that evidence came to light as the sixteenth century progressed which convinced the late editors in favour of the readings inclusion.” — When the KJV Departs from the “Majority” Text; B.F.T. #1617; 1988.

CRITICS ON THE RUN
D Wallace, a textual critic, wrote in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research; Eerdmans; 1995, —

For the first two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT critics could speak with one accord: the TR had finally been laid to rest. ….
The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in North America and to a lesser degree, in Europe…. Are embracing a view left for dead over a century ago  that the original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. …proponents of a minority view are trying to reopen an issue once thought to be settled.
The above reminds us of how the Jews from Antioch and Iconium persuaded the people to stone Paul and they drew him out of the city, supposing he had been dead. Acts 14:19. How the Jews must have rejoiced. No longer would they have to suffer this little Jew with his gospel which cut right through man’s pride. Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about him, he rose up and came into the city. v.20. O what an awful shock for those God-hating Jews! They thought they had put an end to the apostle. It is Paul who reminds us, it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. 1 Cor.1:19.
What a shock too for those critics who had laboured for so long to destroy the AV Bible only to discover that it is still very much alive, and hadn’t died at all. It must be understood that this is the purpose behind textual criticism, to destroy the written testimony of God. The struggle to arrive at the original text is merely a subterfuge. The critics confess that this goal will never be reached. However, the "original text" is ever with us, and we have it in the AV Bible.
We are seeing an awakening to the true Scripture and we are thankful for it. There are now many good books available defending the AV and the TR. The books by E Hills and Otis Fuller should be on every Bible believer’s bookshelf together with Burgon’s classic Revision Revised.
Wallace goes on,
The Majority text movement…. began immediately after the epoch-making publication of Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in the Original Greek and concomitantly the RV of the NT (1881).
The AV Bible is not based solely on the Majority Text. Neither is it solely based on the TR. There are verses in the AV Bible that are neither in the Majority Text nor the Textus Receptus. Believers need to understand this. Jack Moorman has dealt adequately with this seeming problem in his books Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version and When the KJV Departs from the "Majority" Text. In these he supplies the ms evidence for each reading peculiar to the AV.
What complaint do the critics have against Burgon? They allege that he wrote with a vitriolic pen but they never give examples. He spoke the truth. I have read his book very carefully and I believe he spoke the truth in love. But here is their main complaint,
The bedrock of Burgon’s text-critical views was a belief in verbal-plenary inspiration and the doctrine he inferred from it, providential preservation. On this foundation he constructed four arguments (which remain the main arguments of the Majority text theory to this day): (1) a theological a priori that God has and that such a preserved text has been accessible to thepreserved the text church in every age; (2) an assumption that heretics have, on a large scale, corrupted the text; (3) an argument from statistical probability related to the corollary of accessibility (viz., that the majority is more likely to contain the original wording); and (4) a pronouncement that all early Byzantine MSS must have worn out.— (ibid)
The person who demurs at Burgon’s first point can hardly be saved. It is therefore at this first and most critical point that we separate ourselves from the critics. Textual critics have shown themselves notoriously hostile to the doctrines of verbal plenary inspiration and the preservation of Scripture. It is not possible to maintain these doctrines and to accept modern versions at the same time. Burgon’s other three points have been well enough established by other writers.
It is also false to suggest that Burgon was the first to stand against the critics. D Cloud in his book For Love of the Bible writes of the following men who stood for the AV/TR.: H J Todd MA published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation in 1819, J W Whittaker MA published a defense of the AV in 1820. Then follow fifteen biographies of other 19th Century AV scholars. One other who deserves mention is Fred Nolan who in 1815 published his Inquiry into the Integrity of the Received Text. This book shows the corruption of the Alexandrian Text and demonstrates the verbal integrity of the Received Text. Nolan deals in depth with 1 John 5:7; 1 Tim.3:16, and Acts 20:28.
Wallace next criticizes E Hills as the man who ‘nearly seven decades’ later takes up the cause of the traditional text. He has this to say about him,
He argued even more strongly than did Burgon from providential preservation, for in his view the TR and not the Byzantine MSS per se was the closest text to the autographs. His dogmatic convictions about providential preservation led him to conclude that Erasmus was divinely guided when he introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text! (ibid p301.)
If divine guidance (which is not the same as inspiration) is denied to Erasmus then it must be denied to every translator. For why should any other translator receive it and not Erasmus? Critics will be quite happy with this of course. Their intellectual powers will not need the interference of the Holy Spirit.
If we believe it is God’s Book, divinely given, then we are confident that God will oversee its preservation from its origin and throughout the remainder of time, for the benefit of His people.
Having dismissed Hills, Wallace also dismisses the TR, believing that the Hodges / Farstad Majority Text of 1982 is the only serious opponent of the ‘Critical’ Text. Any still holding to the TR/AV will be regarded as anti-intellectual fundamentalists.
Wallace claims that,
The Majority Text revealed concretely that the Byzantine text-type had been poorly represented by the TR. (ibid. p302).
As though these are three different texts, or ‘text-types’. The Authorized Version is essentially the Majority text but there are some very significant differences. The Majority text excludes passages such as Acts 8:36,37 and 1 John 5:7. See again J Moorman’s book.
Wallace concedes that while both Majority and TR advocates may hold to verbal inspiration and preservation, the Majority defenders do not notice
that to grant to preservation the same doctrinal status as verbal inspiration is to deny their own claims for the Majority text and to affirm the TR.(ibid. p306.)
But Wallace will have the Majority defenders winning the day against the TR advocates, because they, the Majority defenders will not make the same fideistic leap that the TR people make. Their fideism, he writes
“is stripped naked at the bar of logic and empiricism…. A theological a priori has no place in textual criticism.” (ibid. p306, 309)
There Wallace spells it out again for us. The heart of the battle lies between faith in God and faith in human wisdom; between saved men and women who know their God and unconverted scholars. This is why there are two bibles, the Authorized, and the rest (whether based on the Westcott-Hort-Nestle-UBS text or on the Hodges-Farstad Majority text.)
Only those who hold solidly to the AV Bible can hold to Verbal Inspiration and the Preservation of Scripture. The textual critic declares himself to be an unbeliever and we are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph.5:9, Rom.13:12).
Thirty years ago Eldon Ladd, a leading American Textual Critic, proclaiming himself to be an Evangelical, sought to bring to an end ‘the bitter fundamentalist-modernist controversy which raged in the early twenties’ a consequence of which ‘has been the strongly negative attitude toward biblical criticism assumed by some of the successors to the fundamentalists of the 1920’s. Such people, according to Professor Ladd, insist that the critical method is basically hostile to the evangelical faith, and they have continued to oppose it’.
The essays in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research , and in particular, Wallace’s essay, show why fundamentalists (i.e. saved Bible believers) will continue to oppose modern textual criticism.
Ladd failed in his mission. His book The New Testament and Criticism did not impress Bible believers. One statement, given in his introduction and repeated on the back cover shows why he failed. It is this,
The central thesis of his book is that the ‘Bible is the Word of God given in the words of men in history,’ and as such its historical origins must be reconstructed as far as possible.
The child of God believes the Bible is the word of God given in the words of God, set down by chosen men and directed by the Holy Spirit so that every sentence, every phrase, every word, every syllable, and every jot and tittle recorded is that which God required to be recorded, without error, without human addition and without human subtraction.
Christ said, my words shall not pass away, Mat.24:35. The words of men do. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 1 Tim.6:3-5.
The Bible is not comprised of the words of men. It is the critic who causes strifes of words and the injunction in this context is from such withdraw thyself.

Students of the Bible must decide
Today students of the Bible must decide which text they will trust.
(a) They can choose a Bible based upon the Majority Text (which gave us the King James English Bible), supported by 95% of the evidence which is in perfect agreement (but from copies which carbon dating claims are not the oldest); or
(b) They can choose one of the modern bibles, based upon the Roman Catholic texts presented by Hort and Westcott.
Those who choose the latter are really placing their trust in Hort and Westcott, who looked at the discrepancies between their texts and decided at each step what God really meant to say.
Those who choose the modern bibles will find that nothing is added. Things are only taken away. Many verses are removed. And the deity of Christ is subtly diminished. soul-winners who have faced Jehovah’s Witnesses with new bibles have discovered they were entering the battle unarmed.
Their bibles made it difficult to prove that Jesus is God! Satan couldn’t destroy the Bible, so he just watered it down.
did God preserve His word? (He said He would.) If so then the church has had His Word down through the ages, and all we have to do is gather the pieces which have survived and put our Bible together fromthem.
On the other hand, if God did not preserve His word, but let His true word disappear into the Vatican library from the fourth to the fourteenth centuries, then the Hort and Westcott Text is His word, placed in the tender care of the Roman Catholic church, the one organization which spent centuries slaughtering those who dared to hold to the Scriptures.
If you believe this [and many of our “ministering brethren” appear to] you will want to carry a Bible based upon the Roman Catholic texts used by Hort and Westcott. —from a Chick publication, submitted by a correspondent.

The Green bible aka NRSV
The Green bible is simply the NRSV with all verses relating to nature printed in green. The bible with the Lord’s words printed in red is out, and the green is in. I have a New Testament with all gospel verses underlined. It is called “the Salvation Testament”. But salvation must now give way to earth worship so Mother Earth is to be worshipped rather than a Father God.
David Cloud wrote concerning the Green bible;
The Bible does not support the modern environmentalist movement and its frenzy over "global warming."
Bible-believing Christians are not the polluters of the earth and we appreciate clean water and healthy air as much as anyone, but we also know that the earth is under God's curse because of man's fall and is destined to be burned up and replaced. That is the "global warming" we need to be most concerned about. We are not going to save the earth, but by God's grace we can seek to save souls before it is too late. "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as men
count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:9-10). —FBIS News Service; 29/2/08

The Green bible is a New Age book designed for the emerging church. As such it is endorsed by Brian MacLaren, , an emerging church leader.

Textual Criticism and the Breakdown of Morality
“In a discourse preached on June 7, 1885, “The Principle and Tendency of the Revision Examined,” George Sayles Bishop issued a devastating charge against the Westcott-Hort critical Greek text and the new English version that was founded thereupon (the English Revised Version).

In this address he observed that most Christians did not understand the true character of modern textual criticism and its role in the revision of the English Bible. He warned that textual criticism appeals to scholarly pride. He considered the principles of modern textual criticism to be “twaddle.” He refused to accept the witness the Vaticanus manuscript because of Rome’s utter apostasy.

“Bishop stated that the objective of the prominent Unitarian and Modernistic textual critics was to undermine the divine inspiration of Scripture and to weaken the doctrine of Hell, and he observed that if this objective succeeded, it would result in the complete moral breakdown of society. He understood that modern textual criticism’s tendency to break down the authority of God’s Word has devastating consequences.....
“WHAT THEN IS THE GRAND SUMMING UP OF THIS ... AS TO THE TENDENCY OF THE REVISION?

“1. A general weakening all along the line toward Rome. This must be, if Rome is to furnish the basal document which is to determine our Bible. ... No wonder I say that men have gone up valiantly to Church Courts to overturn if possible, the declaration of the Old School Assembly of 1845 by a vote of 173 to 8, that Rome is apostate and her baptism as a baptism into an apostate system is utterly invalid.

“2. A second Tendency of the Revision is to loosen the Revelation of God from the letter, and to cast it floating out upon the winds. How can God inspire thoughts, ideas, but by words? Did you ever have a thought in your mind, an idea that was not in words? Never. If Inspiration is not verbal, in the very words, it is nowhere.

“3. The tendency is to remove from men that fear of penalty, which, say what we please, is the kingbolt of the Divine Government over the world. TAKE AWAY THE DOCTRINE OF HELL-FIRE AND THE WORLD WOULD BECOME ONE GREAT SODOM. ...” — October 23, 2008 (David Cloud, Fundamental Baptist Information Service, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061, 866-295-4143, fbns@wayoflife.org; (Selected)

Lordship Theology
Plymouth Brethren by David Cloud.
The Plymouth Brethren is a Christian movement which originated in England in the 19th century. According to Roy Huebmer, a Brethren historian and author of Precious Truths Revived and Defended Through J.N. Darby, this movement can be traced to 1827 when John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) and three other men began to conduct Bible studies and to break bread together in Dublin. Darby was the grandson of Lord Nelson of Trafalgar fame. He gave up a law practice to work as a deacon in the Church of England and to preach and do visitation work. He left the Anglican Church in the summer of 1827. He never married, and he used his personal estate to support himself. Eventually Darby moved to Plymouth, England, and the church he established there grew to over 1,200 members by 1845. Darby was a diligent student and prolific writer. William Kelly compiled and published 34 large volumes of J.N. Darby's works (in the Collected Writings). Seven volumes of Darby's Notes and Comments were published from his notebooks posthumously. Darby also produced translations of the Bible in German, French, and English. The Darby English translation follows the Received Text for the most part, though it does contain a number of Westcott-Hort omissions and other textual departures from the TR. For example, the eunuch's testimony in Ac 8:37 is omitted, as is the trinity statement of 1 Jn. 5:7. He did not intend that his versions replace the Luther German and King James English translations; his stated goal was to provide very literal interpretations of the Hebrew and Greek to aid Christians in Bible study.
"As a result of a division in England in 1848, there are two basic types of Brethren assemblies, commonly known as exclusive and open. Led in the beginning by Darby, the exclusive assemblies produced most of the movement's well-known Bible teachers--Kelly, Grant, Mackintosh, [Darby himself], and others. ... Open assemblies were led by George Muller, well known for his orphanages and life of faith. ... today there are an estimated 850 open assemblies in the U.S. with only 250 exclusive" (Handbook).
"Within these churches, the common terminology is simply Brethren, or assemblies, or Brethren assemblies. The term Plymouth Brethren is not used by the Brethren themselves, but was a label outsiders gave to them in Plymouth, England. The matter of names is a sensitive issue among Brethren, reflecting a historical emphasis on the unity of all believers. The early Brethren envisioned a basis for Christian unity--not in the ecumenical merging of denominations, but rather in forsaking denominational structures and names in order to meet simply as Christians. ... names like Bible Chapel or Gospel Hall, usually prefixed with the name of a city, community, street, or some biblical term like Grace, Bethel, or Bethany, are preferred to Church when naming a building" (Ibid.).
The Brethren have been zealous for Bible doctrine and hold to the evangelical Bible faith in areas such as Inspiration, Salvation, God, the Trinity, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, Resurrection, Heaven, and Hell. Though Bible prophecy was interpreted allegorically by most Christians in the 19th century, the Brethren were instrumental in popularizing the dispensational method of interpretation, which views biblical history as dispensations or eras in which God has been worked out His purposes through men, and which interprets Bible prophecy in a consistent literal-historical manner. The Brethren believe that God's promises to the nation Israel will be fulfilled literally, that the Tribulation and Millennium will be fulfilled literally. The Brethren emphasized the imminent coming of Christ for His own in the Rapture of the saints, though they did not fall into the error of setting dates. The writings of Darby, William Kelly, C.H. Mackintosh, and other Brethren dispensationalists had a powerful influence on C.I. Scofield, and these views are reflected in the popular Scofield Reference Bible of 1909. Another well-known Brethren was Sir Robert Anderson, who was chief of Scotland Yard and who wrote books on Bible prophecy which were widely distributed.
Some of the distinctives of the Plymouth Brethren movement are as follows: (1) The remembrance meeting held each Sunday, during which the Lord's Supper is received. All men of the assembly are free to take part in the service and to testify. (2) Though the Brethren believe in preachers, they do not believe in strong pastoral leadership. The assemblies are ruled by a plurality of elders. They reject any form of clergy/laity divisions, and refuse the title "Reverend." Brethren preachers normally receive no regular salary. (3) Many of the Plymouth Brethren have been opposed to the use of musical instruments, which they traced to the influence of Cain's descendants.
Three Brethren publishers in the U.S. are Loizeaux in Neptune, New Jersey, publisher of Harry Ironside's many popular books, Present Truth Publishers of Morganville, New Jersey, and Bible Truth Publishers in Addison, Illinois. While the Plymouth Brethren have been strong in Bible teaching, pure Christian living, and evangelism in days gone by, that is changing rapidly, as it is in most Christian groups. Sadly, there is a general tendency toward spiritual lethargy and evangelistic coolness today. — Wayoflife.org.
The Five Warning Signs Of Religious Abuse by Rafael Martinez
1) Unchecked Authoritarian Leadership
The first danger sign of a possibly unsound church, Enroth explains, can be seen through a high-handed exhibition of its leadership's authority, which often appears unnervingly legitimate. "Spiritual abuse can take place in the context of doctrinally sound, Bible preaching, fundamental, conservative Christianity. All that is needed for abuse is a pastor accountable to no one and therefore beyond confrontation. .. Authoritarian leaders are ecclesiastical loners. That is, they do not function well or willingly in the context of systematic checks or balances. They are fiercely independent and refuse to be part of a structure of accountability. To put it crudely, they operate a one-man (or one-woman) spiritual show. And God help the person who gets in the way or makes waves."
He continues: "Yes, sometimes they will point to a board of elders or its equivalent, but more likely than not, this turns out to be a faithful inner circle of clones that implicitly accepts all that the leader sets forth. .. Abusive pastors often come from troubled backgrounds and are very insecure persons despite the 'take charge' image they may project. They are power hungry people who crave visibility. Leaders who inflict spiritual violence often hide behind the smoke screen of authority to gain power." (pp. 203, 217, 219 of Churches That Abuse). It is important to understand that religiously abusive church leadership is most visible when it demands public and private attention to be given to the authority and control over the flock by the pastor. Often, in aberrant churches, this is not an easy thing to discern, and yet, it is frequently it is one of the danger signs that are too easily overlooked. Such leaders will seem too quick to chastise members, often in harsh forums of public rebuke.
—spiritwatch.org.
The other four points which can be seen on the above website are;
2.Imbalanced Congregational Life
3. Conscious Threats of Discipline
4. Deliberate Disruption of Personal Relationships
5. Withdrawal and Isolation From The “Outside”
I put this article in because we are hearing more of cases of abuse in our (brethren) circles.

