|
King James Onlyism - vs - Scholarship Onlyism Lies from the Pulpits Seventeen lies that were once taught in colleges, universities and seminaries that are now preached from the pulpits in America to the ears of all America & unfortunately, now believed by most Americans. |
A man lies because he is afraid (Abraham - Genesis 12:11-19; Sarah - Genesis 18:15; David - I Samuel 21:12-15).
A man with a bad conscience (II Samuel 18:29) is always afraid.
No man has to lie where there is no threat of some kind. He is told to put away lying (Ephesians 4:25), whether there is any threat or not, but human nature being what it is (Job 13:4), he still tends to lie when under stress.
What do we have in almost all the pulpits in America? Liars! Many even profess to be born again, they all profess that their friends and teachers are good and godly, and they all profess that their education is accredited because of the 'qualified authorities' who hold to 'historic positions' and as we see in this entire series, because of their personal opinions!
I wonder if the Father of lies has even lied to them to make them believe that they are Biblically and truly saved even though they may not be. Now THAT would the lie of all lies, eh! I John 2:19 is pretty clear: They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.
I John 4:3
sure does lay down a pretty damning possibility as well -
And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh
is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard
that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
Note: Deeper details of this subject are available at other web sites as well as from PSR. This is a simple version of information at the level of the common people from a common pastor/preacher in a common small town. I will say that the last portion of this page is a bit more detailed for those interested in some quotes from some specific 'scholars.'
Lies...
...that are preached from the pulpits in America to
the ears of most Americans
and unfortunately, believed by most Americans, today!
Charity... rejoiceth in the truth (I Corinthians 13:6) and if a man has the truth (John 17:17) and the One who guides into all truth (John 16:13) because he knows the Truth (John 14:6), he is entitled to mark out a LIAR and call him what he is (Romans 13:9; 16:17-18, Titus 1:13). Paul did (Titus 1:12) and he is our example (I Corinthians 11:1).
Many of these liars are good, godly, dedicated, Pre-Millennial, separated liars that deceive people 'away' from the authority of the KJV 1611 by this particular lie.
John R. Rice, in a copy of the Sword of the Lord when he was editor, had an ad that stated that the New ASV (which attacks the Deity of Christ in John 3:13; Luke 23:42; 24:51-52; I Timothy 3:16; ACts 4:27, et al.) was faithful to the original Greek text. See - he is a liar. John R. Rice was a good, godly, dedicated, sweet, old soul winning liar.
There are quotes galore of the 'good guys', many of whom claim KJV, actually speaking in support of the other perversions as well as the KJV along with the obvious bad guys who outwardly promote the perversions, all of which provide their personal opinion regarding 'the better word here should be...' type changes. The material is available. Just ask!
This time, however, the lie is a half-truth, for we will grant that faith would tell a Bible believer that the first copies were "given by inspiration (II Timothy 3:16).
The best way to simply describe inspiration and preservation of the Bible is as follows:
Inspiration is when God takes a blank piece of paper (papyrus, vellum, etc.) and uses men to write His words. Preservation is when God takes those words already written and uses men to preserve them to today.
Both of these actions are DIVINE and are assured by God as recorded in Psalm 12:6, 7.
In Psalm 12:6 God assures us that His originals are perfect. Even though penned by fallible men with the heinous sins of; murder (Moses and David), adultery (David), idolatry (Solomon), and denial of the lord (Peter), God's words are untainted by the sins of the penmen.
But even the most fundamentalist fundamentalists today argue that only the "originals” were perfect. They say that today we have nothing but copies and translations of those copies. They seem indignant at the thought that any "mere translation" should be considered a perfect copy of the originals. They claim that copies and translations are products of uninspired men and therefore must all contain mistakes.
1. It is somewhat confusing and unexplainable that a person could claim that God could not use, sinful men to preserve His words when all fundamentalists believe that he used sinful men to write His inspired words. Certainly a God who had enough power to inspire His words would also have enough power to preserve them. I highly doubt that He has lost such ability over the years.
2. Why would God inspire the originals and then lose them? Why give a perfect Bible to men like Peter, John, James, Andrew and company and not us? They had seen, heard, and touched the Lord (I John 1:1). We haven't! If anyone ever needed a perfect Bible it is us, nearly two thousand years separated from a Saviour we have never seen!
