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.
Wednesday, 19 May 2010
Saturday, 21 November 2009
waymarks contender issue no. 59
Contender 59
Report of Open Air Preaching
September 9th LUTON TOWN CENTRE.. S- was there when I arrived today. He had arranged a selection of gospels and tracts along the top of the wall. He gets his supplies from reliable sources so in this he is doing a good work. But he is very confused doctrinally and rejects the Trinity. He doesn’t stay when I come, for which I was thankful.
A lady spoke to me and told me she was a church member but seemingly has never been saved. She took a tract. Then a man came by who told me he had often listened to me. He had been a keen believer, he told me, in his young days but questioned God’s omnipotence. He did not believe God could create the universe out of nothing. He obviously believed in something far more fantastic; the eternality of matter.
He also was very jealous of me because I had faith and he had none. He then gave me a little of his history; born in Ukraine 1939. His name is john.
He is desperate to find peace with God but had to learn it could not be obtained on his terms. I told him to go home and get alone with God. He should repent of his sins and put his trust in Christ. He accepted a gospel of John and asked me to be sure to be here next week. I will do my best.
While we were yet speaking, another came. It was Peter. He has many doubts despite having confessed faith in Christ on this spot some twenty years ago. He is back in his flat and has a social worker to keep an eye on him.
September 16th LTC. Alas, John did not show up. A wino demanded a pound from me. I do not support winos so he was told he would get nothing from me. Before my reader judges me for such lack of benevolence I will point out that I have on a number of occasions bought food for those I thought to be in need. This man pronounced me to be the Antichrist and added numerous obscenities to his description of me. I had on me three 50p coins and no more. Exit from the car park required one pound.
listen and then to talk. They told me they had listened to me several times in the past but I did not recognise them. They claimed to be Christians and I thought they were probably Baptists, or from somemainline evangelicals. They are accepted, not because they have modified their heretical views but because the evangelical world is apostate anyway and doesn’t see anything wrong in their doctrines.
They deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. They deny the existence of the devil, and much else that is false.
November 4th LTC. A Big Issue seller was on my usual spot when I arrived today. I gave him a copy of John’s Gospel and he responded by putting one of his magazines in my carrier. I felt obliged to give him something for it. He then remained next to me and listened to 20 minutes gospel preaching. To which he made no response.
A Nigerian man prayed over me. This is an occupational hazard. Those who do it are usually charismatic and will get no Amen from me.
November 11th LTC. The Big Issue seller expected another donation today.
I preached and a Muslim stood listening. I did not wish to engage in a profitless debate with him so I preached and preached. Eventually I had to stop and he stepped in. He was very polite and courteous but reacted as do the JW’s; change the subject if he couldn’t answer and deny all facts presented. This included the fact of Calvary. He told me the Lord wasn’t crucified but was taken alive into heaven.
He tried me also on the integrity of the Bible. They are all different apparently! How like the Koran, I replied. He was quickly put right on the integrity of the AV Bible, which was written by Henry V. according to him. Such is the deep ignorance of these people.
Then another man interrupted to tell me if I had real faith I wouldn’t need a mobility scooter. Such was his contempt for the preaching of the gospel. For a few minutes I was dealing with enemies of the gospel on two fronts. A bit like Paul with the Stoics and Epicureans maybe.
All this drew a small crowd which is very unusual these days.
(TIP. Don’t preach in the open air if you are not familiar with the Book)
AV Verses Vindicated
Mark 13: 14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not…
Modern versions omit spoken of by Daniel the prophet. They together (including the RV and JND) attack the integrity of the book of Daniel. The authority for these words in Mark is overwhelming. Daniel described an event yet future, and from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12: 11)
A denial of the prophecies of Daniel is apostasy. Suggestions that this prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 are based on unbelief.
Matthew 24: 14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all (holos= complete; altogether; every whit) the world for a witness unto all the nations and then shall the end come.
“And these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth, JND
Note that when a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (Lk. 2: 1) the Greek word holos was not used. The decree did not apply outside the Roman Empire.
JND changed the meaning of holos to “not all, but part of” He did this in many places where holos is used... He made these changes without any authority but his own.
The only place where habitable occurs in the AV Bible is Prov. 8: 31, Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
Some men live in parts of the world regarded as uninhabitable. Darby will not have these to be evangelised.
Who now decides which parts of the earth are habitable? The answer: The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development—Agenda 21. The object of this is to bring the habitable earth under the control of a ruling elite. This is why we are seeing the “Global Warming” lobby gaining strength.
We also see the religious side of the “One Ruler for the World” growing also.
This is what the Bahá'í’s have to say about it:-
The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established. Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892)
The successful execution of the programmes enunciated in Agenda 21 will greatly depend on the willingness of the peoples and nations of the world to recognise the vital link between global transformation and spiritual principles. In the Bahá'í view, "the storm battering at the foundation of society will not be stilled unless and until spiritual principles are actively engaged in the search for solutions." Primary among the spiritual principles which must guide the systematic implementation of Agenda 21 is the oneness of humanity. It is this cardinal principle that Bahá'ís believe will provide the spiritual, moral and ethical underpinnings for the successful translation of Agenda 21 into practical action in all parts of the world and at all levels of human society.