Elder A: “So brother Jones has left us?
Elder B: “Yes, but he went without a letter.”
Elder A: “We’ll have to put him out of fellowship then!”
Elder B: “But he’s already gone”.
Elder A : “We must do things decently and in order!”

Elder C: “ We mustn’t take sides in this matter.”
Elder D: “Of course not. We’ll remain sitting on the fence.”
Elder C: “ Yes. We don’t want to be accused of being judgmental.”

Brother E: “I hear you are preaching at the XY conference. Do you know that the chief brother there believes the Lord could sin?
Big Preacher: Of course I know. But if I make an issue of it my diary will soon be empty.

“The Starry Firmament”

“The starry firmament on high,
And all the glories of the sky,
Yet shine not to Thy praise O Lord,
So brightly as Thy written Word.

“The hopes that holy Word supplies,
Its truths divine and precepts wise,
In each a heavenly beam I see,
And every beam conducts to Thee.

“Almighty Lord, the sun shall fail,
The moon her borrowed glory veil,
And deepest reverence hush on high
The joyful chorus of the sky.

“But fixed for everlasting years,
Unmoved amid the wreck of spheres,
Thy Word shall shine in cloudless day,
When heaven and earth have passed away.”

B G Wilkinson? From Which Bible?

Waymarks 52 Spring 2008

2008-02-22T02:35:00.000-08:00

Waymarks 52

This is the “cut-down” version. email me for a paper copy.

Report of Open air Preaching

19^th December LUTON T. C. Christmas lights, unlit, hang miserably along the street. There is no “Jingle Bell” music either, thankfully, it being supposed that it could offend the ethnic minorities, who as it happens simply adore Christmas. So it is quiet along the High Street and the gospel can be preached. But the preacher is totally ignored today.

At last a lady approaches but takes a step past me to the Big Issue boy standing next to me. Actually he got here first, but I’ve been preaching here for 33 years now. “Have you been blessed?” The lady asks the B I B. He hadn’t, apparently. She bought a copy of Big Issue, and went on her way.

2^nd January LUTON T.C. I get a response to my preaching today. A man shouts at me, “It’s all over”. I ignore him and continue preaching so he repeats his cry. If he means God is no longer saving souls, he is very much mistaken. The presence of a gospel preacher on the street is an indication of God’s mercy and longsuffering. The presence of believers here on earth is an indication the rapture has not yet taken place —all be it many are asleep.

16^th January LUTON T.C. Today somebody wants to talk to me. My first reaction was that I should advise him to dispose of his can of lager lest he get arrested. I though better of this as I would probably then lose any opportunity of preaching to him. He wanted me to know that he had been brought up Catholic but had now become a Christian. His main question was “what do I think of marriage?” I told him God instituted marriage for the whole human race. He seemed pleased with this reply and said he was worried about his relationship. He was living with his pal’s girlfriend who was soon due out of prison. I told him to repent and get right with God as soon as he could . At which he asked me to pray for him. I asked his name. “Oscar”, he replied. I was about to pray for this man’s conversion when two of his friends arrived. “Hallo Linden,” said one of them.

I learned they were all living rough and they seemed to me to be the sort that go around kicking people’s heads in on a Saturday night. Two of them accepted Way of Salvation booklets.

“While I was talking to the first man another man arrived who wanted to speak to me. Oscar/Linden told him to clear off because he was already talking to me.

12thFebruary LUTON T.C. Preached for a while, beginning as usual with John 3: 16. Then S— arrived, introducing herself as the sister of P—. I didn’t recognise her but she seemed to know me well enough. Her sister, P— has been to our Gospel Hall several times. Although R.C., she had taken a lot of interest in the gospel but had never made a profession. She spent a period in a psychiatric hospital and while there nominated me as her pastor. This gave me any time access to the hospital.

S— accepted a Way of Salvation booklet.

Next three small children came and stood in front of me, listening to the gospel. The oldest, about five years old, told me she liked my story because she was Catholic. They were waiting for their mother who had gone into a nearby shop, leaving them alone in the street. When she came out she seemed not in the least concerned that they had been listening to a street preacher!

AV Verses Vindicated

Mark 9: 42

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Darby puts “in me” in square brackets, indicating his objection to these words and casting doubt on their genuineness. They have indeed been bracketed in the Critical Text and are now missing from some modern versions, notably the NASV.

The manuscript evidence in favour of “in me” is massive. Their removal is therefore malicious. To some it matters not what is believed as long as one does not believe in Christ.

What confounds the critic is that not even the Codex Vaticanus omits “in me” while its twin pillar of the critical Text has thrown out these words.

Acts 20: 28 (a)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers....

“...in the which..” (RV, ESV, etc.).

David Oliver, in Truth and Tidings (Nov. 07) wrote,

The Authorized Version is misleading in translating [this]verse,

It is assumed that the AV translators were unlettered clods. Such is the crass ignorance of those who make such an assumption. The Greek preposition en is translated “over” in the AV Bible at this verse. The translators were well aware of the wide use of en as does the Bible student who has learned to use his Greek lexicon. There are many words in the English language that can be used legitimately to translate en besides “in”. The choice depends on the context.

The object is “overseers”, one who oversees or superintends, therefore the most suitable English preposition is “over”.

This in no way diminishes the fact the overseer is first a brother among his brethren.

David Oliver presumably does not believe the Authorized Version is the Holy Bible. He thinks the ESV is “more accurate”.

Galatians 5: 19

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

We are not surprised that adultery is missing from modern versions, from the RV onwards. Jeremiah tells us, They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. (Jer. 5: 8). This sin remains common practice throughout Christendom.

The NIV reads, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious” which is very vague for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

moicheia (adultery) is found in the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is also quoted by three of the “Fathers”.

2 Thes.2:2.

….the day of Christ is at hand.

. Modern versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscript evidence for the change is very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord" ^*. So let us believe what the Bible says and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ. The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read "day of Christ".

The Day of the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) and that it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means that), then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified Scripture. (N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture that men would from the beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit." But that is what every modern version is about.

*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.

For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith.

Hebrews 12: 16,17

Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sort it carefully with tears.

ASV “....he found no place for a change of mind in his father”.

CEV “....even though he begged his father and cried.”

GW “....even though he begged and cried for the blessing, he couldn’t do anything to change what had happened.”

Those opposed to genuine heart repentance make a travesty of this verse. The Scripture teaches us here that Esau lived and died an unrepentant fornicator and profane person. He made a great show with his crocodile tears and hoped there might be some way out of his mess but he was never truly sorry for his deeds. He wished to repent on his own terms as many do today.

There are many who show a degree of remorse. They wish they could change things and they make a form of believing. They’ll do anything but change their mind about their sin. They will even give it up BUT in their heart they relish what they have done so they have not repented.

Esau was such a man. Suggesting it was his father who needed to change his mind is an opinion not found in the text and it mocks God.

The Progress of Apostasy

The history of Textual Criticism is the story of Apostasy. A study of the lives of modern textual critics from the 18^th century on will reveal this. Each rising generation of critics appear more apostate than those who went before them, from Griesbach, and Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Aland, Metzger, to Ehrmann who denies the faith entirely because of his studies in Criticism.

It is not my intention to deal with apostasy generally but to describe my own conflict with it as it is met in Gospel Halls today.

Twenty minutes after I got saved I bought a Bible. It was an Authorized Version. There were no other versions on the bookstand that night. All the preachers read and quoted only from this Bible.

By the mid sixties certain men were telling us better renderings were to be found in the RV or even JND. This they claimed was due to a better scholarship. It was not long therefore before they were telling us how much they upheld the inspiration and inerrancy of the original Scriptures. The implication of this being that our present day Bibles could not be inspired and inerrant. Some of us woke up at this point. We realized that these men who came to our platforms were destroying faith in God’s written word. We began to read what the critics were saying so that we might answer them.

So by the eighties were learned that the critics were teaching the non-recoverability of the “originals”. This left them free to make up their own bibles based on likely readings, or what they thought the writers were trying to say. Formal translations were regarded as not possible and not necessary.

The verbal inspiration of Scripture had gone and for the last thirty years I have never heard it taught in any Gospel Hall.

Yet brethren will refer to the inspired word, while privately believing there is no such thing.

The latest development in textual criticism is there were no originals anyway. The critic tells us God did not inspire certain men to write what He directed. They tell us that God did not really have anything to do with the Bible anyway. What happened was that over a period of time stories were passed on by word of mouth concerning the words and deeds of Jesus. Naturally these were embellished as time went on to include miracles and resurrection etc. Some disciples decided they had better write it all down using the pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc. These were collected together and the bible appeared.

Already we are hearing allusions to this from our bible-teachers. Peter didn’t write the epistles by Peter! Apostasy is upon us. The Bible is out. Of course our public men do not want to put themselves out of business so they will give their little devotional talks, but they don’t need a Bible to do it. The Brethren slumber on.

The Barrenness of the Brethren Gospel

I shall refer to one example of Brethren preaching that I listened to recently. It is typical of so many I have heard over the years.

The meeting began with the singing of three gospel hymns. They were “old time” hymns, sung from the Irish Gospel Hymn Book but still popular today with N. I. Brethren and some G B assemblies. They were hymns sung by most evangelical churches in the past. They were hymns I like to sing.

Then came an opening prayer which lasted about one minute. This is probably a good thing too if the desired audience should be made up of unconverted folk, not used to lengthy theological prayers. The praying had been done before the meeting started.

This was followed by the reading of the Bible and here he trouble started. We were told that a few words would be read and they would be applied out of context. They were “For how long shall thy journey be?” Neh. 2: 6.

There were no good gospel passages for the preacher to use apparently. He indicated by his use of Scripture his low regard for it. His message was to be a succession of semi-related anecdotes. He would not be relying on Scripture to apply his message and he quoted no texts during his preaching.

One appreciates that it is difficult to mention every gospel word or phrase within the bounds of a 45 minute gospel message but to make no mention at all of the cross? Not only was the cross ignored but also no mention was made of Lord, Jesus, virgin birth, deity, resurrection, repentance, conversion, faith, trust, forgiveness, pardon ,lake of fire, eternal punishment, Scripture.

It was all a succession of anecdotes. Some were quite moving and one felt one’s emotions being stirred. Some appeared totally irrelevant. We were told of the surgeon who stopped to ask a drink at a house while out walking. The little girl of the house brought him a glass of milk. Later the little girl was taken ill and needed surgery. The surgeon, unrecognised, performed the operation and as the family was poor he wrote on his bill, “Paid in full —with one glass of milk.”

I missed what theological point this fulfilled. I think it was we can gain salvation with as little as a glass of milk. Certainly not “nothing to pay” because the little girl had done something to merit her bill being paid.

The meeting closed with a short prayer for people to get right with God and another gospel hymn.

Those present appeared to be impressed with this message. None showed any concern that this did not relate to the gospel revealed in the New Testament.

This was not a case of the preaching of the cross; the cross was not even mentioned. Eugene Higgins certainly did not preach Christ crucified. The person of Christ, His deity etc. was not mentioned. No instruction was given concerning the reality of hell. The word hell was mentioned but very quickly passed over. No advice was given concerning the responsibilities of the new convert. No suggestion that there were things that would have to be given up. No one was made to feel uncomfortable.

********

A blasphemous entry appears on the Hebron Hall, Bicester, website:

All of this prefigured Christ, who by becoming man also became our ‘near-kinsman’ (Heb 2:11-17). “That he might have a right to redeem man, He took upon Him human nature, and thus became a kinsman of the great family of the human race, and thereby possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin apart], and of buying back to man that inheritance which had been forfeited by transgression.” Adam Clarke.

It seems this is the stated belief of those meeting at the above Gospel Hall.—Christ took on Himself a fallen human nature. (But we doubt if many at Hebron Hall have seen this website. It is largely the work of M Penfold who has this same statement on his other website, webtruth.org)

For Christ to have a fallen (i.e. sinful) nature, He must have had a human father. Adding to Clarke’s quote the words [sin apart] only aggravates the issue, implying that the Lord could sin because He had a fallen nature but chose not to.

The surprising thing about all this is that reputable brethren visit this Gospel Hall with no qualms as to what they will be associated with.

Devils or Demons? by will Kinney, and found on Steve van Nattan’s website (copyright lifted)

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines OF DEVILS." 1 Timothy 4:1

There are a multitude of Bible critics who insist the King James Bible is in error when it translates the Greek word daimonion as "devils". They tell us this word should be translated as "demons" and not devils, because everyone knows there is only one Devil, that is Satan, and not many.

Let's do a little word study to see if there is any legitimacy to their claims.

The late Baptist pastor and King James Bible defender Bruce Lackey wrote a little book titled Why I Believe the Old King James Bible. On pages 44-48 he says regarding the use of the word devils and other alleged errors in the King James Bible: "Rather than treat these places as errors, why not remember that the King James translators were intelligent and reverent scholars, and try to find out why they did a particular thing in the way that they did?"

Mr Lackey writes: "The word Devils¹ is another word that the critics delight in pouncing on, as a wrong translation. Everyone knows, they say, that there is only one devil (Satan), but many demons. Also, the Greek word from which Odevils¹ comes (DAIMON, and cognates) is different from that which refers to Satan (DIABOLOS). Again, a little investigation will prove this charge to be foolish, to say the least, and ignorant, at the most. Consider:

"(1) The word translated devil,¹ when referring to Satan, does not always refer to him; DIABOLOS is translated slanderers¹ in 1 Timothy 3:11, and as false accusers¹ in 2 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 2:3. In all three places, it refers to human beings. Again, we see the necessity of translating in a manner which will be understood by the readers.

"(2) Devil in the English language has multiple meanings; it may refer to Satan, demons, a very wicked person, an unlucky person (that poor devil), a printer¹s devil (apprentice or errand boy) as any good English dictionary would show. To say that devil¹ is an erroneous translation, because it can only refer to Satan, is to ignore the dictionary!" - Mr. Bruce Lackey.

I might add that to affirm there is only one Devil and this is Satan is also incorrect. In the gospel of John, immediately after Peter said: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God", the Lord Himself answered them: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you IS A DEVIL."

The Lord was obviously referring to Judas Iscariot, and mere man, yet He calls him a devil - DIABOLOS.

Let's look at some of the English dictionaries Mr. Lackey referred to.

Dictionary.Com, and the modern Webster's Dictionary define devil:

1. Devil - In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of God. Used with the.
2. A subordinate evil spirit; a demon.
3. A wicked or malevolent person.

Demon - Likewise these dictionaries give the following definitions for "demon". Notice numbers 2 and 3.

Main Entry: de·mon
Variant(s): or dae·mon

Etymology: Middle English demon, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin daemon evil spirit, from Latin, divinity, spirit, from Greek daimOn, 1 a. an evil spirit b. : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin 2 usually daemon : an attendant power or spirit: Genius 3 usually daemon : a supernatural being of Greek mythology intermediate between gods and men

New Agers today refer to daemons as good spirits who guide us in this life. I have heard some of the lectures on the Power of Myth by the late Joseph Cambell. He frequently used the word "daemon" in a positive way as some sort of spiritual guide. I'm sure he now knows how wrong he was during his lifetime.

Shakespeare also used the word daemon (demon) is a positive way. Therefore, O Antony, stay not by his side. Thy demon, that thy spirit which keeps thee, is Noble, courageous, high, unmatchable Where Caesar's is not. But near him thy angel Becomes a fear, as being o'erpow'red. . . --Antony and Cleopatra, II.iii.18-22.

Basilides, in his book The Seven Sermons to the Dead, translated by Carl Jung (another New Ager) says: "The daemon of spirituality descends into our soul as the white bird. It is half human and appears as desire-thought... The White Bird is a half-celestial soul of man. He bids with the Mother."

Another point I have never seen raised by these modern version proponents who criticize the King James Bible has to do with the New Testament Greek itself. They love to "go to the Greek" to show us their expertise and convince us of the alleged errors in the Holy Bible.

Regarding the Greek words daimon, and daimonion, which are translated as "devils" in the King James Bible, and as "demons" in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, several Greek lexicons give us the following definitions.

Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon 17th edition 1878 says the verb daimonizomai means "to be possessed by a devil." It then goes on to define daimonion as "an inferior race of divine beings".

Thayer's Greek Lexicon says daimonion is 1. the Divine power, deity, divinity, and 2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to man, in both a good and a bad sense.

Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich likewise tell us daimonion is 1. a deity, a divinity, 2. a demon, an evil spirit.

Kittel's massive work says of both daimon and daimonion that they are first used to denote gods. They can also refer to lesser deities or a protective deity. They also are "messengers between gods and men".

Many modern versions themselves are inconsistent. Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and Darby render the noun and verb (daimonion, daimonizomai) as "demons" and yet when they come to the adjective of this word in James 3:15 (daimoviwdns) they translate it as "devilish" or "of the devil". "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, DEVILISH." - James 3:15.

The Greek New testament, no matter which one you choose with all the textual variations, all agree in Acts 17:18. Here we see from the New Testament Greek itself the relationship between daimonion and the gods. Remember, the word daimonion meant in Greek mythology an intermediate spirit between the gods and men.