Why did God inspire a perfect original if He didn't plan on preserving it? Couldn't He have afforded some error, in His originals just as some believe He has allowed some errors in today's Bible! Or do critics of God's perfect Bible believe that God was unable to prevent errors in the copies. It would seem like only half of a God who had the power to do one but not the other.
3. It is a "convenient" faith which cannot be tested. In other words, it is rather safe to believe in a perfect set of originals which have been LOST. Since they are lost, no one can ever practically challenge such a belief. Adherents to such a shallow persuasion can rest safely in the fact that they will never be proven wrong since the evidence needed to prove them wrong (the "originals") is lost. They have room to 'give' when they can't 'prove' their belief that would otherwise ship them off to jail or to lose their congregational income.
But if they dare put the same faith in a Bible available today, they know that they will definitely be bloodied defending their faith - their church will eventually 'struggle' and the man may be on the streets of America yet!
Thus, to believe in a perfect set of originals, but not to believe in a perfect English Bible, is to believe nothing at all.
4. Regardless of their arguments against the doctrine of a preserved perfect Bible, such a fact as much guaranteed by Scripture as the bodily return of Jesus Christ (Acts 1:8). Psalm 12:7 plainly states, thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."
Thus we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired. Not too much of a feat to overwhelm such an omnipotent Being.
1. They claim, "Verse 7 is talking about the Jews, not the Bible." Then to add credence to their claim they rush out and publish a translation that says just that in Psalm 12:7. Let's look at this verse in the New International Version. "O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever."
This is an irresponsible and dishonest translation. The Hebrew word "shamar" meaning "to keep" which the New International Version translators render "you will keep us" is found in the future second person singular "thou shalt keep" and is directed to the THIRD person plural "them" and NOT the first person plural "us" as the New International Version translators rendered it. Thus we see it is the King James, God’s perfect, preserved Bible which has accurately preserved the reading of the originals, not the unreliable & "Satanic New International Version.
Psalm 12:7
is
not God's promise to preserve the Jews,
a promise which flourishes elsewhere
in Scripture.
It is God’s promise to preserve
His words,
and is a direct reference to
those words as described in Psalm 12:6.
2. Or, these liars will proclaim to a Christian whose faith is too weak to accept the literal truth of Psalm 12:6,7, will piously quote Psalm 119:89. “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” Then they will state that God actually meant that He preserved His perfect Bible in Heaven, not on Earth. And they say this with a straight face! This escape to a house of straw is embarrassingly humorous.
First, it is foolish for anyone to believe that God inspired a perfect original on earth so that He could have it brought to Heaven. Is that supposed to be the reason that He wrote the originals? The answer is embarrassingly simple. The Bible is addressed to man, not God. God did not write a perfect book directed to man and then put it in a library in Heaven where man cannot benefit from its existence. Again we ask, "What good to us, here and now, is a perfect book locked up out of reach in Heaven?"
Secondly, Psalm 12:6 makes reference to His words being on earth. To preserve them somewhere other than on earth is not to preserve them at all. So we see then that God inspired the originals perfectly. Then over the centuries He has preserved those same word today. They are found in the Authorized KJV 1611!
In the statement above, the first half is true, but the second half teaches this lie as rotten as Hell could produce.
The Index is the Council of Trent's list of forbidden books: no translation from the Textus Receptus has ever gotten OFF the list. The 4th Rule of the Index said that the Bible could only be read with the permission of a Catholic Bishop, and then, only if it was a Bible put out by Catholic authors.
So naturally, when the RV came out using the Catholic Greek text for the ASV, NIV, and NASV, it was immediately recommended by Roman Catholic officials. No translation from Erasmus into any language was ever recommended by any Catholic official ONE time in 400. Erasmus "work" was an anti-Catholic Greek text that was so 'anti-Catholic' that the Catholic church would not use it when translating the NAV, etc. including their own Douay Version in 1582.
Boy, don't they lie good? They are pros - that means that they get paid to lie!