Now we see what JND started with his mischievous mutilations of Scripture. Scofield latched on to this with his “inhabited earth” footnotes. (See Lk. 2: 1). Some may conclude that the Doctrine of Sustainable Land Development is God-given. But what spirit was really behind JND in his translation?
Some information above is gleaned from libertytothecaptives.net
Luke 14: 5
Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit….
“Which of you, if his son or his ox fall into a well…” WV
“Suppose one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well…” NIrV
“Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well…” ESV
Griesbach, Greek scholar (?) and notorious Bible hater appears among the first (Critical Greek and English Testament; Bagster; undated 19th C.) to produce a Greek New Testament (1805 AD) reading uios (son) in place of onos (ass)
Bible students will need to be wary of commentaries that are based on corrupt readings. The Bible Knowledge Commentary attributes error to the Lord Jesus, by having Him say “He (Christ) said that the guests would help a son or an ox in distress on the Sabbath, so it was totally appropriate to heal this poor individual.” — BKC; J Walvoord and B Zuck.
This reduces the Lord’s charge against the lawyers and Pharisees to mere gentle chiding, whereas the Lord was exposing the hypocrisy of these God haters. Compare Lk. 13: 15.
John 7: 53-8: 11
And every man went unto his own house…..Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.
“[John 7: 53] and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.” — Adam Clarke.
Clarke was an 18th C. Methodist theologian. He rejected the eternal sonship of Christ.). He makes plain where he stood regarding the verbal inspiration and faithful preservation of Scripture. He didn’t believe it. This passage remains rejected by the Textual Critics and Christendom at large.
Bible teachers and many brethren who regard themselves as fundamentalist have allowed themselves to be influenced by the Textual Critics and rationalistic commentators.
Dr D Sorenson writes, “The Scofield Reference Bilbe, perhaps more than any other one edition, was the Bible of choice by Fundamentalists of America in the twentieth century. However C. I. Scofield also taught that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the earliest and best manuscripts available. …..
In John 7: 53, Scofield adds a footnote: ‘John 7: 53-8: 11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts.” — Touch not the Unclean Thing; David H Sorenson.
Scofield’s main reason for rejecting this passage was that it is not found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and therefore has no real authority.
The two popish manuscripts are seriously depraved and stand against the vast majority of manuscripts containing the passage. (see Few Fundamentalists Have Investigated the Issue in By The Way… below)
Acts 2: 30
….God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
“he would put one of his descendants on his throne.” NRSV
“he would set on of his descendants on his throne.” ESV
“ of the fruit of his loins to set upon his throne.” JND
Note 2 John 1: 7, for many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. A fundamental doctrine is attacked by the changes to the AV reading of Acts 2: 30.
In resurrection also Christ was seen in the flesh. (Luke 24: 39) and therefore in His second coming He will be seen in the flesh. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.
Darby chose to reject the words according to the flesh preferring to follow the course of modern rationalism and denying the manuscript evidence in front of him. Their removal destroys the gospel set out by Paul in the Roman epistle: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
It is a fallacious argument to say that as the phrase “according to the flesh” is mentioned in Romans it doesn’t matter if it is missing in Acts. The fact is the words have been maliciously removed in modern versions.
Romans 1: 16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:….
“for I am not ashamed of the gospel:” RV, NRSV, ESV, etc.
“For I am not ashamed of the glad tidings;” JND
“The words, ‘of Christ’, which follow here, are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.” —JFB Commentary.
The “oldest and best” manuscripts are those rejected by the early churches. Hence they have been preserved in monastery dustbins and Vatican vaults.
The words “of Christ” are found in the majority of manuscripts. They have been removed too often from other verses for us to regard it as accidental on the part of scribes. This is a wilful satanic attack on Scripture.
What gospel is it where Christ is removed? All that is left is an anaemic mess that offends no one and brings none to the Saviour.
Romans 10: 15
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.
“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.” NRSV etc.
The gospel of peace is rejected in modern versions. It is not wanted by the earthling who lusts rather for material things. Peace with God is brought through preaching. It calls for repentance and faith and does not fit in with modern evangelicalism.
The words gospel of peace are well established in the majority of manuscripts and ancient translations. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isa. 57: 21
Romans 14: 10
….for we must all stand before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ.
“for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” ESV, NRSV
“for we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of God.” JND
Altering the Scripture to read judgment seat of God makes Christ a liar, for He said The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. John 5: 20.
The judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers (we must all stand). But God has a throne. It is not described as a bema. It is where all unbelievers will stand, at the end of time and it is a throne. There will be no pleading one’s case at this throne. All present will be consigned to the lake of fire. Rev. 20: 15
It is a false notion to believe that the whole human race will appear before God at the end of time.