In Acts 17:18 we read: "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange GODS: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."

The word here translated as "gods" is daimonion, the very same word translated as "devils" in the KJB and many others, and as "demons" in the RSV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV. Demons = gods.

Another Greek word found in the New Testament shows again this relationship between the daimonion (devils) and religion. In this same chapter (Acts 17:22) the apostle Paul walked around the city of Athens and observed their devotions and altars of pagan gods. Paul says to them: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too SUPERSTITIOUS."

For a more complete study on this verse and why the King James Bible is correct, please see my article http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts17-22.html

The word translated as "too superstitious" in the King James Bible is composed of two elements - Deisi and daimonesterous. The first part is the verb deido which means to fear, and the second part is an adjective from the noun daimon, which means devils or demons. The word daimon is used six times in the New Testament and is always translated as devils in the KJB.

What we see here in the Greek language is that the words daimon, and daimonion can both carry the idea of a positive and beneficial spiritual entity. The King James translatos were aware of this, and correctly translated these words as "devils". The word "devils" is directly related to the Devil and we are in no doubt as to which side they are on.

Martin Luther was not confused about this issue when he composed his famous song, A Mighty Fortress is Our God. One of the lines of this great song is: "And though this world with DEVILS filled should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God hath willed, His truth to triumph through us."

Most modern versions have removed the word "devils" when it refers to unclean or evil spirits. These include the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV and the ESV.

However there are many Bible versions both before and after the King James Holy Bible that correctly translate this word as devils. Among these are the following:

Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, Webster's 1833 translation (Deut. 32:17; 2 Chron. 11:15), Douay Rheims 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, New American Bible 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, the New English Bible 1970, J. B. Phillips (Luke 11:19), the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the 2001 Easy to Read Version (Psalms 106:37 "God's people killed their own children and offered the children to those devils."), and the modern 2002 paraphrase called The Message - Isaiah 34:14, Matthew 12:27, 45; Luke 11:19 "but if you're slinging devil mud at me, calling me a devil who kicks out DEVILS, doesn't the same mud stick to your own exorcists?".

Those who criticize the King James Bible for using the word devils instead of demons apparently do not understand either the Greek or the English language very well. They are like those described in 1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."

At the beginning of this little study we quoted 1 Timothy 4:1 where the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter days some would depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.

Without exception, I have found that those who criticize our beloved King James Bible do not believe that any single text or Bible version, be it in Hebrew, Greek, English, Swahili or whatever, is the complete, inerrant, inspired, and pure words of God. In regards to the Bible version issue, the modern scholars have adopted the methods and beliefs of liberal apostates who tell us the Hebrew Masoretic texts have been corrupted and the Greek texts are uncertain and in need of constant research and updating. They have no infallible Holy Bible to give us and they ridicule those of us who believe God has preserved His pure words and that today and for almost 400 years they are found in the King James Holy Bible.

I have personally been called an ignorant fool, an apostate, and even demon possessed because I believe God meant what He said about heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away.

There are two basic views hotly debated among Christians today concerning the Bible version issue. You are on one side or the other.

#1. Believing God has kept His promises to preserve His words and has given us an inerrant Bible or #2. Believing there is no such thing as a complete, inerrant, and perfect Bible on the face of this earth?

Now which of these two views do you think is a doctrine of devils?

The Gospel

The Gospel is “Good News”. It is good news to the human race. It is good news for this reason— it is not inevitable that the sinner should go down into hell. There is a heaven to be gained.

The gospel is God’s (Rom. 1: 1) and it is also the gospel of his Son (Rom. 1: 9). There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 2: 5)

There is therefore only one gospel and all other gospels are false. All world religions have their gospel but the total sum of this world’s religions stink in the nostrils of a holy God. All roads do not lead to the God of heaven. They lead down into hell and are lumped together under the title of “The Broad Way” (Matt. 7: 13). The Broad Way has two sides; the religious side or the non-religious. The moral or the immoral. The destiny is in hell whichever side you travel.

God’s way declares mankind to be depraved and lost in sin. This is the starting point, dear reader. do you think you have any natural standing with God? Do you think He is impressed by your puny attempts to do good? There is none that doeth good (Rom. 3: 12) whether he be a pope, or she be a mother Teresa, all are spiritually bankrupt in the sight of God. You must first acknowledge that your sins have come between you and your God. The least of your great weight of sins damns you in the sight of God. If you are unwilling to face up to this you remain lost and amongst the hell-bound.

Attempts at self improvement are of no avail. You have probably tried this course to no effect. You must accept God’s gospel or perish.

If you are not a religionist you may be an atheist. There is no sincere atheist. You do not KNOW there is no God. You merely pretend there is no God because you know if you acknowledge a God your life must be condemned. It is anyway. All unbelievers are condemned already.

The true and living God has made Himself known and is seen in Creation.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1: 19,20

Evolutionists wilfully deny God. The evidence is there in creation. No evolutionist will ever get to heaven.

A personal knowledge of God can come only through Jesus Christ. The Scripture says concerning Him; God was manifest in the flesh. 1 Tim.3: 16. He proved Himself to be God by His miraculous entry into this world; by means of the virgin’s womb; By His sinless life; by His death, burial, and resurrection.

He came to redeem you and me by dying on a Roman cross. He came to pay the penalty demanded by a righteous and just God for the sin which is yours and mine.

The good news therefore is Repent ye and believe the gospel. Mark 1: 15. His death opens up the way for the repentant believing soul to gain heaven and avoid hell. Christ died for our sins.

Repentance precedes conversion. Repent ye therefore and be converted. Repentance is not remorse, regret, or feeling sorry for oneself. It is a change of mind which produces a change of behaviour. If you carry on loving the world and your sin then you haven’t repented.

Believing means trusting Christ and receiving Him as the eternal Son of God, the Saviour of the world. Wrong thoughts of Christ will take you into hell. A refusal to acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Son of God leaves you dead in the sight of God.

Conversion involves the work of the Holy Spirit. The soul becomes new-born. Eternal life is gained. This is an irreversible condition that will take you eventually into heaven. It will be evident in your life. Others will see the change in you.

The Bible Text Issue

Son of Deceased Apostate Textual "Scholar" Hails Father as Ecumenical Pioneer Who Greatly Contributed to Worldwide "Church Unity"

Dr. Bruce Metzger’s name is well known in Biblical textual circles, since he was one of the most prominent liberal scholars in the textual field for more than sixty years. A religious apostate, Metzger often cloaked his unbelief with conservative terminology.

In a tribute to his father that appeared in the Volume XXVII Number 1 issue (2007) issue of The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, his son John M. Metzger hailed his father as an ecumenical pioneer. Metzger wrote: "One aspect of Dad’s scholarly work that has sometimes not been sufficiently recognized or appreciated is that his work has brought Christian believers together and has encouraged unity and understanding within the ecumenical church at a fundamental Biblical level…"

"By 1967, however, in a review of the Jerusalem Bible, Dad wrote that ‘during the past generation the differences between the results of Protestant and Roman Catholic Biblical scholarship have been reduced almost to the vanishing point…

Indeed, Dad’s biblical scholarship has significantly advanced the ecumenical movement, for example, in May 1973, when he and several others presented a specially bound copy of the Collins RSV ‘Common’ Bible to Pope Paul VI…When these additional texts were published on May 19, 1977, in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, with the Apocrypha, it could at last be said that ‘Now for the first time since the Reformation, one edition of the Bible had received the blessings of leaders of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches alike.’"

"Dad’s high-level ecumenical contacts continued when, in Advent 1991, he and several others presented a Roman Catholic Edition…of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] in white calf to Pope John Paul II, who expressed his appreciation that such an edition was now available. Dad’s efforts in developing a single edition of the scriptures that is acceptable to all major branches of Christianity is truly a major contribution to church unity."

Ed: Despite his supposed evangelical beliefs, Metzger was a blatant apostate. The writer has beside him a copy of The Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV edition of which Metzger was a co-editor. In this volume, Metzger boldly denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture calling the Pentateuch a "matrix of myth, legend and history." (p. xxi) The book of Job was portrayed as an "ancient folktale" (p. 613), while Jonah was declared to a "didactic narrative" that was taken from "popular legend." (p. 1120)

In a chapter at the book’s conclusion entitled "How to Read the Bible with Understanding," Metzger stated on p. 1513: "The opening chapters of the O. T. deal with human origin. They are not to be read as history." Metzger also believed that the KJV had "grave defects" (Preface, p. ix) and that it "was based on a text that was marred by mistakes (Ibid, p. xii)."

Metzger also served as editor of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]. Speaking about Christ’s humanity in Luke 2:33, the NRSV blasphemously states that "the child’s [Jesus] father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him." The above article conclusively proves that there is a decisive link between the ecumenical movement and unreliable modern Bible translations!

God’s Providential Preservation of the Perfect Scriptures

In the Aug. 2007 issue of the Plains Baptist Challenger, E. L. Bynum penned an incisive article entitled "On the Fence" in which he asserted that middle-of-the road compromisers were straddling the fences on numerous vital religious issues including Biblical preservation.

In his article Bynum vigorously defended God’s preservation of His Holy Scriptures, declaring that in II Peter 1:19-21 "Peter said ‘WE HAVE a more sure word,’ and he did not say ‘we once had.’ He spoke in the present tense, yet much of the Bible was more than 1,500 years old and they did not have the original manuscripts in his day.

In the previous verses Peter is telling us about his wonderful experience on the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8). However, he now tells us that the Bible is a more sure word of prophecy. On the mount, Peter had an experience, but in the Bible he had a divinely inspired, God-breathed revelation from God.

Some will say, ‘yes, we believe that, but we don’t have the original manuscripts.’ If that is the test, then no one, living or dead, had on this earth an infallible, inspired Bible. No man ever had all the original manuscripts. According to this theory, they were all polluted and contained errors the first time they were copied or translated.

Why would God give an inspired and infallible book, if it would only be available for the immediate writer and the few that might be able to read it? You may serve that kind of God, but I do not. The proposition is simple, either God gave His perfect word and kept it pure, or we have no Bible today.

If our Bible today is filled with errors as the modern translators tell us [Ed: That’s what Bruce Metzger alleged!], then we have no dependable Bible in the first place. If that be so, we are as bad off as the modernists who believe that a lot of the Bible is the ideas of man. Brother, get off the fence and stand for the total trustworthiness of our KJV Bible." To E. L. Bynum’s statement, the F.D. editor adds a hearty "amen."

—The two articles above are taken from The Fundamentalist Digest; Oct/Nov 2007

Interpretations

He was a quiet brother. meaning He never spoke a word for the Lord.

We don’t know whether he’s saved. “ He never spoke a word for the Lord.

We don’t know whether he is saved. “ He’s unmoved by gospel preaching.

He doesn’t show much interest. “ He sleeps through the meetings.

He’s a carnal believer. “ He asks questions of the oversight.

He’s a great scholar. “ He thinks the Bible is full of error.

He’s very gifted. “ He has two cars and a big house.

He’s a fine preacher. “ His ministry never touches me.

He’s a humble brother “ He doesn’t earn half what I do.

He has a simple faith. “ He never reads his Bible.

He attends the meetings regularly “ He comes Sunday mornings only.

He’s a powerful preacher “ He never calls for repentance.

His wife is a “mother in Israel”. “ His wife rules the Assembly.

We are not sure where his children stand . “ His children run wild.

He wants to be the church secretary “ He understands the “book me-book you” system.

“It must be from God”

The Holy Bible must have been

Inspired of God and not of men

I could not if I would, believe

That good men wrote t to deceive,

and bad men could not if they would.,

and surely would not if they could,

Proceed to write a book so good.

and certainly no crazy man

could e’er conceive its wondrous plan,

And pray, what other kinds of men

Than do these three groups comprehend?

Hence it must be that God inspired

The Word which souls of prophets fired.

Author Unknown

2007-11-21T03:49:00.000-08:00

Waymarks 51

Report of Open Air Preaching

August 28^th DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. Preached for half an hour. Then a man sat down beside me and asked me what I thought of Christianity. “Not much”, I replied. “Its branches are full of every fowl of the air.” This seemed to please him. He told me he preached all over the world and warned against false religion. It became apparent after a minute or two that false religion to him was everything outside of Armstrongism. I asked him one or two questions. Hell was a state of mind, he told me. He was using the word “hell” as a swear word, along with another swear word. But he didn’t stay long. He found the gospel of Christ unacceptable. Armstrongism goes under the name of “Worldwide Church of God”. It is a wicked, blasphemous cult and has ensnared not a few with its Plain Truth magazine.

August 29^th LUTON T.C. I wasn’t able to preach today because P- arrived as I did. He had so many questions so I held a one-to-one Bible Class in the Street, which lasted one and a quarter hours. P-is the man who trusted the Saviour on this same spot many years ago.

September 5^th LUTON T.C. I resolved that I would preach today even if I got interrupted.

The first interruption came after five minutes. A “tough guy” came and stood immediately in front of me. I continued to preach to his navel. (I was on my scooter). After a few moments he lunged forward and put his hand on my shoulder. “God bless you” he said, and then he walked away. I then noted he was carrying a baby in one hand – and a cigarette in the other. “and you too” I called after him.

My Calvinist friend came by. He told me that those who endure to the end will be saved. What a poor, wretched religion he holds to. My salvation doesn’t depend on my perseverance. It was settled eternally at the cross and secured for me the instant I trusted Him. My friend is unable to cope with discussion so he immediately walked away from me when I challenged him.

A young man who distributes leaflets for an international cult greeted me and said he would be back once he had “signed on”. He did come back but did not show himself until I had finished preaching. He seemed impressed by my preaching and told me I was a great encouragement to him. I decided I would explain to him why his cult is so wrong. He listened entirely without interrupting me. It may be this young man is still seeking the truth, though he is caught up in a cult.

September 19^th LUTON. T.C. I preached for 20 minutes and then a young Muslim man approached me. Was I aware of the similarities between the Koran and the Bible? Muslims have tried to draw me into this useless debate in the past. I told him the differences are fundamental. The Bible is a Book from heaven and the Koran is a book from hell. He did not hang around. As he left the cult boys arrived so rather than risk further distraction I began to preach again. They made no attempt to interrupt or peddle their wares. Rather, they “amened” me several times. While they were doing this another man interrupted. He knew the first two so I thought he was their minder. He turned out to be the Reverend Mark. He felt it important for me to know he was a Reverend because he repeated it several times. He is pastor of “Agape Church” in Luton. I had never heard of it. These places seem to spring up every time it rains. There are now dozens of such places in Luton. Most of them are cults. The remainder are Charismatic. All are very evangelical! There never has been a day such as this for religious fervour and never before have we been so deep into apostasy.

Ocober 10^th LUTON T.C. John, ear-studded, accepted a Way of Salvation after a few minutes talk. Emmanuel stood waiting to talk to me. Emmanuel has spoken to me several times now. He left India some 50 years ago and was proud to be a 4^th generation Christian. He appeared to equate Anglicanism with being born again, and was quite astonished to learn that I, born in “Christian England”, didn’t hear the gospel until I was nineteen years old. My parents, nominally C of E, were heathen. He accepted all Bible teaching, but thought the Lord’s body must have begun to corrupt in the grave. (he thought this after 75 years in the Cof E!!) This was enough to convince me the poor man was without eternal life and his Indian Christianity no more than a doctrine of devils. However, he seemed very willing to listen to me and was very responsive. I explained to him Peter’s use of Psalm 16 in his preaching on the day of Pentecost, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. He accepted this. But I do not believe a converted soul could go so long with wrong thoughts concerning Christ.

(We note M Penfold of Penfold Books does believe the Lord saw corruption. See By the Way... below.)

October 17^th LUTON T C. I preached for 15 minutes and then Emmanuel arrived. I kept preaching for a few more minutes as I didn’t want to be bogged down with a profitless conversation. I then noticed a young Muslim woman hovering in the background. She was obviously interested and spoke to E while I was preaching. When I stopped she approached me and wanted me to know she was a devout Muslim. She listened to my testimony and accepted a tract but I think she was after material help. She told me she had been in the UK only three years and was looking for employment. She is a qualified dentist.

After she departed E wanted to explain to me that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all titles of Jesus. Pray for this poor man’s conversion. I do not believe it possible for a believer to hold such erroneous views.

November 13^th DUSTABLE. Ashton Square. I was about to start preaching when an elderly couple shuffled up and sat down on the wall next to me. The man was out of breathe and told his lady he would have to rest for a while. I began to recite John 3: 14-19. Before I got to v.16 they both got up and hurried away.

What deep sense of hostility towards God, or weight of guilt could cause them to do this, I wondered. They reminded me of the man who visited his GP. He was told he had an extremely serious disease, and immediately, he clapped his hands to his ears and raced from the surgery, declaring that he didn’t want to hear that kind of thing. Had he stayed a moment longer he would have learned there was now a cure for his complaint.

So it is with the sinner who will not hear the Good News.

AV Verses Vindicated

Genesis 36: 24

And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules (yem) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

The RV and most modern versions has “....this is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness.”

There are no Hebrew manuscripts carrying a variant reading. The word is yem and means mule.

However, Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has a footnote showing that the Versio Syriaca Hexaplaris has a variant reading, changing the word (in Syriac) to mean springs. Jerome’s Vulgate (Latin) has the same change. It is suggested that the author of the Syriac version altered yemim (mules)to mayim (springs) and Jerome later took this up.

Clarke tells us that Bochart believed the Emim are meant.

yem occurs here only in the O.T. and is not the common word for mules but this is no excuse for altering the word of God.