The worthless apostate who gives you the line above is apostate to his core, for this is the standard way that all Roman Catholic historians write church history; they make a shocking statement, and then by refusing to discuss it, they leave the reader with the desired implication, which is FALSE. And for some reason, people don't challenge those statements.
The whole godless operation is as sick as a hippopotamus with chapped lips.
The professional liar is telling you that a thing doesn't exist until it is named. The "Received Text" is a reference to the Syrian-type Byzantine Greek texts of the anti-Catholic Protestant Reformation; it is now called "The Majority Text." You are to assume that it was never in the "majority" until someone invented that nomenclature (around 1880).
It always was in the majority and it was "received" by Biblebelievers 1500 years before the Elzevir brothers put the title on their edition.
Besides, David was an adulterer - that can be proved. Noah got drunk, and that can be proved. Moses was a murderer, and that can be proved. One of those men was a man after God's own heart (I Samuel 13:14), the second was a preacher of righteousness (I Peter 2:5), and the third spoke with God face to face (Deuteronomy 34:10).
Some humanists are trying to get you to junk the AV on the grounds that a sorry King had his name attached to it. The Psalms are connected with David, and the law was given by Moses (John 1:17). You are to reject both of them on the grounds of the moral character of their authors? Sick. Sicker than a giraffe with a stiff neck.
Every pro-Catholic member of the English Parliament hated King James' guts, the Jesuits who tried to bomb the Parliament hated his guts, the Theocratic Presbyterians who wanted to establish their Synodic "elders" as governmental rulers hated his guts, and the man who called him "God's silly vassal" was a five-point, baby-sprinkling Calvinist who couldn't have kept up with James scripturally if both of them had been on the translating committee. God picked a "silly vassal" named James because James was the right name: it is the English form of JACOB. JACOB WASN'T A "SILLY VASSAL": HE WAS A "WORM" (Isa. 41:14.) It was Israel (Jacob's new name) to whom "THE ORACLES OF GOD" WERE GIVEN (Rom. 3:2). God simply waited until all of the Henrys, Arthurs, Edwards, Richards, Johns, Stephens, and Williams got out of the way.
Now, what about this Jesuit line that King James was a "queer"? Was he as queer as any Pope from 500 A.D. to 1980, who let people bow down before him and address him as DEITY (John 17:11)? Was he as "queer" as Pope John Paul II, who dedicated America to a female demon called "Mary"? Was he as "queer" as the Catholic lesbian nuns in 1985 who protested for their "rights"? Was he as queer as a half a dozen Catholic priests in 1985-1986 who were arrested for molesting children? Just how "queer" was he?
Well, he accomplished one thing that Rock Hudson and Peter Tschaikovsky and Oscar Wilde couldn't handle. He united Scotland and England for the first time so they became the foundation for the British Empire, which put out more Bibles worldwide than Russia, Italy, Ireland, Mexico, Spain, and both Central and South America combined. King James was the first earthly monarch to encourage the propagation of Bibles. Not one Catholic ruler of Italy, Spain, Germany, Austria, France, or Poland ever encouraged anyone. He promoted the word of God in spite of the fact that his mother was a thoroughbred Papist. King James promoted the word of God after seeing Roman Catholics brutally murdering people in violent brawls while he was growing up, and he promoted the word of God although he had been baptized as a Roman Catholic.
King James knew Latin, Greek, and French, besides English, and he could write in Italian and Spanish. Thus, he was INTELLECTUALLY considerably ahead of the committees that produced the New American Standard Version and the New International Version.
The originator of the Frisco-fruit-character of King James was a man named Anthony Weldon, who blackened the king's reputation in writing AFTER he was dead (1650). Disobeying the specific orders of Antonia Fraser, who told all future historians to include the important "rider" to Weldon's accusation - that Weldon had been kicked out of James' court circles and had a pathological hatred for James' family - Moody Monthly, Faith For the Family (Bob Jones University), Christianity Today, The Fundamentalist Journal, and ANY OTHER FIFTY "CONSERVATIVE" OUTLETS OF THE ALEXANDRIAN CULT would not hesitate to blacken King James 400 years later; they all would imply he was a homosexual, and where they do not print it, the FACULTY MEMBERS AT THEIR SCHOOLS mention it to their students, who then print it when defending the American Standard Version, the New International Version, and the New American Standard Version. King James did not turn against Baptists or Puritans until he was over 54 years old, in a weakened condition, sickly, and under the domination of High Church Anglican Bishops.