Chronological Study Bible NKJV. Review reviewed
The CSBNKJV has been reviewed in Believer’s Magazine October 2009. It received a very favourable write up and can be bought from J Ritchie Ltd for £30.99 by any wishing to be ripped off. (£18.74 from The Book Depository). It claims to be “the first study bible arranged in chronological order so presenting the text of the Bible in the order of events as they unfolded”.
Our reviewer tells us “there are transition comments to prepare you for the text that follows”. He doesn’t tell you that the result is a regurgitation of the old Higher Criticism combined with an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
The authorship of the books of Isaiah and Daniel are questioned.
Concerning Isaiah we read,
The latter chapters of the book of Isaiah have for centuries been recognised as different from the earlier chapters……Many scholars [sic] hold that these oracles [ch.40-ch.55] came from an unknown prophet who lived in Cyrus’s own time….. some scholars[sic] suggest that Second Isaiah [note the capitals!] may have been the one who preserved the collection of Isaiah’s oracles found in Isa. 1-39.
…..Others though, accept the traditional association of these words with the original Isaiah……These chapters speak of a future event: the glorious return from exile that will be authorized by Cyrus the Persian.
The yet future fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy is regarding Israel is totally rejected by the final sentence of the quote above. The return under Cyrus was only partial. God called him His anointed but THE ANOINTED (Messiah) is yet to return to lead all His people into the Millennial land.
Daniel is also divided. We read on p.1067 of the CSB,
Historical specificity such as appears in Dan. 11 is rare in biblical prophecy. It is especially remarkable since Daniel’s exile is placed more than 400 years before the events so minutely described in the visio0n (Dan. 1: 1-7). Because of this, many scholars [sic] suggest that the visions of Da. 7-12 were actually written in Palestine during the persecutions of Antiochus IV (167 B.C.) and attributed after the fact to the famous exile Daniel.
If this should be true, which thankfully it is not, then parts of our Bible were written by liars and deceivers impersonating the prophets.
We recommend the reading of Sir Robert Anderson’s book, Daniel in the Critic’s Den.
The CSBNKJV has a red letter heading over Exodus Chapter 14: “The Red Sea Crossing” and we read at 14: 21 “So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land., and the waters were divided”.
Yet we look at a map of the journey made by the children of Israel, and note that it does not take them over the red Sea at all. This is the view of the Higher Critics who cannot admit to a God Who performs miracles.
The Red Sea miracle is confirmed by Psalm 106: 9, He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness.
Then there is the matter of the NKJV itself.—
The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:
(1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and
(2) That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).
It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favour of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts. — Dr. M E Todd
It is regrettable that J Ritchie Ltd through its magazine, Believer’s Magazine, edited by John Grant, should attempt to foist this work of apostasy on its readers.
By the Way….
(The following article was found on the cnview.com website)
WHY I EXPOSE ERROR AND WARN BELIEVERS
I am grieved for those who cannot understand my concerns and my warnings. I am not "attacking" the ministers who are obviously in error. I have nothing against them personally. I praise the Lord for every good thing in them and for every soul saved under their ministries. But souls saved are "in spite of ", not "because of " many of their messages. God’s Word will not return to Him void. (Isaiah 55:11) I cannot and will not ignore the things they are doing "publicly" which I believe will eventually destroy thousands of sound churches and which will break down Godly walls between truth and error.
There are also those who are heretics deceiving the masses. Those ministers who deny the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the Lordship of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Eternal Sonship, etc. These I reject and alert others of their heresy. [Some of these men are found on Gospel Hall platforms, which is my reason for publishing this article here. – RS]
The Bible commands men of God to judge the teaching and ministries of other men in order to protect the truth and the people of God. We are to mark those who cause divisions contrary to apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17). This requires a careful examination and evaluation. The believers in the church at Corinth were instructed to judge one another (1 Cor. 14:29). That principle applies also to ministries outside of one’s own church, especially to very "public ministries" which influence vast numbers of people.
Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-14). Was Paul "attacking" Peter? Of course not. He was bringing him back to the truth.
Truth is more important than unity because without truth men cannot be saved and walk in the will of God. It is truth, not unity, which is the light in this dark world. John said, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 John 1:4). God tells me to mark and avoid those who teach contrary to the apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17). He tells me to earnestly CONTEND for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). "Contend" means to strive, to fight. Trouble and striving are not wrong in themselves. The Lord Jesus Christ stirred up much trouble, as did all of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. Trouble is not wrong, when it is caused by contending for the truth. . The Lord God has put a love in my heart for His Truth. He imparted to me the spirit described by King David: "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Psalm 119:128).
Ever since I was saved I have had something within me that has stirred me up for the Truth. I believe that Something is the Holy Spirit. One of His names is the Spirit of TRUTH (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 )
Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (KJV)
This verse is directed to those whose brother offended them "personally". It does not tell us how to handle "public hypocrisy or false teachings".
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (KJV)
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: (KJV)
Titus 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. (KJV)
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (KJV)
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; (KJV)
I cannot stop their mouths but I can try and warn as many people as I can.
Sincerely,
Andy Neckar
Editor, Christian News & Views
□”Few Fundamentalists have investigated the Issue (of Textual Criticism) From Touch not the Unclean Thing.