Isaac Leeser in his The Twenty four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translated ACCORDING TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT after the best Jewish Authorities; Bloch Publishing co. 1907, reads “....this was that Anah that found the mules...”

Anah discovered (found) how to cross horses with asses and he produced the first mules. After this mules are referred to in the O.T. as pered ....and they brought ....horses and mules (1 Kings 10: 25). So the reason mules are not mentioned in Scripture before this point is simple: there weren’t any.

Isaiah 3: 3, 4

He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not....yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...

According to the Revised English Bible this reads, “He was despised, shunned by all, pain-racked and afflicted by disease...while we thought of him as smitten by God, struck down by disease and misery.”

This is one of the most highly blasphemous perversions of Scripture I have come across. The REB is teaching that Christ was riddled with disease and men though he deserved it. But they came to realise he was struck down with disease for their sakes. One must have a diseased mind to put this construction on this passage.

When we learn that the REB was planned by representatives of Baptist Union, Methodist Church, Society of Friends, Roman Catholic Church, Salvation Army, United Reformed Church , Bible Society, and a few other similar organizations, we are not surprised at the outcome.

The use of the word grief in Jer. 6: 7, and Jer. 10: 19 demonstrate the reasonableness of the AV translation in Isaiah 3:3,4. All the words are in plain non-archaic English, easy to be understood.

Jeremiah 31: 22

How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Modern Versions deny the teaching of the Virgin Birth.

Compass (saw-bab’) commonly means to surround, as the men of Sodom, compassed the house round. Gen. 19: 4

A woman in pregnancy compasses the child. The changes in modern versions listed below (which is far from being an exhaustive list) show a conscious wilful attack on the virgin birth of Christ, because no man is involved in this creatorial act. It is a new creation on the Lord’s part.

“.... A transformed woman will embrace the transforming God.” The Message (MSG)

“....A woman will protect a man” God’s Word. Is this a new thing?? It is certainly not God’s word.

“....A woman turned into a man” REB

“....A woman with the strengths of a man.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

The NIV has “A woman will surround a man” and then uses a footnote to deny the Virgin Birth teaching in the verse; “or, will go about seeking, or, will protect”

William MacDonald in his Believer’s Bible Commentary, which is based on the NKJV denies there is any reference here to the virgin birth. He claims “The woman here is Israel and the man is Jehovah... the prediction is that the virgin of Israel will cease to go ‘hither and thither after idols’ and will seek and cleave to Immanuel.”

Those who read the prophecy of Jeremiah may note that about 40 times the nation is urged to return. RETURN, RETURN, RETURN. But this is to be a NEW creation so how can they return to a relationship that never before existed? Had Israel NEVER enjoyed a close relationship with God?

If God can reverse the backslidings of a nation through a creatorial act why has He not already done so? What love is this?

He goes on to quote Kelly (but does not identify which Kelly. J N D Kelly, William Kelly?) “a devout scholar of undoubted orthodoxy, explains why a popular interpretation is not valid...compassing a man has no reference whatever to the birth of a child.” Q E D??

So what about “In Jer.31: 22, ’A woman shall compass a man’ is a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah from a virgin”—Wilson’s Old Testament word Studies. Kregel.

The man here is gheh-ber’meaning a warrior or valiant man. The word is not used in relation to deity. But when we come to Isaiah 9: 6 which is an unequivocal reference to the virgin birth of Christ, we find another word used from the same root as gheber-ber’. It is unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.... The mighty( ghib-bore’) God.

Now we shall add our QED.

Remember dear fellow believer, almost all commentaries are written by rationalists. J N Darby also denies the virgin birth in this verse.

1 Peter 2: 2

As new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

“Like new born babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV)

The ASV is worse than the NIV. It reads, “As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.”

J N Darby also carries this blunder, “...that ye may grow up to salvation”.

The Contemporary English Version (CEV) emphasises this error with, “....pure spiritual milk that will help you grow and be saved. The CEV with the other modern versions has Peter writing to unsaved believers, who can eventually

get saved as long as they keep on drinking their milk. They don’t mean Bible study either, because the words of the word are omitted from them all.

This is a salvation by works alteration; an early addition to the text. All who are genuinely saved will recognize this to be a false reading. The majority of cursive manuscripts omit “unto salvation”.

By the Way....

We read in The Growth of the Brethren Movement,

An indeterminate number [of “Brethren assemblies”], perhaps between fifty and 100, have linked up with the FIEC or one of the charismatic groups such as Icthus or New Frontiers International; others may follow......I shall be surprised if more than a few of those who continue to follow the old paths will serve any useful purpose in the future, other than providing a spiritual home for elderly or conservatively-minded believers who love the Lord and his [sic] word, but find it impossible to embrace change. —The Growth of the Brethren Movement; Neil T R Dickson and Tim Grass; Wipf and Stock; 2006; p.129.

Those Bible believers who know anything about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), Icthus, and NFI will know that the assemblies referred to in the paragraph above have moved deeper into apostasy. Those assemblies heeding Jer. 6: 16, (Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.) will apparently serve no useful purpose in the future.

The leader of NFI is Terry Virgo, described as a Reformed Charismatic and regarded by many NFI members as an Apostle. Enough said!

We heard of a serious case of assembly bullying recently. A travelling evangelist was engaged for a series of gospel meetings. The meetings were well attended but apparently nobody got saved. The evangelist announced this was because there was sin in the camp. (He wouldn’t admit that his preaching was without power, would he?). The elders decided they would have to carry out an investigation to find the guilty person. They did not know of any sin but they called uninvited at the home of a single sister, reducing her to tears with their unfounded accusations.

But what kind of god would bar people from responding to the gospel on the ground that another person in the audience wasn’t living right? It is clear that this evangelist and his employers have no true concept of the gospel or the nature of God.□

The following is found on Michael Penfold’s website, webtruth.org.

The Bible clearly and repeatedly refers to the physical body of Christ. It was a normal body of flesh and blood, in every respect the same as every other human body, apart from sin. Based on 1 Pet 1:18-19 some erroneously teach that Christ’s blood was not human but was physically eternal, never being subject to corruption. They claim that Jesus actually took all of His blood back to heaven with Him! These verses do not actually say that the blood of Christ was incorruptible. True, it is precious and eternally efficacious for sin, having supreme infinite value spiritually – but is never said to be physically incorruptible. Acts 20:28 says the blood is ‘God’s’ but only in the sense that Christ is God, not that His blood was non-human. Blood cells, which have no nucleus, are born to die within a lifespan of about 120 days. The Lord’s true humanity demands that His blood had to be replaced, as did His skin (about every 30 days), just as in all other humans. If the Lord’s blood never ‘died’, He would have had the same red and white blood cells from Bethlehem to Calvary which implies a totally inactive bone marrow. However, since He was truly human, His bone marrow would daily replace His dead blood cells. All other explanations lead to a non-human conclusion. The Saviour’s deciduous teeth, His hair, His nails and His spittle all passed from Him in the normal way without in any way compromising His holy sinless person. True, His body was incorruptible in the grave (Psa 16:10), but the discharges from that body were never incorruptible during His life. Heb 9:12 says Christ entered into heaven by His blood (dia), not with His blood; that is, by virtue of His blood, not literally carrying it.

M Penfold is proprietor of Penfold Book and Bible House, Bicester. Though much of what he has written on his website is true and therefore acceptable, many strange things appear.

To suggest that 1 Peter 1:18,19 “do not actually say that the blood of Christ was incorruptible” is a rank denial of Scripture. Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold......but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. I fail to see how Scripture can be plainer than this.

Silver is corruptible. Gold is corruptible. They may be the least corruptible of all material things but they do corrupt. If we are to be redeemed it will have to be with that which is utterly beyond the possibility of corruption. The blood of Christ alone is the only commodity meeting this requirement. It is precious beyond anything this world can produce.

Acts 20: 28 does NOT say the blood is ‘God’s’. No reliable Greek manuscript says this either. The deity of Christ is established in this verse. It is the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Blood cells are not born. They cannot die. They are never alive. Efforts to imply the corruptibility of the blood of Christ by this argument are fictive.

Hebrews ch. 9 describes how the high priest entered into the Holiest of all, once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people....which was a figure for the time then present....but Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

An essential part of the figure was the carrying of the blood into the Holiest. This, we are specifically told, is a figure, a type of Christ entering into heaven itself. If He could not carry in His own blood because it had corrupted then the type is defective and so is our redemption. Did Christ enter in empty handed? Perish the thought.

What Christ did was foreshadowed in Leviticus 17: 11,

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Furthermore, the type or shadow, albeit visible, tangible, has given place to the reality; But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel. Heb.12: 22-24.

If the blood of sprinkling is here figurative and not actually present in heaven then we must have also a figurative heaven, a figurative God, etc.

If there is not a continuing actual efficacy in the blood then there is no present cleansing. the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth(present and continuous) us from all sin. 1 John1: 7. The blood surely must exist in order to cleanse, and where else can it be but in heaven?

One other point before we leave this subject, in the same article Penfold asserts that Christ “possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin apart],” a quote that he attributes to Adam Clarke.

Penfold agrees with Clarke in this, that CHRIST HAD A FALLEN HUMAN NATURE (though apparently He chose not to sin.)

The human nature is irredeemable and persists even after conversion.

M R Dehaan wrote:

The blood was to be sprinkled, remember, on the mercy seat right after the death of the substitutionary animal of sacrifice, Now Christ is, of course, our substitute. He was slain for us upon the Cross, and entered into death for us, and when He arose, He immediately went to heaven, entered into the holy of holies in heaven, sprinkled His precious blood upon the mercy seat before the throne of God, and forever settled the sin questions, and delivered us from the curse of the law. This is clearly taught in the New Testament. Hebrews 9:12 is very definite on this.

Ten Reasons

David Cloud in his book Faith vs, The Modern versions, gives ten reasons for holding to the AV Bible

(1) Because of the doctrine of divine preservation
(2) Because the theories supporting the modern Greek text are heretical
(3) Because the modern texts and versions are a product of end-time apostasy
(4) Because of the King James Bible's superior doctrine
(5) Because of the King James Bible's unmatched heritage
(6) Because the modern versions are based upon a foundation of deception
(7) Because evangelical scholarship today is unreliable
(8) Because we reject dynamic equivalency
(9) Because we reject the "Majority Text" position
(10) Because of the evil fruit of the modern texts and versions.

Cloud’s book is well worth reading, and is available from wayoflife.org

Warnings to Bible Correctors

Deuteronomy 4: 2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30: 6

Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22: 19

And if any man take away the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

These three statements are found near the beginning, at the centre, and at the end of the Bible. Despite the seriousness of these warnings the Bible correctors press on with their foolishness. By this the lateness of the hour is emphasised. We are deep into the great apostasy.

Tyndale’s Bible and Romish Lies

Tyndale’s New Testament was first printed in Worms and 6000 copies were produced. These were being sold in England by April 1526, but they were quickly seized and burned by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Subsequently some reprints were produced by Christopher Endhoven, in 1526, 1530, and 1534. There were so many errors that in 1534 George Joye edited another reprint. Regrettably he wilfully altered the text in a number of places.

This information is found in the Cambridge History of the Bible; Vol.3; p.142.

However, we read,

“In some editions of Tyndale’s New Testament” writes the protestant historian Blunt, “there is what must be regarded as a wiful omission of the gravest possible character, for it appears in several editions, and has no shadow of justification in the Greek or Latin of the passage (1 Peter ii, 13,14). Such an error was quite enough to justify the suppression of Tyndale’s translation.” — The Pre-reformation English Bible by F A Gasquet,D.D., O.S.B,, p.130; John C. Nimmo; 1897

I look into my facsimile N.T. by William Tyndale, 1526, and there I read the words which apparently do not exist; Submit yourselves...whether it be unto the king, as unto the chief head...

I check my 1537 facsimile of Tyndale’s N.T. which John Rogers published after Tyndale had been murdered. There we read the same words, ....whether it be to the king as unto the chief head.

Thus the lies and malice of Rome to the Scriptures are laid bare. Because two men made changes to the printed Bible, some being accidental, before they were made and because of them Tunstall had the first edition burned. So they tried cover their foul deeds.

Gasquet tells us the evidence of this alteration to the 1526 edition is found in the Bodlian Library; Douce B., 226,227.

Incidentally, the frontispiece to the 1537 edition carries these words;

set forthe with the kinges most gracious lycence.1537 A.D.

Tunstall, Bishop of London at that time, is alleged to have told his archdeacons, regarding Tyndale’s N.T.

Some sons of iniquity and ministers of the Lutheran faction have craftily translated the Holy Gospels of God into our vulgar English, and intermingled with their translation articles gravely heretical and opinions that are erroneous, pernicious, pestilent, scandalous, and tending to seduce persons of simple and unwary dispositions

—ibid.

The hatred of the mother of harlots to the Scriptures remains the same today. Finding it impossible to destroy the Authorized Bible, they have introduced their counterfeit bible. It exists in all modern versions. Those who tell us there is no significant doctrinal difference between the AV Bible and modern versions are either grossly ignorant or are out to deceive.

Is the Fight for the KJV Necessary?

By Gary Freeman (from AV1611.com. website)

A writer who was despairing over the debate concerning Bible versions recently wrote, `Precious energies and talents must be wasted on petty quarrels between soldiers who ought to be giving their best efforts to fight the real enemies of biblical Christianity.' Is this correct thinking? We believe fellow soldiers ought to debate an issue when it involves the integrity and reliability of the most important piece of weaponry with which we intend to fight the enemy. How can we say nothing to our fellow soldiers when someone has tampered with our artillery. How do we intend to win the battle when we go into the fight with our main weapon taken away and replaced with a faulty, unreliable substitute?

The fight for the KJV is necessary. We who are holding the line for the KJV only are being called the culprits. One pastor said, `Certainly the KJV controversy rages on by those who would make it a test of fellowship.' Another writes, `One of the heartbreaks faced by any fellowship comes when some movement comes along and polarizes and then splits the group. It may be over Bible versions, personal squabbles or wrongs suffered. The issue is not doctrinal since there is always essential agreement among fundamental brethren in that regard.'

We are amazed how the group who brought in the new modern versions into our churches and fellowships now want to blame us who desire to stay with the KJV as being the dividers, polarizers, splitters and controversial ones. If these `fellow soldiers' want to bring in `Bibles' that leave out [or question] Mk. 16:9-20; Jn. 7:53-8:11; Ac. 8:37; Ro. 8:1b; and that delete `through His blood' in Col. 1:14; `God' in 1 Ti. 3:16; Trinity passage in 1 Jn. 5:7,8; "by Himself purged our sins' in He. 1:3; `washed us from our sins' in Re. 1:5; the word `yet' in Jn. 7:8 (this word being dropped from new versions makes our Saviour a liar); then they should not cry foul, unfair, unloving, or divisive when we squabble over which Bible will be the Word of God in the Battlefield.

The offenders, dividers, squabblers and polarizers are those who want to bring new modern versions into fundamentalism. We believe, contrary to the previous quote, that this is a doctrinal issue. We believe that God has preserved the word He inspired. We believe it to be found in the Greek Textus Receptus and in English in our KJV. We will continue the fight for the KJV, not to be divisive but so that we as fellow soldiers can go into battle against our enemies saying, `Thus saith the Lord,' rather than, `Yea, hath God said?'

The New King James Bible Examined

By M. H. Reynolds, Editor, Foundation Magazine (from AV1611.com. website)

WHAT ABOUT THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE? In this article, we want to share with God's people some of the important facts which led us to reject the NKJV and warn others about it. We do not believe that the "NKJV makes the KJV even better" as its publishers cl aim. To the contrary, our study leads us to conclude that the NKJV vitiates the original, reliable, accurate KJV in a most deceptive manner. While claiming to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, the actual result is a hybrid t ext which incorporates many changes identical with or similar to the corruptions found in other modern Bible versions.

Why the New King James Bible? Its publisher, Thomas Nelson Company, says its purpose is "To Preserve the Integrity of the Original in the Language of Today"-"To preserve the authority and accuracy . . . of the original King James while making it understan dable to 20th Century readers"-"To update with regard to punctuation and grammar; archaic verbs and pronouns"; and "Up-to-date accuracy with regard to words whose English meaning has changed over a period of 3 1/2 centuries." The completed NKJV text is said to be "Beautifully Clear" and "Highly Readable." Thomas Nelson Publishers has spent millions to convince Chr istians that the NKJV is "the" Bible of the present and the future.

Why do we recommend rejection of the NKJV? Space limitations preclude a full discussion of every reason, but we do urge a careful consideration of the following facts. It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.

The instances in which the NKJV breaks with the original KJV by substituting wording identical to that of corrupted modern Bible versions are too numerous to be considered coincidence. And, since Nelson tells us that the NKJV scholars spent "months of pra yer, research, and discussion over the handling of a single word," we must conclude that these changes were neither coincidental nor accidental.

The following references are listed as examples of the way the translators inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text:

Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man. (The one who holds to heresy is to be rejected, not the one who exposes false doctrine. The new versions confuse who is in mind here).

Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."

Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."

Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."

Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").

2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."

Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."

1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."

2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."

Old Testament examples include:

Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.

Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.

Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.

In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perve rted persons."

The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. It is a perverted version.

Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.

A striking word change involves changing "corrupt" to "peddling" in 2 Corinthians 2:17. The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God...." But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not-they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to pe ddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.

Dr. Jerry Falwell, a member of the NKJV overview committee, gives this new Bible his unqualified endorsement, stating that "It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars." This simply is not true! As already pointed out, words have been changed and with those changed words have come changed thoughts and ideas.

Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be con cerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.

