Waymarks 55

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?