Notwithstanding men such as Scofield and Clearwaters and numerous other Fundamentalist leaders in between, it is doubtful if many of them ever did any serious research into the history and lineage of the critical text. Had they spent the time and effort that many in later years did in researching the origins of the critical text, it is doubtful they would have continued their support. It was only in the last half of OK twentieth century that conservative scholars such as Edward Hills David Otis Fuller, Theodore Letis, Donald Waite, Jakob Van Bruggen Dell Johnson, and others began to publish their research into the problems clinging to the critical text. For the most part, these men have been ignored or dismissed as right-wing extremists. However, the evidence uncovered by them has not and will not go away. Fundamentalists are going to have to confront the extensive evidence of apostasy associated with the critical text from Origen to Metzger. If separation is an inviolable foundation of Fundamentalism, Fundamentalists are going to have to admit the apostasy connected with the critical text.”
*****
Two Solemn Verses
Mark 8: 38 Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous generation, of him shall the Son of man also be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
A full appreciation of Christ requires also an unashamed acceptance of His word. The Textual critics plainly do not do this. They question many of the Lord’s words.
John 12: 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
WHY DOES UNBELEF PREDOMINATE IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP TODAY? ( Taken from O Timothy Oct. 09; “Bart Ehrmann’s Problem is God” by David Cloud.)
The fact that unbelief predominates in the field of biblical scholarship today is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and is further proof of its infallibility. Some 2,000 years ago, the apostle Paul looked down through the corridor of time and made the following prediction about the last days: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. ... For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 3:1, 5, 7, 13, 4:3-4).
Paul prophesied that the course of the church age will be characterized by increasing apostasy from the truth, by an onslaught of false teachers who will deny the faith, and that is exactly what we see today.
And the apostle Peter concurred: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall
they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2:1-3).
Jude saw the same thing: ““Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who
were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jude 1:3-4, 16-19).
These prophecies describe the coming and judgment of Bible teachers who will deny Christ as Lord, which is exactly what Bart Ehrman and his liberal buddies have done.
If the New Testament is a pack of myths and lies, how does it contain such precise prophecies?
NO FACT DISCOUNTS THE BIBLE’S DIVINE INSPIRATION
No fact of science or history or archaeology has ever proven that the Bible is not what it claims to be, the infallible Word of God. The Bart Ehrmans of this world are simply huffing and puffing.
One doesn’t have to be a historian and a multi-lingual scholar to see that the Bible is a miracle upon its very face. Its scientific accuracy, its amazing unity, its candor, its power to change lives, its doctrine of
salvation by grace without works, and many other things prove that it is the Word of God, and all of Bart Ehrman’s huffing and puffing cannot change this. I have studied the Bible diligently for 36 years and have examined the alleged “discrepancies” and errors, and I have found that the Bible is true and its critics are in error. I concur with what the late Robert Dick Wilson, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,
ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the
Spirit” (Jude 1:3-4, 16-19).
These prophecies describe the coming and judgment of Bible teachers who will deny Christ as Lord, which is exactly what Bart Ehrman and his liberal buddies have done.
If the New Testament is a pack of myths and lies, how does it contain such precise prophecies?
Jesus, and shall it ever be,
A mortal man, ashamed of Thee?
Ashamed of Thee, whom angels praise,
Whose glories shine through endless days?
Ashamed of Jesus! sooner far
Let night disown each radiant star!
’Tis midnight with my soul, till He,
Bright Morning Star, bid darkness flee.
Ashamed of Jesus! O as soon
Let morning blush to own the sun!
He sheds the beams of light divine
O’er this benighted soul of mine.
Ashamed of Jesus! that dear Friend
On Whom my hopes of Heav’n depend!
No; when I blush, be this my shame,
That I no more revere His Name.
Ashamed of Jesus! yes, I may
When I’ve no guilt to wash away;
No tear to wipe, no good to crave,
No fears to quell, no soul to save.
Ashamed of Jesus! empty pride!
I’ll boast a Saviour crucified,
And O may this my portion be,
My Saviour not ashamed of me!
Joseph Grigg 1769
Report of Open Air Preaching
September 9th LUTON TOWN CENTRE.. S- was there when I arrived today. He had arranged a selection of gospels and tracts along the top of the wall. He gets his supplies from reliable sources so in this he is doing a good work. But he is very confused doctrinally and rejects the Trinity. He doesn’t stay when I come, for which I was thankful.
A lady spoke to me and told me she was a church member but seemingly has never been saved. She took a tract. Then a man came by who told me he had often listened to me. He had been a keen believer, he told me, in his young days but questioned God’s omnipotence. He did not believe God could create the universe out of nothing. He obviously believed in something far more fantastic; the eternality of matter.
He also was very jealous of me because I had faith and he had none. He then gave me a little of his history; born in Ukraine 1939. His name is john.
He is desperate to find peace with God but had to learn it could not be obtained on his terms. I told him to go home and get alone with God. He should repent of his sins and put his trust in Christ. He accepted a gospel of John and asked me to be sure to be here next week. I will do my best.