In raising strenuous objections to the changed words of the NKJV text, we are not referring to those changes which update old English verb forms without changing the meaning, i.e., removing "est" or "eth" from verb endings. Neither do we refer to updating the old English pronouns "thee," "thou" and "thine" where they refer to individuals. We do consider it a tragic mistake to eliminate the use of "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" where these refer to Deity. There is a disturbing trend toward stripping God of His Majesty both in word and deed. The substitution of the common pronouns 'You" and "Yours" for "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" which have historically been used to refer to Deity both in the Scriptures and the Hymns of the Church, only helps pave the way for further attempts of sinful men to bring God down to their level rather than exalting Him in every way possible.

The NKJV translators claimed it was one of their purposes to update words where the meaning of a particular word had changed over the last 375 years. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, they updated "letteth" to "restraineth"; in Psalm 4:2, "leasing" is updated to "lying"; In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, "prevent" is updated to "precede"; in Matthew 19:14, "suffer" is updated to "let" (meaning allow or pennit).

In other instances it is difficult to understand how the NKJV scholars thought they were updating and clarifying the KJV as, for example, when they substituted "minas" for "pounds" in Luke 19:13; or, "satraps" for "princes" in Daniel 3:3; or, "black cummin" for "fitches" in Isaiah 28:27.

Many Christians today are purchasing NKJV Bibles for three reasons: (1) Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it. (2) They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts. (3) The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.

The duplicity of the NKJV publishers, translators and endorsers greatly increases the possibility of believers being deceived. The word duplicity is used advisedly. Webster's Dictionary defines duplicity as, "Deception by pretending to feel and act one way while acting another." The following duplicity can be fully documented:

The duplicity of the Thomas Nelson Publishers is clearly evidenced by their supposed concern and stated desire to "preserve the authority and accuracy...of the original King James" Bible. Yet, Nelson is the largest publisher of Bibles in the world and publishes eight of the nine modern versions including the iniquitous Revised Standard Version, copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. If the Thomas Nelson Publishers were genuinely concerned about the purity of the Scriptures, would they continue printing the RSV and other corrupted modern Bible versions?

The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?

Further duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts-the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.

NKJV readers are further misinformed as to why there are so many differences between the original KJV and all the modern versions. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are assured, "...That the most important differences in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation." This simply is not true. Many important differences in the English New Testament of today are indeed due to manuscript divergence (over 5700 differences exist between the TR and WH Greek texts) in addition to the divergent views of the scholars who produced the various translations.

On page VII of the preface is another very significant statement concerning the NKJV footnotes: "Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in footnotes. Important textual variants in the Old Testament are footnoted in a standard form. The textual information in the New Testament footnotes is a unique provision in the history of the English Bible. Terms in the footnotes such as 'better manuscripts' are avoided. The footnotes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings which diverge from the traditional text. Thus, a clearly defined presentation of the variants is provided for the benefit of interested readers representing all textual persuasions."

As a crowning climax of duplicity and inconsistency, the editors of the NKJV make the following incongruous statements on pages 1,234 and 1,235 of the King lames history printed at the conclusion of the NKJV text:

"The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of Scripture, based on the most recently discovered extant manuscripts. In using the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, these words and phrases were retained. And, in those few places where the majority of the manuscripts did not support a word or phrase, that fact could best be indicated in a footnote. (The New Testament of the New King James Version shows in its footnotes those places where the major textual traditions differ from the language of the King James Bible.)

"It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

Will the next modem Bible be the "Do It Yourself" version? This would be a distinct possibility if the advice of the NKJV editors in the two preceding paragraphs were to be followed. In effect, they are saying, let each reader decide for himself what portions, verses, phrases and words should be included in God's Holy Word." NKJV footnotes, far from being helpful, are an invitation to disobey the plain command of God not to add to or take from His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19.

The preservation of God's divinely inspired Word is clearly set forth in Psalm 12:6,7, "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 forever. " God has fulfilled His promise through the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Those who replace the KJV with the NKJV will have been duped into accepting a Bible which still bears a respected name but one which has placed "readability" above purity.

The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished!

Believers who will take the time to compare the KJV with the NKJV and then with other modern versions will see for themselves why the NKJV should be exposed and repudiated as a polluted version. And, those who will take time to carefully look at the NKJV footnotes will be doubly concerned and will join in warning others about it.

Our plea to God's people is to reject the NKJV Bible and continue preaching, teaching, memorizing and meditating upon the pure, unadulterated, Divinely preserved milk and meat of God's Holy Word-The King James Authorized Version of 1611 upon which God has placed His stamp of approval over a span of nearly four centuries. Nothing is more important than the purity of God's Holy Word.

-M. H. REYNOLDS, EDITOR, FOUNDATION MAGAZINE

Fundamental Evangelistic Association Box 6278 Los Osos CA 93412 USA

Encyclopædia Britannica v. The Holy Bible

The following paragraph is from the article on Creation in the EB 2008 DVD-ROM.

The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community. The later doctrines of creation are interpretations of this myth in light of the subsequent history and needs of the community. Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ. Doctrines of creation are based on the myth of creation, which expresses and embodies all of the fertile possibilities for thinking about this subject within a particular religious community.

Scholars think that Christians modified their views of creation through the passage of time. Genesis will have to be a much altered and adjusted book over the course of history according to the scholars.

Christ taught that Genesis was written by Moses. Luke 24: 44, John 5: 46. The believer knows that the Scriptures are given by God and His word is eternally settled. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11: 3. Such faith is well placed for the believer. He knows His Creator God.

We constantly demonstrate that there are no grounds for the multitude of additions and subtractions that heady men seek to make concerning the Scriptures. They gain ground in these days because of the general ignorance of Scripture manifested among us.

What they are saying:

Elder A: Brother X is thinking of leaving the assembly.

Elder B: He’ll never be happy anywhere.

Elder A: Not like us, eh? We would be happy anywhere.

Within this sacred Volume lies

The mystery of mysteries;

Happiest they of human race

to whom our God hath given grace

To read, to mark, to think, to pray,

To know the right, to learn the way;

But better they had ne’er been born

Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.

—The Editor; Waymarks; Vol.VII; 1935

Waymarks 49 Summer 2007

2007-05-22T11:08:00.000-07:00

Waymarks 49

Report of Open Air Preaching

March 20^th DUNSTABLE Ashton Square

This is not a very busy shopping centre when the market isn’t here. I prefer to come on such days, when one is not so crowded in. Even so I estimated 35 people a minute passing by and within earshot for an average of 45 seconds. Stay for an hour and 2100 people have heard at least three or four gospel texts.

One person shouted “shut up” but he may have been shouting at his spouse. Another couple sat on the wall next to me for the whole time I was preaching. They did not seem to notice me.

P- came by. His grandfather was an intellectual, a famous personality who was responsible for “discovering” Mother Teresa. P- once attended a local Evangelical Church and will always stop to talk when he sees me.

March 28^th LUTON Town Centre.

A lady was standing where I usually stand when I arrived today so I stood two yards farther along. She invited me to come closer so I assumed she recognized me as the street preacher. But it transpired she was looking for work and maybe I could employ her. Well, I don’t agree with lady preachers and I don’t employ assistants. She told me she was a carer. Do I really appear that old and decrepit? I declined her offer and sought to weave the gospel into our conversation. She listened and told me a little of her background and how she had arrived from Pakistan in 1967. Was this the first time she had heard the gospel, I wondered. She certainly was not hostile to it.

After this lady moved on I preached for 15 minutes. A young man giving out leaflets had stood nearby the whole time since I had arrived and when I paused preaching he introduced himself. I thought his leaflets might be offering a free holiday in the Bahamas to all morons dialling 0906 but he gave me one and it advertised services at The Redeemed Christian Church of God Victory Centre in Luton. This is an international organisation and it is a false cult. Its founder boasts of miracles and signs following his ministry. Its gospel appears sound at first hearing but is seriously flawed, having a Pentecostalist base. Evidence of salvation is seen in speaking in tongues. The personality of the Holy Spirit is denied.

April 15^th WOLVERTON. The Square.

It is Sunday evening. Half an hour before our Gospel Meeting starts. We are ten minutes walk from the hall. There are a few people in the square. One man sends his little boy over for a tract and sits reading it while we preach. A youth asks are we JW or Catholic? Neither, we reply. He is presumably unaware that these two organisations do not engage in street preaching. He shouts out a few Bible references as he walks away from us. We “amen” all Bible verses. One is Ps. 83: 18 which he then corrects to John 83: 18.!! Maybe his parents are JW.

April 18^th LUTON T.C.

It was difficult to find a place to stand today. The Victory Centre people were already there. I emailed them to query a statement in their leaflet, “Jesus said ‘You must be born again to return to heaven’ John 3: 3-8” and pointed out this was a false statement. I never had a reply.

I moved up to Market Hill. what a wonderful place to preach. Alas a kiddies merry-go-round was there with accompanying din so I retraced my path to the other end of George Street and found a place by the War Memorial. Here I had a good hearing and was within earshot of the VC pair. They departed shortly after I began to preach. There was as usual no opposition but a few were standing listening.

May 3^rd DUNSTABLE Ashton Square.

After I finished preaching a lady wanted to shake my hand. It was to give me some encouragement, she said. Well, after 33 years street preaching I am still grateful for encouragement. It’s good to know some people are listening. I asked the usual questions, “are you saved?”, “are you sure?” etc. She was sure. But it didn’t take long to discover how confused this lady was. She told me she was already experiencing Jordan and would soon be in the Holy Land. I did not know what she meant. I regret I have a tendency to be facetious and mocking in these circumstances but on this occasion I managed to control myself and just reminded her to be careful around Jericho. She looked very puzzled. Then we got on to “faith” or “miracle” healing. This Baptist lady thought this was still being practiced as in apostolic days. I had no wish to pursue this line of conversation. It is invariably a waste of time. I asked her why did Paul write, Trophimus have I left at Miletum sick (2 Tim. 4: 20)? Was not that a very callous thing to do for a man so gifted in miracle working, or had the gift left him by this time?

A further outcome of this conversation was her low regard for Scripture. What the Bible says is not too relevant for our exciting times. She said she would like to help me understand these things. She had after all been “saved” for two years. Her bible (only it was not the Bible, it was a NKJV) had contradictions in it. for example Matthew tells us Judas went out and hanged himself but Acts tells us that he fell headlong and all his bowels gushed out. she told me that Acts did not refer to Judas but to the man who picked up the pieces of silver that Judas had flung down.

Now I knew this poor woman was a Christ rejector on the way to hell. (both references are true of Judas OF COURSE.)

May 15^th LUTON T.C.

I was here last Friday, by the entrance to theArndale, which is my usual place for preaching in Luton. The RAC man had his stall a few feet away and when I began to preach he hurled obscenities at me. So I moved up to Market Hill.

Today there was a far better reception. (no RAC man). One man sitting 20 yards away seemed to be listening intently. When a bench became vacant nearer to me he moved across. When I had finished preaching he came over to speak to me but I couldn’t understand him. Eventually I deduced he was Polish and had been in the UK one week. He already\had a job and was living with his married daughter in Luton. He told me it was a very good thing to hear God spoken about in a public place. He had started attending the Polish Catholic church in Dunstable.

I gave him The Way of Salvation which he received as though I were giving him a large slab of gold. He told me his daughter would help him read it. Pray for a whole Catholic family being reached with the gospel. There are now 20,000 Poles in Luton. There are 40,000 Muslims in Luton and recent events indicate there are quite a few of them with terrorist connections. Probably some of them pass by while I am preaching so pray for these too.

I hope these reports of open air preaching encourage others to preach publicly. It need only be for a few minutes at a time. Why not the next time the wife wants to drag you round the shops tell her you will stay in the street to preach the gospel. This will give you a couple of hours which otherwise would be wasted.

AV Verses Vindicated

Matthew 27:46

And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?

(Mark 15: 34 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)

This has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me' by W Kelly and this has been taken up with some enthusiasm by some of our brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:- Tyndale, JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist tense and never mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry tells us the aorist is a 'point in the expanse of time'. So now we know. But note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek word is used and is also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a moment of time but the condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy

We believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, then uncertainty is cast on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words why didst thou forsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died. The AV translation is the only acceptable one.

The words from the cross are reported slightly differently in Mark 15:34:- Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani? Which is, being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in the vernacular whereas the words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.

Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. Neh.13:23,24.

Not all the Jews had done this. There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who had returned after the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return anyway. So there were very few left who could speak in the Jew's language. But for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of the unfaithful spoke half in the language of Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine town where was the house of Dagon the fish-god.

We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen on the back of every other car. Its speech is "half-Ashdod". That is, when they pray it is no longer the language of the Bible, "Thou art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the Philistinish bible versions.

Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was the last of the OT prophets. There were no more until John the Baptist 400 years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had nothing to say. No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up.

However, during these four centuries between the OT and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it is alleged, the Septuagint. This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during this period in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken word via the prophet, the Apocrypha and the Septuagint clearly did not come from God. They must both have come from the pit.

God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out Repent ye: for the kingdom of God is at hand....prepare ye the way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not of pure speech? Aramaic may well have been the common language in Palestine at the time as some allege, but Hebrew was still the speech of those who loved the Lord.

There are ten references to the Hebrew language in the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts 2:8-11). Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There were no Aramaic words written on the cross. Golgotha is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.272. I quote,-

Several verses in the New Testament appear at first sight [my italics] to refer to the Hebrew language and the Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and 10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably [my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the Jews, including both Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expression Akeldama is said in Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem."

But it doesn't say "in their language" at Acts 1:19. The correct reading is that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. And it was not the people of Jerusalem but the disciples who were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the proper tongue of those dwelling in Jerusalem. Their own language was Hebrew. If my Bible says Gabbatha and Golgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first, second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the article quoted above is J A Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College, University of Cambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I still would rather believe my Bible.

Emerton suggests there probably was a Semitic language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic, spoken by the Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it certainly was not Aramaic, though there may have been a few Aramaic words in use in those times. If the world's leading authority on the subject is uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, why challenge the Biblical testimony to the use of Hebrew?

Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NT times. Some have called this hybrid Hebrew/Aramaic "the vernacular".

We conclude that the Lord spoke in Hebrew alone.

There is a coming day when all will speak a pure language. That will be one language spoken by all nations. Zeph.3:9. It will be pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although this is plainly God's world language for these last days. I am quite sure it will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will be the language of God's ancient people, Israel, which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years during the soon coming earthly reign of Christ.

Romans 9: 29

And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha

Paul was quoting Isaiah 1: 9, Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

D Kaus, in his book Choosing a Bible, wites that Paul

uses the Greek word that means “descendants” (sperma, “seed”) instead of “survivors”, thereby inadvertantly changing the sense of the passage.

Kaus is stating that it is not the AV that is wrongly translated here, rather that the apostle himself got it wrong. It was a careless slip on his part, no doubt because he didn’t understand Isaiah’s prophecy. How thankful we should be that this unconverted critic can now help us!

He also wants us to understand that the Bible is NOT verbally inspired. That God is NOT responsible for its authorship, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit inadvertantly supplied the wrong word.

Take warning — if you do not believe in the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Holy Scripture, and if you do not believe that God has supplied us with an inspired English Bible today, there is little likelihood that you are a believer on the way to heaven.

Neither Paul nor Isaiah were speaking of mere survivors. Joel 2: 32 is instructive; And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.

Isaiah did not write of those who managed to survive the judgment of Sodom by chance. They were those who were called of God and responded to His call, and this is what Paul is writing about. God’s survivors are those who are saved, delivered, from going down to hell.

1 John 4: 1-3

Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist.

Modern versions such as NIV,ESV etc attempt to dodge the charge of being antichrist by omitting “Christ come in the flesh”. They pretend that they acknowledge Jesus and this is enough. What do they acknowledge? It may be no more than believing a man lived 2000 years ago named Jesus and he lived a good life. They think if they remain silent about the Anointed One foretold in the Prophets to be born of a virgin in the City of David, named Jesus, demonstrated to be God manifest in the flesh then they are not false spirits. The very omission of the phrase declares the producers of these blasphemous versions to be antichrist.

Silence on this vital issue will show the nature of the spirit to be that of antichrist. Thus the platform man denying 1 Tim. 3: 16, God was manifest in the flesh lets his audience know he has come in the spirit of antichrist.

John is teaching us that Jesus did not become the Christ subsequent to His birth at Bethlehem. He is the One Who came out from God, the eternal Son, the Lord from heaven. The men behind the various parodies of Scripture do not believe this.

By the Way....

In a recent poll to find the most popular books, the bible came out at No.6. This was not the AV or some other verion. It was just the bible, a pudding stone comprising all perversions and parodies of Scripture lumped together. The multi-million pound bible publishing industry has succeeded in knocking the Bible down from No.1. The AV Bible of course is not on the scale. It may be Rupert Murdoch, publisher of the NIV, is not too bothered with this. Much of his money comes from Myspace and pornography.

Harry Potter came in at No.4 □

What is the doctrinal position of the “Brethren”? If you want to know, visit “brethren on line”. A list of what is commonly believed among brethren is posted there. Of course this is not an official site any more than Believer’s Magazine is an official organ of the Brethren Movement.

At the head of the list is:-

verbal, plenary inspiration of the original manuscripts of the Bible.

To which we add our amen! This is commonly believed among us. But, TAKE WARNING! this is a tacit denial that inspiration of the Scriptures exists today. To this many of our brethren will add their amen.

Our scholars and those who worship at their feet have not seen an original manuscript. They have not seen a copy of a copy of an original manuscript. Their statement is eyewash. Impressive words are used to bamboozle the untaught. Most of our platform men couldn’t even tell you what the word plenary means.

