Waymarks Contender No. 61

Waymarks 61

Report of Open Air Preaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

AV Verses Vindicated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Romans 5: 18

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What J R Baker wrote was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Who is the Carnal Man of Romans 7?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Letters

Hi Ron,

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

I—

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

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


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

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

A strange view

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


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

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

Who are the Textual Critics?

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

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

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

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

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

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


The Anvil of God's Word

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

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

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

—John Clifford, D.D.