While we were yet speaking, another came. It was Peter. He has many doubts despite having confessed faith in Christ on this spot some twenty years ago. He is back in his flat and has a social worker to keep an eye on him.
September 16th LTC. Alas, John did not show up. A wino demanded a pound from me. I do not support winos so he was told he would get nothing from me. Before my reader judges me for such lack of benevolence I will point out that I have on a number of occasions bought food for those I thought to be in need. This man pronounced me to be the Antichrist and added numerous obscenities to his description of me. I had on me three 50p coins and no more. Exit from the car park required one pound.
listen and then to talk. They told me they had listened to me several times in the past but I did not recognise them. They claimed to be Christians and I thought they were probably Baptists, or from somemainline evangelicals. They are accepted, not because they have modified their heretical views but because the evangelical world is apostate anyway and doesn’t see anything wrong in their doctrines.
They deny the Trinity and the deity of Christ. They deny the existence of the devil, and much else that is false.
November 4th LTC. A Big Issue seller was on my usual spot when I arrived today. I gave him a copy of John’s Gospel and he responded by putting one of his magazines in my carrier. I felt obliged to give him something for it. He then remained next to me and listened to 20 minutes gospel preaching. To which he made no response.
A Nigerian man prayed over me. This is an occupational hazard. Those who do it are usually charismatic and will get no Amen from me.
November 11th LTC. The Big Issue seller expected another donation today.
I preached and a Muslim stood listening. I did not wish to engage in a profitless debate with him so I preached and preached. Eventually I had to stop and he stepped in. He was very polite and courteous but reacted as do the JW’s; change the subject if he couldn’t answer and deny all facts presented. This included the fact of Calvary. He told me the Lord wasn’t crucified but was taken alive into heaven.
He tried me also on the integrity of the Bible. They are all different apparently! How like the Koran, I replied. He was quickly put right on the integrity of the AV Bible, which was written by Henry V. according to him. Such is the deep ignorance of these people.
Then another man interrupted to tell me if I had real faith I wouldn’t need a mobility scooter. Such was his contempt for the preaching of the gospel. For a few minutes I was dealing with enemies of the gospel on two fronts. A bit like Paul with the Stoics and Epicureans maybe.
All this drew a small crowd which is very unusual these days.
(TIP. Don’t preach in the open air if you are not familiar with the Book)
AV Verses Vindicated
Mark 13: 14
But when ye shall see the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing where it ought not…
Modern versions omit spoken of by Daniel the prophet. They together (including the RV and JND) attack the integrity of the book of Daniel. The authority for these words in Mark is overwhelming. Daniel described an event yet future, and from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days. (Daniel 12: 11)
A denial of the prophecies of Daniel is apostasy. Suggestions that this prophecy was fulfilled in AD 70 are based on unbelief.
Matthew 24: 14
And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all (holos= complete; altogether; every whit) the world for a witness unto all the nations and then shall the end come.
“And these glad tidings of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole habitable earth, JND
Note that when a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed (Lk. 2: 1) the Greek word holos was not used. The decree did not apply outside the Roman Empire.
JND changed the meaning of holos to “not all, but part of” He did this in many places where holos is used... He made these changes without any authority but his own.
The only place where habitable occurs in the AV Bible is Prov. 8: 31, Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
Some men live in parts of the world regarded as uninhabitable. Darby will not have these to be evangelised.
Who now decides which parts of the earth are habitable? The answer: The United Nations Division for Sustainable Development—Agenda 21. The object of this is to bring the habitable earth under the control of a ruling elite. This is why we are seeing the “Global Warming” lobby gaining strength.
We also see the religious side of the “One Ruler for the World” growing also.
This is what the Bahá'í’s have to say about it:-
The well-being of mankind, its peace and security are unattainable, unless and until its unity is firmly established. Bahá'u'lláh (1817-1892)
The successful execution of the programmes enunciated in Agenda 21 will greatly depend on the willingness of the peoples and nations of the world to recognise the vital link between global transformation and spiritual principles. In the Bahá'í view, "the storm battering at the foundation of society will not be stilled unless and until spiritual principles are actively engaged in the search for solutions." Primary among the spiritual principles which must guide the systematic implementation of Agenda 21 is the oneness of humanity. It is this cardinal principle that Bahá'ís believe will provide the spiritual, moral and ethical underpinnings for the successful translation of Agenda 21 into practical action in all parts of the world and at all levels of human society.
Now we see what JND started with his mischievous mutilations of Scripture. Scofield latched on to this with his “inhabited earth” footnotes. (See Lk. 2: 1). Some may conclude that the Doctrine of Sustainable Land Development is God-given. But what spirit was really behind JND in his translation?
Some information above is gleaned from libertytothecaptives.net
Luke 14: 5
Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit….