Here is what is at the head of my list. I believe in the:-

verbal, plenary inspiration of Scripture.

Now, do you see the difference? Do you see that the first statement is the cry of apostasy? It is a meaningless statement because those original manuscripts have long since ceased to exist. Brethrenism shares the view of apostate Christendom. It is all confusion, of which God is not the author.

Until the middle of the last century it was commonly believed among us that we were in possession of The Scriptures, generally referred to as the Authorized Version for those of us who speak English. We believed its internal evidence that All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. One strong reason for believing this is that conversion brings a soul into a living relationship with the Author. The regenerate soul believes through the Scriptures that God pledged Himself to preserve His word and not a jot or tittle (i.e. written words) would not be lost.

Our modern brethren do not believe God has preserved His word. We now learn that scholars can alter their bible to suit their own views (they don’t alter MY Bible; it remains the AV) .

If my Bible is not inspired, it is not Scripture. I had better put it in the dustbin straight away. It is worthless.

Those original inspired Scripture manuscripts were handed down and faithfully copied by Godly men through the ages, therefore inspiration remained with those same words. Being God’s words inspiration cannot be lost through translation.

I sometimes like to imagine if copies had been made on transparencies from the original (Greek) up to our present time and then laid on top of each other, individual alterations would be greyed out as I looked through them and I would then see a standard text throughout – I would read the original! It would not make any difference if the first few got lost in the process.

Either we have a Bible we can trust implicitly or we have not. Make up your mind, your soul depends on it .□

Another doctrine of the Brethren was emphasised at a recent Bible Conference. The subject was “The New Testament Assembly”. Mtt.18: 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them was read and then the preacher spoke on being gathered TO the name. There was no explanation for the change. We were to understand only “B”rethren do this. The rest of Christendom doesn’t gather TO the name. They all gather to their own names. As Scripture nowhere teaches a gathering to the name it becomes a cult slogan. My Bible has in which is a faithful and accurate translation in this verse of the Greek preposition eis. We begin to understand a little better the Brethren oppostion to the Authorized Version.

We were later told that the local assembly is the court of final appeal. Some of us thought the Scriptures were the such. In practice if there should be conflict between the opinion of the “oversight” and Scripture then the oversight must be obeyed.

The Scripture gives guidance if court appeals have to be made. 1 Cor. 6: 4 is the answer: if then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church. □

CANDLESTICK v. LAMPSTAND

Any Bible Teacher referring to the Seven Golden Candlesticks in his ministry today would be regarded as old-fashioned, out of touch, an untaught ignoramus. To be acceptable one must speak of the Lampstands, because, we are told, it is "where oil was burnt for light as in the Tabernacle". But there is no mention of oil in Revelation 1 to 3. But it is implied, we are told, because oil is a symbol of the Holy Spirit, present in the 7 Lampstands. Well then, if interpretation of scripture depends upon implications, you and I also may be free to infer whatever we like from Scripture and we can invent our theology as we travel along.

W. Scott would not even have the stands in his "Exposition". The 7 churches were their own lights. (so today the revisionists are their own gods. They worship their own scholarship). We are aware that the five wise virgins took oil for their lamps and we do know that the candlestick in the tabernacle held oil in its bowls. We know also that this candlestick is spoken of in Heb.9:2 and is the same Greek word as we find in Rev. 1: 12. We think that the A. V. translators, being linguists as yet unsurpassed, knew all this too.

John saw a candle-stick. He did not refer to any light, but to the light holder, so there is no need to change the word at all. Wax candles were in common use in John's day, particularly among the poorer classes. The church in Smyrna was known for its poverty (Rev.2:9). I am persuaded therefore, that what John saw was a candlestick.

We trust that those who so dogmatically insist on "lampstands" never speak of "chandeliers" hanging from their lounge ceilings if they are on electricity.

“Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; (2 Corinthians 3: 5)

It is recorded of William Wilberforce-

During an interval of consciousness on Sunday night

28^th July 1833, he said “I am in a very distressed state.” “Yes: but you have your feet on the rock” someone replied. “I do not venture,” he cautiously added, “to speak so positively, but I hope I have.” He died the next morning.

John Newton wrote-

“Tis a point I\long to know,

(Oft it causes anxi0ous thought),

Do I love the Lord, or no?

Am I his, or am I not?”

May we be delivered

from presumption in this

all important matter1

This box was published in The Reformer March/April 2007. It is indescribably sad. These were two great men of God but apparently neither of them has sufficient confidence in Scripture to believe in the eternal security of the soul.

Reformism shows itself a doleful and hopeless religion.

Reformism makes the apostle Paul a presumptuous man, for he wrote, I know whom I have believed, an am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day. 2 Tim. 1: 12.

He knew his soul was secure unto coming again of the Saviour.

He also wrote unto us which are saved 1 Cor. 1: 18. He didn’t hope he might be saved. He knew he was saved. All those who are genuinely saved know it and do not doubt it. The Reformists rarely speak of being saved. They do not understand it. There is no salvation in Reformism.

Being in the faith is holding to the word of God.

Inspiration

(From The Bible at the Bar by W.M. Robertson; P& I; 1930)

1.The Whole, and every part of the Bible is Inspired. This is a matter that can only be settled by the Scriptures themselves. As we examine the Scripture testimony on any other doctrine, so we must on this. What saith the Scripture as to the extent or fulness of inspiration ? Let no one say that this is reasoning in a circle. "We take the testimony of a man for himself, provided his testimony on all other matters is true, " and to this test we are perfectly prepared to submit the Bible. Its testimony on other matters has been certified and confirmed by experience, observation, and scientific investigation. We have every warrant, therefore, for believing its witness in this matter. It is full and final. In the passage we have already considered, it is plainly stated that "ALL" Scripture is inspired of God. It is idle to say that in handling historical matters the writers did not require Divine assistance, because their data were obtainable from natural sources. If they did not need inspiration in securing historical data, they certainly required it in their selection of the same. One has only to compare the Bible account of Creation, the fall, the flood, etc., with the Babylonian and other traditions to see the force of this. Moreover, many of the historical portions of the Bible are also prophetic in character. The history of Israel's redemption from Egypt and subsequent experiences are plainly typical, as is stated by Paul in I Cor. 10. 6-11. It would be impossible to ensure the religious infallibility of the Bible, if we deny the inspiration of its historical parts.

2. The Inspiration of the Bible extends to its Words as well as its Thoughts, the Form as well as the Substance. This is commonly termed the verbal theory of inspiration, and is greatly assailed to-day. "No enlightened person, " we are told, "can any longer hold to the verbal inerrancy of the Bible. Scientific and Biblical research have for ever relegated this view to the scrap-heap of out-worn ideas. To be sure, the Bible is inspired, but so are the works of Tennyson, Browning, and other great writers. While the Bible admittedly contains the highest spiritual teaching known to man, much also is dross. While it contains God's Word, revelation is by no means complete in it. The poets, the scientists, and the philosophers also have a divine message, and, though there may be a difference, it is a difference of degree, not of kind. To believe, therefore, that every word of the Bible stands without error as God's revelation to man is, for the modern mind, simply impossible. "

This is characteristic of the attitude of a great many to-day. The objection, however, to verbal inspiration arises very often from a mistaken notion as to what the words imply. The opponents of verbal inspiration conjure up a picture of mechanical transmission, after the manner of a gramophone record that has just been impressed. and ever after reproduces the impressions that have been received. It is difficult, in fact, to doubt that, with many, deliberate and persistent misrepresentation is indulged in the more readily to discredit a view that conflicts with their preconceived notions. The view we hold is as far removed from a mechanical theory as can be. There were real ideas and rational processes behind the utterances of the Bible writers, just as there are real ideas and rational processes behind the utterances of ordinary men. Verbal inspiration

simply means that the language in which these ideas produced by normal rational processes, and yet produced by God, are expressed, is an adequate and accurate vehicle for their communication. If it were otherwise, how could God-given ideas find authentic expression ? It is manifestly absurd to talk of the thoughts or substance as inspired, but not the words or expression, because the thoughts are embodied in the words, the expression conveys the truth; and we know nothing of one except through the other, and as set forth by the other. Consequently, if the words or expression are not inspired, the thoughts or substance cannot be. This is in no way affected by the fact that God employed human agents for His purpose in producing Scripture. The Holy Spirit of God so operated on the finite spirit of man as to secure that what was written should be an exact expression of His mind. In a word, "Inspiration is an activity of God upon men, having for its object such an expression of thought in words as shall reveal to the sons of men the eternal purpose of God. " Dean Burgon's conclusion on this matter is worthy of the sanity and scholarship of the man. He says: "You cannot dissect inspiration into substance and form. As for thoughts being inspired apart from the words which give them expression, you might as well talk of a tune without notes, or a sum without figures. No such theory of inspiration is even intelligible. It is as illogical as it is worthless, and cannot be too sternly put down. "

Robertson’s book The Bible at the Bar, published by Pickering and Inglis, now out of print, shows that my brethren once believed in the Verbal Inspiration of Scripture, though the majority believes no longer. Scripture is synonymous with Holy Bible. P & I were once a leading “Brethren” publisher.

*****

Questions for the AV Bible Critic

1. Since you're smart enough to find "mistakes" in the KJV, why don't you correct them all and give us a perfect Bible?

2. Do you have a perfect Bible?

3. Since you do believe "the Bible" is our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, could you please show us where Jesus, Peter, James, Paul, or John ever practiced your terminology ("the Greek text says...the Hebrew text says....the originals say...a better rendering would be....older manuscripts read...." etc.)?

4. Since you do not profess to have a perfect Bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"?

5. Remembering that the Holy Spirit is the greatest Teacher (John 16:12-15; I John 2:27), who taught you that the King James Bible was not infallible, the Holy Spirit or man?

6. Since you do believe in the degeneration of man and in the degeneration of the world system in general, why is it that you believe education has somehow "evolved" and that men are more qualified to translate God's word today than in 1611?

7. There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church, consisting of true born-again believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

8. Isn't it true that you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has since lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today?

9. Isn't it true that when you use the term "the Greek text" you are being deceitful and lying, since there are MANY Greek TEXTS (plural), rather than just one?

10. Before the first new perversion was published in 1881 (the RV), the King James Bible was published, preached, and taught throughout the world. God blessed these efforts and hundreds of millions were saved. Today, with the many new translations on the market, very few are being saved. The great revivals are over. Who has gained the most from the new versions, God or Satan? — Taken from AV1611.org. copyright free.

Princess Diana is in hell

On the first anniversary of the death of Princess Diana a Sunday School teacher informed his class that she had gone to hell. This caused the inevitable furore from parents and those objecting to plain facts being made known as revealed in the Scriptures.

The Archdeacon of Aston, the Ven John Barton, branded the preaching barmy and perverted theology. He said, “Diana was fallible but she tried to make a positive difference to the world.” No doubt this man was invited to comment because of his hostility to the truth of Scripture.

If Diana did not go to hell she went to heaven. Repentance toward God and faith toward the Lord Jesus Christ are essentials for entrance into heaven and she displayed neither. Rather, she was an immoral young woman and involved in Spiritism.

The Scripture tells us Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. 1 Cor.6: 9. The wicked shall be turned into hell. Ps. 9: 17

Those who think that Diana might have repented in her final moments are ignorant of the gospel and do not understand the effects of shock.

Diana died two hours after being involved in a car crash.In the accident she suffered severe damage to the left pulmonary vein resulting in massive blood loss. Her heart was badly damaged and she was unconscious.

If she is now in heaven we must conclude that though unconscious and rapidly dying she realized her sinful state and consciously repented of it turning to Christ, and recognising him to be the Son of God (essential for salvation) she put her trust in Him as her Lord and Saviour.

Enemies of the cross do not like these things taught publicly. But these accounts serve well to bring souls under conviction of sin and then to conversion.

The unbelief of J Ritchie Ltd* and its contributors

(See What the Bible Teaches; Judges; p. 327, C T Lacey.)

I quote from WTBT:

“[Gideon] struggled with the Lord’s estimation of him as a ‘mighty man of valour’ (Judges 6: 12).”

False! The angel of the Lord had said, the LORD is with thee, thou mighty man of valour. Gideon took this to mean the LORD is with his people and not that the angel was buttering him up for a future task.

Quote again:

“As far as Gideon was concerned, his current activity hardly warranted the description of a ‘mighty man of valour’, but God saw it differently. He ‘threshed’ (knocked out – 2251) wheat by the winepress, to hide it from the Midianites.....That Gideon was obliged to knock out his little grain in [my italics] the winepress, a pit sunk in the ground or hewn in the rock, implies the soreness of the Midianite oppression.

Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation (1878) onwards, and unbelieving commentaries (What the Bible teaches; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, edited by W S Stevely and D E West) would have Gideon threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angel of the Lord. There would have been nothing particularly valiant in this. It would have been physically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press, especially if he were using a stick, as some suggest. He might have trodden out a few grains for his own use but the reference to his valour tells us he was doing it for all Israel. No one else had sufficient courage to do what he was doing, for fear of the Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watching the threshing floors, so, it not being the time of the grape harvest, he threshed BY the wine press. The Midianites would not think to look there.

Gideon, instructed by the LORD to throw down the altar of Baal, because he feared his father’s household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night. Judges 6: 27.

The suggestion that Gideon was cowardly is an evil insinuation. It was not a moral fear. If he attempted to throw the altar down in daylight he would be seen and the task would be made more difficult. He feared these men would try to stop him. How wise of him to do it by night! He knew he would soon be identified in the morning light anyway. He could hardly keep it a secret. He was at all times a valiant man.

The scholars will tell us that the Hebrew preposition may be translated "in" as well as "by", but they merely follow that parody of Scripture, the Septuagint. The use of "in" here makes a mockery of the truth. Reliable translations read "by".

*J Ritchie Ltd (owned by Lord’s Work Trust) sells The Message, a seriously perverted parody of Scripture).Also The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva Mcclain. This book which lays the foundation of Progressive Dispensationalism is described thus by Ritchie Ltd,—

“ This 531-page hardback has no equal. We are thrilled to be able to offer to you this fully indexed volume. The Kingdom of God is the grand central theme of all Holy Scripture.... This hard-to –find treasure will teach you more about the Kingdom of God than you thought possible.”

Hard –to-find indeed. It took them 42 years to find it. Who knows what Ritchie’s will produce 2049 AD?

For a critique on this subject, see Waymarks 47 and 48.

The New Evangelism

No longer is the gospel preached. This is because the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness. 1 Cor. 1: 18. We do not want Mr and Mrs worldly Wise to stay away from the Gospel\ Service so we shall catch them with our new evangelism. When they come we can tell ourselves that we have made so many “contacts”. (They used to be called converts.)

The modern gospel is found in School visits, Bible exhibitions, Creation lectures, OAP tea meetings, Mum’s and Toddlers sessions, Hall coffee mornings, YP’s Barbeques, Old Folks Home visits (must be a Sunday night of course).

It is possible that at any of these things a soul may be saved. One may be saved down a sewer. Jonah was saved while in the depths of the ocean. But what a lot of carnal energy is expended on these efforts.

But we can reach the children by visiting the school, so we are told. Yes, you can get in with the approval of ungodly headteachers (very very few are believers). You dare not preach the truth when you do get in, or you will never get back again. (NB. 1 Thess. 2: 6, John 12: 43). I note that my brethren do not have a distinctive message. It differs not from the “message” of SDA’s Anglicans, Evangelicals etc.

My great-nephew was for a time a paid school visitor, paid by his local Baptist Union church. He has not the slightest comprehension of what it is to be saved. But he could give a nice little Bible story with one or two points made.

How can we reach the children then? They live all around the hall. Go and knock on their doors. Speak to the parents.

Many years ago an assembly wanted to start a Sunday School. Two or three young sisters decided to go door knocking. It was not long before the assembly was running three Sunday Schools, each with 100 children attending regularly.□

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY REJECTS THE "FUNDAMENTALIST" APPROACH TO SCRIPTURE (Friday Church News Notes, April 27, 2007, www.wayoflife.org fbns@wayoflife.org, 866-295-4143) - In a lecture in Toronto, Ontario, on April 16, Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, rejected the "fundamentalist" approach to Scripture, calling it "rootless" and "limited" in what "it can contribute to the church." The lecture, "The Bible Today: Reading and Hearing," was delivered at an event jointly sponsored by Wycliffe and Trinity theological colleges. Williams said it is wrong to treat the Scripture as an "inspired supernatural guide for individual conduct" ("Archbishop of Canterbury: Church Needs to Listen Properly to the Bible," Anglican Church of Canada News, April 16, 2007). Williams implied that the Bible is not in all parts equally "the Word of the Lord." He gave two examples of the alleged wrong use of Scripture. The first was John 14:6, which he said "could not be used simply as a trump card in discussions with other faiths." The other was Romans 1:27, which he said could not be used as a "definite proof text" against the morality of homosexuality. In this lecture Williams quoted many heretics approvingly, including Karl Barth and Soren Kierkegaard. He said that critical biblical scholarship is an "underappreciated gift." Williams said it is wrong to read the Bible in a fragmentary manner and to ignore its context, but the fact is that the fundamentalist approach is not guilty of this. We understand very well that the Bible must be interpreted first by its context and second by comparing Scripture with Scripture. These are foundational fundamentalist principles of Bible interpretation. What Williams is promoting is something far different from this. He is using historic theological terms but redefining them by his liberal dictionary. When you remove the theological mumbo-jumbo from his lecture, what you have is a man who does not believe that the Bible is divinely inspired in a verbal-plenary, infallible sense. You have a religious politician who wants to chart a compromising middle-of-the-road course in the midst of end-time apostasy. "Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away" (2 Timothy 3:5). Taken from FCNN emailed 27/04/07.

