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 thepreserved 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?
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Friday, 22 February 2008
Waymarks 52 Spring 2008
Waymarks 52
This is the “cut-down” version. email me for a paper copy.
Report of Open air Preaching
19th December
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.
2nd January
16th January
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
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
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
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
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 18th 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
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
"(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. . . --
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
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
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 (
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.
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.
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)