“Which of you, if his son or his ox fall into a well…” WV
“Suppose one of you has a child or an ox that falls into a well…” NIrV
“Which of you, having a son or an ox that has fallen into a well…” ESV
Griesbach, Greek scholar (?) and notorious Bible hater appears among the first (Critical Greek and English Testament; Bagster; undated 19th C.) to produce a Greek New Testament (1805 AD) reading uios (son) in place of onos (ass)
Bible students will need to be wary of commentaries that are based on corrupt readings. The Bible Knowledge Commentary attributes error to the Lord Jesus, by having Him say “He (Christ) said that the guests would help a son or an ox in distress on the Sabbath, so it was totally appropriate to heal this poor individual.” — BKC; J Walvoord and B Zuck.
This reduces the Lord’s charge against the lawyers and Pharisees to mere gentle chiding, whereas the Lord was exposing the hypocrisy of these God haters. Compare Lk. 13: 15.
John 7: 53-8: 11
And every man went unto his own house…..Neither do I condemn thee: go and sin no more.
“[John 7: 53] and the first eleven verses of the following chapter are wanting in several MSS. Some of those which retain the paragraph mark it with obelisks, as a proof of spuriousness. Those which do retain it have it with such a variety of reading as is no where else found in the sacred writings. Professor Griesbach leaves the whole paragraph in the text with notes of doubtfulness. Most of the modern critics consider it as resting on no solid authority.” — Adam Clarke.
Clarke was an 18th C. Methodist theologian. He rejected the eternal sonship of Christ.). He makes plain where he stood regarding the verbal inspiration and faithful preservation of Scripture. He didn’t believe it. This passage remains rejected by the Textual Critics and Christendom at large.
Bible teachers and many brethren who regard themselves as fundamentalist have allowed themselves to be influenced by the Textual Critics and rationalistic commentators.
Dr D Sorenson writes, “The Scofield Reference Bilbe, perhaps more than any other one edition, was the Bible of choice by Fundamentalists of America in the twentieth century. However C. I. Scofield also taught that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were the earliest and best manuscripts available. …..
In John 7: 53, Scofield adds a footnote: ‘John 7: 53-8: 11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts.” — Touch not the Unclean Thing; David H Sorenson.
Scofield’s main reason for rejecting this passage was that it is not found in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and therefore has no real authority.
The two popish manuscripts are seriously depraved and stand against the vast majority of manuscripts containing the passage. (see Few Fundamentalists Have Investigated the Issue in By The Way… below)
Acts 2: 30
….God had sworn an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne.
“he would put one of his descendants on his throne.” NRSV
“he would set on of his descendants on his throne.” ESV
“ of the fruit of his loins to set upon his throne.” JND
Note 2 John 1: 7, for many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. A fundamental doctrine is attacked by the changes to the AV reading of Acts 2: 30.
In resurrection also Christ was seen in the flesh. (Luke 24: 39) and therefore in His second coming He will be seen in the flesh. Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever.
Darby chose to reject the words according to the flesh preferring to follow the course of modern rationalism and denying the manuscript evidence in front of him. Their removal destroys the gospel set out by Paul in the Roman epistle: Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.
It is a fallacious argument to say that as the phrase “according to the flesh” is mentioned in Romans it doesn’t matter if it is missing in Acts. The fact is the words have been maliciously removed in modern versions.
Romans 1: 16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ:….
“for I am not ashamed of the gospel:” RV, NRSV, ESV, etc.
“For I am not ashamed of the glad tidings;” JND
“The words, ‘of Christ’, which follow here, are not found in the oldest and best manuscripts.” —JFB Commentary.
The “oldest and best” manuscripts are those rejected by the early churches. Hence they have been preserved in monastery dustbins and Vatican vaults.
The words “of Christ” are found in the majority of manuscripts. They have been removed too often from other verses for us to regard it as accidental on the part of scribes. This is a wilful satanic attack on Scripture.
What gospel is it where Christ is removed? All that is left is an anaemic mess that offends no one and brings none to the Saviour.
Romans 10: 15
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things.
“How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news.” NRSV etc.
The gospel of peace is rejected in modern versions. It is not wanted by the earthling who lusts rather for material things. Peace with God is brought through preaching. It calls for repentance and faith and does not fit in with modern evangelicalism.
The words gospel of peace are well established in the majority of manuscripts and ancient translations. There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked. Isa. 57: 21
Romans 14: 10
….for we must all stand before the judgment seat (bema) of Christ.
“for we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.” ESV, NRSV
“for we shall all be placed before the judgment-seat of God.” JND
Altering the Scripture to read judgment seat of God makes Christ a liar, for He said The Father judgeth no man but hath committed all judgment unto the Son. John 5: 20.
The judgment seat of Christ has to do with believers (we must all stand). But God has a throne. It is not described as a bema. It is where all unbelievers will stand, at the end of time and it is a throne. There will be no pleading one’s case at this throne. All present will be consigned to the lake of fire. Rev. 20: 15
It is a false notion to believe that the whole human race will appear before God at the end of time.