This lecture can be read at www.trinity.utoronto.ca/News_Events/News/archbishop.htm

John 14 begins with the words Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. Whatever these faithful believing godly disciples believed concerning the revealed nature of God, revealed to them by the power of the Holy Spirit through the Scriptures, Jesus Christ said, believe the same in Me. What a trump card!! The words of Christ show up the lies and deceit of all world religions. Here is a Man in whom dwells the fullness of the Godhead. Williams is exposed as a leader among the sons of hell.

My Bible and I

We have travelled together, my Bible and I.

Through tempest and sunshine I still kept thee nigh.

Though dark were the days, thy comforts were strong,

"Fear not, I am with thee" I still made my song.

My solace and comfort when trouble was nigh.

We were still close together, my Bible and I .

My stay and my comfort, by day and by night,

My treasure, my succour, my comfort, delight;

My solid foundation from earth's rudest shock,

I am safe in the shadow of thee, blessed rock.

With thee for my guide, I can Satan defy;

We will hold to each other, my Bible and I .

Thou sword of the Spirit, revealer and guide,

My doubts are dispelled when I've thee by my side.

The Master, Himself, soon put Satan to flight

When appearing to him as an angel of light.

With thee I can conquer, and Satan defy,

We'll keep closer together, my Bible and I.

So now who shall part us, my Bible and I ?

Shall Satan's temptations when age dims the eye?

Come storm or come sunshine, come sleet or come rain,

My stay in the past, I will trust thee again.

Be my song in the night, if preparing to die,

We will still be companions, my Bible and I.

SELECTED.

This poem is found on the last page of The Bible at the Bar.

2007-03-19T12:24:00.000-07:00

Waymarks 48

Report of Open Air Preaching

December 6^th LUTON T C. I don’t usually preach seasonal messages. In the open air there is no point preaching structured sermons anyway. But today I preached on Luke 2: 14. There is peace on earth. There is peace with God through faith in Christ Jesus, right now , here on this earth. It is to every repentant soul who trusts in Christ. The coming into this world of the Son of God to be the Saviour of the world is the evidence of God’s goodwill to this human race.

The words “Peace to all men and women on earth who please him” (The Message) impugn the very nature of God. Passers by were told there is none on this planet, unconverted, who can please God. There is none good no not one. The gospel is for all mankind. There is no peace saith my God to the wicked. Bethlehem tells you that you are a sinner on the way to hell. This is why Christ Jesus came into the world; to save sinners.

But few were interested. None stopped to hear more of the gospel. In fact none even turned to look in my direction.

If they had read the lying verse (Lk.2: 14, The Messenger) posted outside one Gospel Hall in Luton they would conclude that they had never pleased God so no point in stopping to listen now.

December 13^th DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. Preached the same message as on 6^th December with the same effect.

January 10^th LUTON T.C. One man stood listening. I could just see him out of the corner of my eye. When I finished preaching he approached me. He had the appearance of a dosser and spoke like one. All dossers are philosophers and expert theologians so he picked me up on a few points I had made. I had mentioned the myths of Valhalla and Utopia, Reincarnation, Purgatory, and he knew all about these. He couldn’t explain how they couldn’t all be right and seemed to grasp that the resurrection of Christ showed up the fallacy of every world religion. Because there are always Muslims listening I make sure the resurrection is emphasised. It is an essential of the gospel of Christ.

January 17^th LUTON T.C. Today nobody stood listening but many heard. I ask myself how do so many street preachers manage to get themselves arrested or at least assaulted by passers by. Why I am I almost totally ignored? Is there something wrong with my message, or my style, or myself? Then I read some comments by people (unsaved presumably) who had come up against a street preacher. They had been harangued, shouted at, mocked, etc. They had been offended by a variety of slogans on banners held high.

Well, I don’t use slogans. “Sodomites will go to hell” may be true but I believe the displayed Word of God carries more power in winning souls. This after all must be the preacher’s earnest desire; to win souls for Christ. Abusive language has no part in the soul winner’s ministry even when confronted by an angry Muslim or J.W.

We do have to be faithful in reminding people of the consequences of their sin and I do not believe it is wrong on occasion to name the sin. But we must preach Christ crucified ─the sinner’s Saviour.

A loud hailer pushes the audience farther back and angers them. I don’t use one because I want to be approachable.

February 9^th Heavy snowfalls have kept me in over the past two days. I am reminded of a snowy day 25 years ago when I did go out and discovered a large open air rally taking place in a recreational ground in central Luton. About two thousand people were gathered in the falling snow to listen to their union leaders.

Vauxhall Motors were about to lay off a large number of workers and they were being told that there was no hope for them. All remained in the park. None were seen sidling off. They remained standing in the snow for about an hour.

Imagine inviting folk to come and stand in a snowstorm for an hour to learn they had no hope for the future. This is what they did!

Imagine inviting people to a gospel meeting in the park in warm weather and chairs to sit on. Then tell them there is a glorious future and eternal prosperity for the soul trusting in Christ. So they don’t come!! The human race is soul-dead and brain damaged. (Yes, sin DOES damage the brain.) The human race is now down to 10% efficiency as far as brain power is concerned. Adam started at 100% efficiency. If you are an evolutionist you will want to reverse these figures.

For years we have preached in the parks of Beds/Bucks/Herts, in bad weather and good. Now and again a soul has been saved. Most times we were under canvas but once when our tent was destroyed during a riot in the town we preached in the open for the following few weeks. We preached to people in the park, teen-agers mostly, who would never have come into the tent.

AV Verses Vindicated

Isaiah 38: 8

Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

Most modern versions and parodies of Scripture read similar to the GNB ─ “On the stairway built by King Ahaz, the LORD will make the shadow go back ten steps. And the shadow moved back ten steps.”

The Hebrew word translated ‘degrees’ is ma’alah (Str.4609). I could find no manuscript variants. Modern versions accept this word but translate it ‘steps’. The word ‘dial’ is also ma’alah which word is found translated ‘steps’ in Ex.20: 26, Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar.

The modern translators therefore jump to the conclusion that Ahaz’s sun dial was a succession of steps on which the length of the shadow would indicate the hour. Actually a post knocked into flat ground would have served the same purpose. The length of the shadow would be measured more effectively.

But the modern men are making gobble-de-gook of the Scripture. These mighty steps would need to be swung through 180^oat midday, otherwise there would be no shadow at all for the rest of the day.

Persisting in this nonsense some tell us that David’s songs of degrees (Psalms 120-134) were composed on these steps. David lived more than 200 years before Ahaz.

The AV translators were well aware that ma’alah has a variety of meanings. Here is a third; 1 Chron. 17: 17, a man of high degree.

The Egyptians had invented a sun dial long before the days of Ahaz. Perhaps his sun dial was based on theirs. It was ‘T’ shaped with a raised cross bar causing a shadow to fall on the stem. This instrument lay flat on the ground and was rotated through 180^o at midday. (See sundial: Enc. Brit.)

Textual critics are proven deceivers. Beware.

Even if this really is a pic. of Ahaz’s sun dial, we maintain the use of the word ‘steps’ remains misleading.

Matthew 28: 19

Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This should read “ ‘into the name’, i.e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God” says P. Schaff in his introduction to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament; .Harpur & Brothers; 1873.

Well of course, the preposition is eis which is commonly translated “into”. but he doesn’t let his readers know that 20 to 30 other English words are used to translate eis including “in”. Should we read “He came and dwelt into (eis) a city called Nazareth”?

Schaff’s change is governed by his theology. He believed water could produce a living relationship with God. Many still follow this pernicious error.

Acts2: 47

And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Modern versions omit “the church” (ekklesia). The Lord used the word first in Matt.16: 18, I will build my church;

showing that prior to this the church did not exist. It was not to be Israel in new guise. The church was not to be introduced solely because of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. It was in the mind of God from eternity.

In Acts 5: 11 we see an established church. When we come to Acts 9 we find a multiplicity of churches (v.31).

The word Ekklesia is found 115 times in the New Testament. So why omit it in Acts 2? The reason is not hard to find; it disturbs Covenant Theology which refuses to recognise the differences between the Church and Israel..

1 Corinthians 10: 1

Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant....

Preachers like their audience to believe they are scholarly. To attain this they look up a few cross references in Darby or Vine etc.

We have an example in 1 Cor. 10: 1. The preacher reads the verse then says “If you have a good translation it will read ‘for’, and not ‘moreover’.” Therefore a good translation will be Darby’s or the RV or the ASV not forgetting the popish Douay/ Rheims version. A bad, bad translation will be the AV of course.

The Greek word translated ‘moreover’ in the AV is de. It is a conjunction, found in the Greek Received Text 2534 times and can also be translated but, and, also, now, then, when, for, etc. (Yes, the AV translators were well aware that de may be translated ‘for’. See Acts 17: 21. you may find another example if you search hard enough.).

Our preacher never learned Greek. I haven’t either (more is the pity) What the preacher really wants you to know is if the Brethren didn’t produce it, it isn’t any good. All hail, Vine, Wigram, Newberry, Tregelles etc. These are the men who swallowed the Textual Criticism lie. As one has written elsewhere, most preachers do not know the difference between a gerund and a gerbil.

Reading ‘for’ does not improve the meaning of the verse one little bit. de lets the reader know that

Paul’s comment in v.1 builds on what has gone immediately before.

By the Way....

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” – Edmund Burke. Don’t we have a Scripture that will speak even better than this wise saying? How about Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong. 1 Cor. 16: 13

There are still some good men about. Some of them are men of action. In the spiritual warfare they will draw the direct interest of the enemy of souls. He will try and silence them; to bring them down; to destroy them. He will use all the weapons at his disposal such as Pseudo-brethren, who will make a pretence of support but run in the face of fire. Wimpering wives who can’t bear that their dearie will be ill spoken of. Full frontal attack from the local Diotrophese.

I remember a man standing in the congregation who told us the Lord was capable of any sin. I remained silent for I was but a young man. That was my excuse for cowardice in the face of the enemy. I saw a young man cast out of the gathering for opposing this blasphemer several years later, and none stood by the young man. I saw a fellowship of 90+ dwindle to a handful in the months following this shameful night.

I saw a Man outcast, despised and rejected and hanging upon a tree. A friend had betrayed Him and His other friends had fled.

Men urge us now to forsake the faith; to stand no more for the things we love. The cause is lost, they say, and the battle done. Relax a while and have some fun. Besides, we live in a different day; the world is not too bad at all. The strife laden Bible doctrines of the past need not bother us, for evil now is good and good men gone.

If good men do nothing in the fight against evil they become nothing.

To quit like men is not to run away. Some leave their congregations because of difficulties. One leaves only when staying means having fellowship with what God hates. Have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them. Eph.5: 11. Quitting like men is to act manly. Speaking against error is to act manly. Having fellowship with fornicators and adulterers (divorced and remarried persons are adulterers ^*) and such like is forbidden in Scripture. 1 Cor. 6: 9.

* see my blog at www.waymarks.blogspot.com

J.B. Phillips (1906-1982)

a well-known Bible paraphraser, was a straight-up heretic. His writings plainly reveal what he believed:

The new birth is simply a "change of outlook" (When God Was Man, p. 28).
Devils aren't spirit creatures, they are the "storm centre of the personality". (When God Was Man, p. 19).
The Bible is not particularly inspired by God. "I should like to make it quite clear that I could not possibly hold the extreme `fundamentalist' position of so-called `verbal inspiration'" (Ring of Truth, p. 28). "...I felt bound to abandon the `God- dictated-every-word- from-cover-to-cover' attitude, and won an attitude which commends itself to my intelligence as well as my faith..." (The Price of Success, Wheaton: Harold Shaw Pub., 1984, p. 150).
Satan does not have permanent existence. "If our critics mean that we believe in the permanent existence of Satan, the Devil or the powers of evil, they are wrong, for we do not." (Ring of Truth, p. 51).
No such thing as miracles. "A `miracle' is, by definition, something to be wondered at, and in the past, when laws then unknown were being used, it was commonly assumed that divine intervention was the cause of the wonder. ... but I think that it is unlikely." (Ring of Truth, p. 93).
Acension of Christ is a parable. In other words, it didn't really occur. (Ring of Truth, p. 107).

I was thrown off the Brethren internet Scripture Forum by WALTER BOYD for pointing out to subscribers that this Anglican cleric was a notorious apostate.

More about Progressive Dispensationalism

(An open letter to Mr Norman Mellish)

Dear Norman,

you recently spent three evenings giving ministry on this subject to our assembly and one evening at a neighbouring assembly. You mentioned several times a book that had influenced you on the subject. It was The Greatness of the Kingdom by Alva Mcclain, 1959. It was originally published in 1968 by Moody Press, and 1974 by BMH Books. My copy is the tenth printing, March 2005. It has 556 pages. I told you I would obtain a copy and let you know what I thought about it. It was not difficult reading being largely free of theological jargon etc but 556 pages took some reading. Did you read it all? I have.

You based your ministry on this book though I suspect that you have been seriously influenced by other persons. Your ministry opposed the dispensational teaching that I have come to hold to over half a century. You suggested that any not too happy with your ministry had probably been influenced in the past by “exclusive” writers. My inference from this remark is you believe the whole Brethren Movement to be the product of Exclusive Brethrenism. Assemblies generally have held to Traditional Dispensationalism. Do you blame J N Darby for this? As for me it has been my practice from the day I was converted to check references. I was influenced in early days by Dwight Pentecost, J Walvoord, and Charles Ryrie but read very little of Scofield and Darby ( I have never coped with Darby!) I checked the statements they made against Scripture and that meant I didn’t necessarily accept everything they wrote.

Alarm bells rang before I opened the cover of The Greatness of the Kingdom. The subtitle reads an Inductive Study of the Kingdom of God. Why does it have to be an inductive study? Why not an expository study? Why not take the verses of Scripture dealing with the subject and examine them against each other by comparison and contrast. Scripture is its own interpreter! Mcclain’s answer to this is found on page 17.

The Kingdom of God in Scripture is a concept not easily handled by the conventional method of Systematic Theology..... Therefore it is not enough to study a collation of texts on the subject; but the material must be examined in relation to the movement of history and the progress of divine revelation.

This is the key to the book. The Bible is not sufficient in itself to give an understanding of the subject. The events of history determine the meaning of the Scripture. We had always thought that (prophetic) Scripture determined the events of history.

A definition of Inductive Study is found in Dispensationalism Today by Charles Ryrie, published in 1965 by Moody Press. He quotes D P Fuller─

The inductive method of Bible study, which is nothing more than the scientific method, seeks to gain all the facts before drawing some conclusion from them. ─p.95.

If all the facts are Bible facts, all well and good. But the covenant theologians, with the progressive dispensationalists superimpose their own scheme on the Bible. They may argue the same for the traditional dispensationalist. The difference is TD takes a literal face value approach to interpretation. No other system of theology can claim this. This is the only effective way to understand the Bible.

When we read Romans 9: 3,4 we accept the words at their face value. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the service of God , and the promises;

The covenants pertain to Israelites, Paul’s kinsmen according to the flesh. They pertain to the Jewish nation no matter what their present spiritual state. Whatever covenant is spoken of in the Old Testament, it pertains to, relates to, belongs to the earthly nation of Israel. It belongs to Israel in its entirety.

With the covenants come the promises. Paul wrote that the OT promises are the property of Israel. But some promises of course bring blessing to the Gentiles. (The Lord said salvation is of the Jews, Jn. 4: 22).

So we come to Jeremiah 31: 31-35, a prophecy that some tell us is fulfilled at least partially in the Church.

31. Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:

32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:

33. But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.

34. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

35. Thus saith the LORD, which giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for a light by night, which divideth the sea when the waves thereof roar; The LORD of hosts is his name:

This covenant is explicit. It is future, ─ I will make... It will be with a specific nation, Israel/Judah. It will be infrangible, its law written within them and in their hearts. It will be a regenerate nation with iniquity forgiven and sin no more remembered. All will know the Lord. This new covenant is yet in the future. It hasn’t been made yet seeing Israel is still in unbelief.

This new covenant is not to be confused with the BETTER COVENANT, Heb. 8 6, which is based on better promises and is the new covenant on which the church rests. The mention of the first covenant not being faultless is done so in Hebrews to show that it is reasonable for a second to be introduced. The Christian readers of the book of Hebrews need not be surprised therefore if God introduces something new and better for them.

The church does not come into the good of Israel’s new covenant though that too must be ratified through the blood of Christ. Believers discover that God’s laws are not put in their minds inevitably and written in their hearts indelibly. They have to be learned. Teaching remains a necessity in this dispensation. A great blessing of Israel’s New Covenant is that teachers are not required. This blessing plainly has not become the property of the Church.

The church’s new covenant brings every believer into the holiest by the blood of Jesus (Heb. 10: 19) as a priest of God

p.s. I have no real problem with the inductive method of study as first set out by John Wycliffe in the 14^th Century. He wrote,

“It shall greatly helpe ye to understande Scripture if ye mark,

Not only what is spoken or written,

But of whom,

and to whom,

with what words,

at what time,

where,

to what intent,

with what circumstances,

considering what goeth before,,

and what followeth”.

The Holy Scriptures. Where are they?

Do we possess the Holy Scriptures today or do we not? Many think not or if we do they are incomplete and defective in many places. Many think furthermore that the original Scriptures can never be fully recovered.

Bible believers will argue that the Holy Scriptures have never been lost and are available today in many languages.