Chronological Study Bible NKJV. Review reviewed
The CSBNKJV has been reviewed in Believer’s Magazine October 2009. It received a very favourable write up and can be bought from J Ritchie Ltd for £30.99 by any wishing to be ripped off. (£18.74 from The Book Depository). It claims to be “the first study bible arranged in chronological order so presenting the text of the Bible in the order of events as they unfolded”.
Our reviewer tells us “there are transition comments to prepare you for the text that follows”. He doesn’t tell you that the result is a regurgitation of the old Higher Criticism combined with an attack on the verbal inspiration of Scripture.
The authorship of the books of Isaiah and Daniel are questioned.
Concerning Isaiah we read,
The latter chapters of the book of Isaiah have for centuries been recognised as different from the earlier chapters……Many scholars [sic] hold that these oracles [ch.40-ch.55] came from an unknown prophet who lived in Cyrus’s own time….. some scholars[sic] suggest that Second Isaiah [note the capitals!] may have been the one who preserved the collection of Isaiah’s oracles found in Isa. 1-39.
…..Others though, accept the traditional association of these words with the original Isaiah……These chapters speak of a future event: the glorious return from exile that will be authorized by Cyrus the Persian.
The yet future fulfilment of Isaiah’s prophecy is regarding Israel is totally rejected by the final sentence of the quote above. The return under Cyrus was only partial. God called him His anointed but THE ANOINTED (Messiah) is yet to return to lead all His people into the Millennial land.
Daniel is also divided. We read on p.1067 of the CSB,
Historical specificity such as appears in Dan. 11 is rare in biblical prophecy. It is especially remarkable since Daniel’s exile is placed more than 400 years before the events so minutely described in the visio0n (Dan. 1: 1-7). Because of this, many scholars [sic] suggest that the visions of Da. 7-12 were actually written in Palestine during the persecutions of Antiochus IV (167 B.C.) and attributed after the fact to the famous exile Daniel.
If this should be true, which thankfully it is not, then parts of our Bible were written by liars and deceivers impersonating the prophets.
We recommend the reading of Sir Robert Anderson’s book, Daniel in the Critic’s Den.
The CSBNKJV has a red letter heading over Exodus Chapter 14: “The Red Sea Crossing” and we read at 14: 21 “So Moses stretched out his hand over the sea and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea into dry land., and the waters were divided”.
Yet we look at a map of the journey made by the children of Israel, and note that it does not take them over the red Sea at all. This is the view of the Higher Critics who cannot admit to a God Who performs miracles.
The Red Sea miracle is confirmed by Psalm 106: 9, He rebuked the Red sea also, and it was dried up: so he led them through the depths, as through the wilderness.
Then there is the matter of the NKJV itself.—
The New King James Bible was first published in 1979. It is a deadly version because its editors have succeeded in deceiving the body of Christ on two main points:
(1) That it's a King James Bible (which is a lie), and
(2) That it's based on the Textus Receptus (which is only a partial truth).
It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favour of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts. — Dr. M E Todd
It is regrettable that J Ritchie Ltd through its magazine, Believer’s Magazine, edited by John Grant, should attempt to foist this work of apostasy on its readers.
By the Way….
(The following article was found on the cnview.com website)
WHY I EXPOSE ERROR AND WARN BELIEVERS
I am grieved for those who cannot understand my concerns and my warnings. I am not "attacking" the ministers who are obviously in error. I have nothing against them personally. I praise the Lord for every good thing in them and for every soul saved under their ministries. But souls saved are "in spite of ", not "because of " many of their messages. God’s Word will not return to Him void. (Isaiah 55:11) I cannot and will not ignore the things they are doing "publicly" which I believe will eventually destroy thousands of sound churches and which will break down Godly walls between truth and error.
There are also those who are heretics deceiving the masses. Those ministers who deny the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the Lordship of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Bodily Resurrection, the Eternal Sonship, etc. These I reject and alert others of their heresy. [Some of these men are found on Gospel Hall platforms, which is my reason for publishing this article here. – RS]
The Bible commands men of God to judge the teaching and ministries of other men in order to protect the truth and the people of God. We are to mark those who cause divisions contrary to apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17). This requires a careful examination and evaluation. The believers in the church at Corinth were instructed to judge one another (1 Cor. 14:29). That principle applies also to ministries outside of one’s own church, especially to very "public ministries" which influence vast numbers of people.
Paul rebuked Peter publicly for his hypocrisy. (Gal. 2:11-14). Was Paul "attacking" Peter? Of course not. He was bringing him back to the truth.
Truth is more important than unity because without truth men cannot be saved and walk in the will of God. It is truth, not unity, which is the light in this dark world. John said, "I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth" (3 John 1:4). God tells me to mark and avoid those who teach contrary to the apostolic doctrine (Romans 16:17). He tells me to earnestly CONTEND for the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3). "Contend" means to strive, to fight. Trouble and striving are not wrong in themselves. The Lord Jesus Christ stirred up much trouble, as did all of the Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles. Trouble is not wrong, when it is caused by contending for the truth. . The Lord God has put a love in my heart for His Truth. He imparted to me the spirit described by King David: "Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way" (Psalm 119:128).
Ever since I was saved I have had something within me that has stirred me up for the Truth. I believe that Something is the Holy Spirit. One of His names is the Spirit of TRUTH (John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13 )
Matt 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. (KJV)
This verse is directed to those whose brother offended them "personally". It does not tell us how to handle "public hypocrisy or false teachings".
Titus 1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (KJV)
Titus 1:10 For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: (KJV)
Titus 1:11 Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. (KJV)
Titus 1:12 One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (KJV)
Titus 1:13 This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; (KJV)
I cannot stop their mouths but I can try and warn as many people as I can.
Sincerely,
Andy Neckar
Editor, Christian News & Views
□”Few Fundamentalists have investigated the Issue (of Textual Criticism) From Touch not the Unclean Thing.
Notwithstanding men such as Scofield and Clearwaters and numerous other Fundamentalist leaders in between, it is doubtful if many of them ever did any serious research into the history and lineage of the critical text. Had they spent the time and effort that many in later years did in researching the origins of the critical text, it is doubtful they would have continued their support. It was only in the last half of OK twentieth century that conservative scholars such as Edward Hills David Otis Fuller, Theodore Letis, Donald Waite, Jakob Van Bruggen Dell Johnson, and others began to publish their research into the problems clinging to the critical text. For the most part, these men have been ignored or dismissed as right-wing extremists. However, the evidence uncovered by them has not and will not go away. Fundamentalists are going to have to confront the extensive evidence of apostasy associated with the critical text from Origen to Metzger. If separation is an inviolable foundation of Fundamentalism, Fundamentalists are going to have to admit the apostasy connected with the critical text.”
*****
Two Solemn Verses
Mark 8: 38 Whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous generation, of him shall the Son of man also be ashamed when He cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
A full appreciation of Christ requires also an unashamed acceptance of His word. The Textual critics plainly do not do this. They question many of the Lord’s words.
John 12: 48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judges him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
WHY DOES UNBELEF PREDOMINATE IN BIBLICAL SCHOLARSHIP TODAY? ( Taken from O Timothy Oct. 09; “Bart Ehrmann’s Problem is God” by David Cloud.)
The fact that unbelief predominates in the field of biblical scholarship today is a fulfillment of Bible prophecy and is further proof of its infallibility. Some 2,000 years ago, the apostle Paul looked down through the corridor of time and made the following prediction about the last days: “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. ... Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. ... Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. ... But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. ... For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables” (2 Timothy 3:1, 5, 7, 13, 4:3-4).
Paul prophesied that the course of the church age will be characterized by increasing apostasy from the truth, by an onslaught of false teachers who will deny the faith, and that is exactly what we see today.
And the apostle Peter concurred: “But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall
they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2:1-3).
Jude saw the same thing: ““Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who
were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit” (Jude 1:3-4, 16-19).
These prophecies describe the coming and judgment of Bible teachers who will deny Christ as Lord, which is exactly what Bart Ehrman and his liberal buddies have done.
If the New Testament is a pack of myths and lies, how does it contain such precise prophecies?
NO FACT DISCOUNTS THE BIBLE’S DIVINE INSPIRATION
No fact of science or history or archaeology has ever proven that the Bible is not what it claims to be, the infallible Word of God. The Bart Ehrmans of this world are simply huffing and puffing.
One doesn’t have to be a historian and a multi-lingual scholar to see that the Bible is a miracle upon its very face. Its scientific accuracy, its amazing unity, its candor, its power to change lives, its doctrine of
salvation by grace without works, and many other things prove that it is the Word of God, and all of Bart Ehrman’s huffing and puffing cannot change this. I have studied the Bible diligently for 36 years and have examined the alleged “discrepancies” and errors, and I have found that the Bible is true and its critics are in error. I concur with what the late Robert Dick Wilson, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation,
ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ ... These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; how that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts. These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the
Spirit” (Jude 1:3-4, 16-19).
These prophecies describe the coming and judgment of Bible teachers who will deny Christ as Lord, which is exactly what Bart Ehrman and his liberal buddies have done.
If the New Testament is a pack of myths and lies, how does it contain such precise prophecies?
Jesus, and shall it ever be,
A mortal man, ashamed of Thee?
Ashamed of Thee, whom angels praise,
Whose glories shine through endless days?
Ashamed of Jesus! sooner far
Let night disown each radiant star!
’Tis midnight with my soul, till He,
Bright Morning Star, bid darkness flee.
Ashamed of Jesus! O as soon
Let morning blush to own the sun!
He sheds the beams of light divine
O’er this benighted soul of mine.
Ashamed of Jesus! that dear Friend
On Whom my hopes of Heav’n depend!
No; when I blush, be this my shame,
That I no more revere His Name.
Ashamed of Jesus! yes, I may
When I’ve no guilt to wash away;
No tear to wipe, no good to crave,
No fears to quell, no soul to save.
Ashamed of Jesus! empty pride!
I’ll boast a Saviour crucified,
And O may this my portion be,
My Saviour not ashamed of me!
Joseph Grigg 1769
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
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 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?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)