The New Testament uses the term “Holy Scriptures” twice and it is found in almost all modern versions except The Message.

Rom. 1: 1,2. ....the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the Holy hagios Scriptures.)

2 Tim. 3: 15. And that from a child thou hast known the holy heiros Scriptures. Paul never wrote to Timothy, “you have known the word of God”. He knew what had been written down and preserved as under the inspiration of God.

Peter knew that Paul was writing Scripture. 2 Peter 3: 16.

The term Scripture is used once in the O.T., and refers to writings that are God given – The Scripture (kathab) of truth Dan. 10: 21.

Kathab is translated several times ‘writing’ and refers to human writings.

Paul assures us that the Holy Scriptures existed in the past, giving promise of the gospel of God, and were extant in Timothy’s day telling him they ARE able to make thee wise unto salvation. We are compelled to acknowledge that Timothy’s was a copy many times removed from the original.

The term “Scriptures” occurs 21 times, and 31 times “Scripture” in the AV New Testament. These translate the Greek word graphe. The holy Scriptures are the words of God given by inspiration and written down. The term is synonymous therefore with “The Holy Bible” . If it is holy there can be nothing in it that is erroneous. It is sacred and pure from every form of defilement or it cannot be called Holy Bible. Defilements are usually in the eye of the beholder

It would be very strange if God gave the written Word only for it to be lost in a generation or so. We note from the writing of Tregelles that he with all critics believe that the written words of God did become lost.

But God has promised to preserve His written word. The Scripture cannot be broken. John 10: 35. It cannot be destroyed or dissolved. It is permanently indelible.

Seeing that bible versions differ materially in very many places, we ask which is Scripture?

Is it “God was manifest in the flesh” (AV) or is it “He who was manifested in the flesh” (RV,ASV), “He appeared in his human nature” (GW). These three readings differ significantly from each other. If all three are regarded as Scripture, then God is charged with confusion and lies.

Critics will go to great lengths to justify their various readings and we are not concerned with them here.

If we believe God had preserved His word in holy Scripture ─and if we don’t believe we are probably unregenerate ─we ask where shall we find it? The answer to my mind is plain; we find the Scriptures in the hands of believers through the ages from the beginning. These Scriptures, commonly held by believers, are of one family, named as Byzantine, Majority, Received, and in our day as far as English is concerned, The Authorized or King James Bible.

The practice from the beginning has been to reject the false, the Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.

Those who have promoted their variants have proved themselves so often to be apostate as far as their faith is concerned. These have been men such as Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, and in more recent times, Westcott and Hort, Metzger, Aland, and many others.

We have to ask ourselves, whom do we follow, faithful men such as Tyndale, or those known to be apostate?

We have a Bible. It is holy. It is the preserved word of God, it is holy Scripture. It is the Authorized Version.

Some may disagree with me. They must go their own way. I shall not walk with them.

Samuel Prideaux Tregelles

Tregelles was the brother-in-law of B W Newton. He was a great scholar though self taught. He produced a Greek New Testament in the tradition of Greisbach and Lachmann which was much applauded among the scholars and textual critics. Below is an excerpt from Samuel Tregelles; Background to Modern Translations of the Bible by Hywel Jones and presented at the annual lecture of the Evangelical Library, London, 1975.

Tregelles tells us himself of the way in which he was drawn to this subject [textual criticism]. In his own private study of the New Testament he saw the importance of ascertaining the best text, i.e., nearest to the original, wherever there was some variation in the manuscripts. Others had done work on this before him, but in order to evaluate it he needed to be able to evaluate the authorities they used. He saw that one of these editors named Scholz consistently rejected the testimony of earlier manuscripts, and also that `a text might be formed, which if not genuine, was at least ancient'. Another editor, Griesbach, was not consistent in following the ancient copies. So Tregelles writes:

`There arose before my mind an earnest desire that some scholar, possessed of the needful qualifications, mental, moral and spiritual, and who had leisure for such a work, would undertake an edition resting on ancient authorities only, and in which the citations from MSS might be given as correctly as possible.'

He translated his desire into actuality. From a specimen study on Colossians 2:2, he proceeded in 1841-2 to edit the text of the Apocalypse which appeared in 1844. He was particularly pleased that expositors who differed in their prophetic teaching felt able to use the text, and he deduced from this that it was free from bias. On the completion of this he announced his intention of editing the Greek Testament. This work appeared in six parts in the twenty-eight years that followed.

We must now try to trace Tregelles' course, his plan and its accomplishment, in connection with this his magnum opus. Our main source of material is his all-important work entitled `An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, with Remarks on its Revision upon Critical Principles, together with a Collation of the Critical Texts of Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann and Tischendorf, with that in common use'. We shall in future call this his Account. This was published in 1854, and the Library possesses B. W. Newton's copy. It was dedicated to the University of Saint Andrews `in grateful recognition of encouragement bestowed on Biblical Studies', and appeared in 1854. The reference here of course is to the honorary degree conferred upon him but note his self-effacement.

In this book he calls his method Comparative Criticism, and describes it as follows:

`I mean such an investigation as shows what the character of a document is-not simply from its age, whether known or supposed but from its actual readings being shown to be in accordance or not with certain other documents.'

Using this method he aimed to produce a text in which every word rested on ancient authority. Three resolutions were made by him:-

‘lst To form a text on the authority of ancient copies, without allowing the "received text" any prescriptive right.

2nd To give to the ancient versions a determining voice, as to the insertion or non-insertion of CLAUSES etc.; letting the order or words, etc., rest wholly upon MSS.

'rd-To give the AUTHORITIES for the text, and for the various readings, clearly and accurately so that the reader might at once see what rests upon ancient evidence.'

Tregelles’ first resolution sweeps away what Christians had relied upon and trusted from the 2^nd Cent. to the 19^th Cent. viz., the Received Text. The vast majority of mss are in line with the Received Text. Tregelles would reject these thousands of mss for a few “ancient copies”.

The second resolution finds emphasis given to ancient versions. These I could not find listed but they had only a “determining voice” where they agreed with his preselected mss.

The third resolution gives the game away. The mss are named and we find them to be those rejected by the early churches; Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus, and one or two others.

Dr. Burgon wrote of Tregelles,

[He] effectually persuaded himself that ‘eighty-nine ninetieths’ of our extant manuscripts and other authorities may safely be rejected and lost sight of when we come to amend the text and try to restore it to its primitive purity. ─ Revision Revised; p.22.A G Hobbs Publications; Centennial Ed. 1983.

His proceeding is exactly that of a man, who─in order that he may the better explore a comparatively unknown region ─begins by putting out both his eyes; and resolutely refuses the help of the natives to show him the way. ─ibid. p.243.

Tregelles wrote concerning 1 John 5: 7, 1 Timothy 3: 16, Acts 20: 28,

Many have shrunk from the results of criticism because of these three passages: they are accustomed to them as setting forth theological verities; and they have desired to cling to them; although they might have known that in argument they are worthless, because opposers are full well aware how groundless or uncertain are those readings of these passages which some have called orthodox. The consequence unhappily has been, that the most essential and fundamental truths of Christian doctrine have been supposed by some to rest on uncertain grounds. Now, the same criticism which shows that particular readings are not genuine, proves uncontestably that others are unquestionable; and thus no point of orthodox truth is weakened, even though supports, which some have thought sustained it, are found to differ from such supposed use and bearing. There are undoubted passages enough (such as Matt. 1:23; John 1:1, 20:28; Rom. 9:5; Phil. 2:6; Heb. 1:8) which speak of the proper Godhead of Christ, without our wishing to press into the same cause others for which we have no sufficient evidence, and which were not required to establish that necessary truth in the early controversies.

Criticism, however, need not be at all feared; if it takes away on the one hand readings which were thought to have some dogmatic value, it will give on the other quite as much. Instances of this will be seen in two passages, John 1:18, and 1 Pet. 3:15.

We point out that Tregelles’s criticisms were based on his pre-conceived notion that oldest is best, ignoring all the evidence that existed then concerning these three verses.

This is what textual critics have been doing ever since. Tregelles used practically the same method as Lachmann although he protested that he didn’t perceive what Lachmann was doing as his works were all in German.

In the year 2007 we find Bible Teachers who have not examined the works of Tregelles or any other Textual Critic for that matter, who repeatedly undermine the confidence of young believers─and some older─in the Authorized Bible with its underlying Received text. These men “prefer” modern versions crafted out of Greek Texts (they cannot name which Greek Text) that rely on two or three seriously depraved manuscripts.

They describe their ministry as ‘Sweet Thoughts of Jesus’ but they ought rather to announce their purpose; it is to destroy faith.

Tregelles was a spiritual gypsy. He started out with the Quakers, converted to Brethrenism, left after a few years and then nobody is quite sure what happened to him after that. He became either Presbyterian or Anglican.

He was on the Revised Version committee and apparently had no problem fellowshipping with the Unitarian Smith and with the Mariolaters, Westcott and Hort.

Comments on “tittle”.

“And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail” Luke 16: 17

Dr T Srouse points out in the EBT Journal, Spring 2006:-

1.The Oxford English Dictionary traces the history of the occurrence of the word tittle to Wycliff’s translation of the Bible in 1382. He rendered the Latin apex , for “point or tip,” in Matthew 5:18 and Luke 16:17 as titel

2.When the Lord employed the Greek work keraia He was giving the Greek equivalent to the Hebrew chireq. These are the dots appearing under the consonants in the Hebrew text.

3.The fallacious view that man invented the Hebrew vowel points has nothing to commend it. Is there any reason that Bible believers must countenance the speculative view that the Lord God, the Creator of language, disdains vowels, at least to the extent that He would not preserve them in written form (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew2:35)? After all, has not the Lord Jesus Christ referred to Himself as the Alpha and Omega (Revelation 1:8; 21:6), the ﬁrst and last vowels of the Greek language?

Words need vowels otherwise they are nonsensical.

Feeding Sheep or Amusing Goats? by C. H. Spurgeon

An evil is in the professed camp of the Lord, so gross in its impudence, that the most shortsighted can hardly fail to notice it. During the past few years, it has developed at an abnormal rate, even for evil. It has worked like leaven until the whole lump ferments. The devil has seldom done a cleverer thing than hinting to the church that part of their mission is to provide entertainment for the people, with a view to winning them. From speaking out as the Puritans did, the church has gradually toned down her testimony, then winked at and excused the frivolities of the day. Then she tolerated them in her borders. Now she has adopted them under the plea of reaching the masses. My first contention is that providing amusement for the people is nowhere spoken of in the Scriptures as a function of the church. If it is a Christian work, why did not Christ speak of it? ?Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature? (Mark 16:15). That is clear enough. So it would have been if he had added, ?and provide amusement for those who do not relish the gospel.? No such words, however, are to be found. It did not seem to occur to him. Then again, ?He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers ... for the work of the ministry? (Eph. 4:11-12). Where do entertainers come in? The Holy Spirit is silent concerning them. Were the prophets persecuted because they amused the people or because they refused? The concert has no martyr roll. Again, providing amusement is in direct antagonism to the teaching and life of Christ and all his apostles. What was the attitude of the church to the world? ?Ye are the salt? (Matt. 5:13), not the sugar candy?something the world will spit out, not swallow. Short and sharp was the utterance, ?Let the dead bury their dead? (Matt. 8:22). He was in awful earnestness! Had Christ introduced more of the bright and pleasant elements into his mission, he would have been more popular when they went back, because of the searching nature of his teaching. I do not hear him say, ?Run after these people, Peter, and tell them we will have a different style of service tomorrow, something short and attractive with little preaching. We will have a pleasant evening for the people. Tell them they will be sure to enjoy it. Be quick, Peter, we must get the people somehow.? Jesus pitied sinners, sighed and wept over them, but never sought to amuse them. In vain will the Epistles be searched to find any trace of the gospel of amusement. Their message is, ?Come out, keep out, keep clean out!? Anything approaching fooling is conspicuous by its absence. They had boundless confidence in the gospel and employed no other weapon. After Peter and John were locked up for preaching, the church had a prayer meeting, but they did not pray, ?Lord grant unto thy servants that by a wise and discriminating use of innocent recreation we may show these people how happy we are.? If they ceased not for preaching Christ, they had not time for arranging entertainments. Scattered by persecution, they went everywhere preaching the gospel. They ?turned the world upside down? (Acts 17:6). That is the only difference! Lord, clear the church of all the rot and rubbish the devil has imposed on her, and bring us back to apostolic methods. Lastly, the mission of amusement fails to effect the end desired. It works havoc among young converts. Let the careless and scoffers, who thank God because the church met them halfway, speak and testify. Let the heavy laden who found peace through the concert not keep silent! Let the drunkard to whom the dramatic entertainment had been God's link in the chain of the conversion, stand up! There are none to answer. The mission of amusement produces no converts. The need of the hour for today's ministry is believing scholarship joined with earnest spirituality, the one springing from the other as fruit from the root. The need is biblical doctrine, so understood and felt, that it sets men on fire

Because so many gospel halls are now mere glorified social centres I thought this much reprinted article worth yet another airing. I don’t suppose it will have much impact on my fun loving brethren.

Wine and the Bible. Gleaned from an article by Greg Tyree.

The Lord’s first miracle, “turning water into wine,” gives the wine advocates plenty of ammunition to defend their “right to drink.” But did Jesus turn water into “fermented” wine? (Note: This miracle is not about “wine” but about Jesus’ credibility as the Messiah. However, since wine advocates always refer to this text, we shall consider it for our purposes here.) Let’s consider the text in John 2:1-11:

Remember that the word “wine” does not have to mean “fermented.”The context determines that this is not fermented wine for the following reasons:

1) The same God (Jesus) who wrote that “wine is a mocker” (Prov. 20:1: Wine is a mocker ,strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise.) would not have “created” that same kind of fermented wine of which He was so critical.

2) The wedding feast had been going on for three days (the Greek in verse one strongly suggests this, as well as the fact they had run out of wine. The Jewish wedding feasts ran for about seven days). If fermented wine was being consumed here then Jesus was contributing to a drunken brawl! Imagine what the atmosphere would have been like had they been “drinking” for three days.

3) A lot of the “wine” had been consumed since the host “ran out.” The fact that everyone seems “rational” and “functional” implies that they were drinking something other than alcohol.

4) Jesus “made” about 135 gallons of “wine.” Ask yourself if Jesus made 135 gallons (possibly 2000 servings!), in addition to the three days of wine they had already consumed.

5) Most hosts would serve the best quality of wine at the beginning of a feast, and when the guests had consumed enough to deaden the taste buds (thus, “well drunk”- KJV) they would serve the lower quality of wine. If the guests were drinking alcohol, they would not have been able to distinguish between the two. In other words, Jesus’ “pure, sweet, and fresh” wine was so good, even taste buds that had been “desensitized” by much consumption could tell the difference!

6) Jesus took His mother to the wedding feast. Jesus was a “gentleman.” Jesus would not have taken His mother to a drunken party.

In relation to the Lord’s supper, read Matthew 26:26-30

This is perhaps the most critical of all the texts considered, for here Jesus establishes an ordinance that must be carried out until He returns! The question is, “Did Jesus use fermented wine to establish the Lord’s Supper; and if so does He expect us to do the same today?”

Let’s be honest. If Jesus did use fermented wine to establish “Communion,” then we should- no, we must- also use fermented wine. Who are we to change the substance of the elements that we are commanded to use?

But there is no need to do that. We shall see here that Jesus did not use fermented wine to establish the Last Supper, nor do we need to utilize it now. Indeed, we must reject the thought altogether. Here are some reasons:

1) This happened at the Passover. God forbade even the presence of “bharm” (yeast, leaven, ferment) at the Passover, because it is the cause of putrefaction(Ex. 34; Lev. 10).

2) Jesus’ words here, and Paul’s reiteration of them in 1 Corinthians, do not include the word “wine.” (Note: Not one New Testament passage of the Lord’s Supper uses the word wine. Just a thought.)

3) Jesus describes what He is using as “fruit of the vine.” This does not require that it be fermented wine, and may preclude it from being intoxicating wine. The vine does not bear intoxicating drink.

4) The Jewish Mishna teaches that four cups of wine is to be consumed by everyone 12 years and up. If this was fermented, it would have been the equivalent of 6 ounces of pure alcohol, or 12 ounces of proof spirit (Kanoy, page 12).

5) Jesus is our High Priest. We have already established that Priests were not to drink alcohol.

6) If leaven represents sin, how can fermentation(leaven) or fermented wine possibly represent the blood of Christ!?

7) Why would God require unfermented bread but allow fermented wine?

Add to this that in today’s environment, churches that use fermented wine in communion expose alcoholics with the worst kind of temptation. You may argue, “But our church gives a choice.” Consider this: is communion the time to establish a “difference” between people (i.e., drinkers and non-drinkers)?

Shouldn’t communion eliminate differences? Also, as both “choices” are being passed to the congregation, won’t the wine, even if declined, be a “stumbling block” to the one who is tempted? This could even cause them to fall. Shame in us for such a flippant and uncompassionate attitude about the most sacred of ordinances!

6. Jot and Tittle

Not a jot shall there fail.

Nor tittle may pass,

'Till the heavens have fled

and sea be all glass.

For the Lord hath decreed;

The Law shall e’er stand.

Iota and keraia

Remain hand in hand.

For once they were given

To ‘stablish the word,

That thundered from Sinai

So Law might be heard

Without jot and tittle

The sense would be dark;

The way be tempestuous,

The soul miss the mark.

So nought be there added

And nought be removed..

The vowels and the letters

Are all of them proved.

Ron Smith