All Catholic historians and all Pro-Catholic historians, all Bible revisers, and all Anti-Reformation translators preserve the slander about King James "fruitiness" with zealous care and holy watchfulness. It is "an historic fundamental of the faith" with them.
All they had to show for it was that the King (as all Kings and Queens) had special "court favorites" upon whom he showered gifts (like the Kennedys letting Martin Luther King Jr. use their private plane and allowing his writings to remain holy, sacred, and untouched, while the IRS goes THROUGH YOUR CHURCH RECORDS. There are "queers," and then there are queers.)
Moody Monthly engaged in making money
by LYING; (documented evidence available), was trying
to sell the New International Version and the New American Standard Version,
but the Authorized Version was in the way, so in the July-August edition
of 1985, they put out a typical Catholic history called "THE REAL KING
JAMES," and piously attacked him with everything that they could pick up.
You understand, of course, that we are not supposed to attack them! Special
privileges. Double standard. Alexandrian cult.
(The material from
above will be found in Antonia Fraser, King James VI of Scotland and I
of England, Alfred Knopf, N.Y., 1975; Caroline Bingham, The Making of a
King, Doubleday and Co., Garden City, N.Y., 1969; and William McElwee,
The Wisest Fool in Christendom, Harcourt, Brace and Co., N.Y., 1958.)
Alongside the Popes of his day, and those before him, and those after him, King James was a Spirit-filled Prophet and deserves the title, "The British Solomon." Alongside the translating committees of 1901 (ASV) and 1970 (NIV), he was a Biblical genius; he approved of a text that CORRECTED more than 50 FALSE READINGS FOUND IN THEIR WORKS. The New International Version, The American Standard Version, The New American Standard Version, and the Revised Standard Version.
(Something goes wrong with a man's mind when he rejects final authority.)
These poor, blind, ignorant sinners - many of them with 25 years of formal education - forgot in their dementia that Matthew 1:23; 2:6; 2:18; 3:3; 4:15; 8:17; 9:13 (and FIFTY verses like them) were translations when they were first written in the "plenary, verbally inspired, original autographs." Therefore, every lying hypocrite above who professed to believe that Matthew's "original" was "verbally inspired" excluded from "INSPIRATION" every quotation Matthew gave from the Old Testament. The Old Testament was in Hebrew; the New Testament is in Greek.
They forgot the very languages they had been using to correct the King James with!
Dementia. Just as demented as Jim Jones or Charles Manson. Sicker than an alligator with slipped disks.
When you ask them about these matters, their faces assume the appearance of a jack-o'-lantern whose candle has gone out. Their degrees, IQs, knowledge of the original languages, good words, fair speeches, tricky presentations, horrendous "facts," objective approaches, and "verified data" were not enough TO KEEP THEM FROM LOSING THEIR MINDS. Sin will drive you crazy.
Here we go: In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. That Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23. "And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."
It is, of course, an accepted fact that no translation can be "word perfect". Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?
If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of many Fundamentalist's charges of "progressive inspiration?"
This same question arises in Exodus 4-14 in Moses' contest with Pharaoh. Moses, though speaking for God to an Egyptian king in the king's native Egyptian tongue, translates both his and Pharaoh's statements into Hebrew when he records the account in writing. Which did God inspire? The verbal statement made in Egyptian, a copy of which NO ONE ON EARTH HAS? Or did He inspire Moses' Hebrew translation?
The problem of inspired translations refuses to go away.
In Acts 22 Paul speaks to his Jewish tormentors in the Hebrew language (Acts 21:40, 22:2). The testimony found in verses 1-21 is all given orally in Hebrew. Yet there is NO manuscript extant of Acts 22 which records Paul's statement in Hebrew. Luke wrote it all out in Greek. Which did God inspire? Paul's verbal statement or Luke's "progressive inspiration"?
The answer is simple and is found in II Timothy 3:16. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."
The word "scripture" by its very root, "script" is a term for written words. Therefore, we can rest assured that the various translations (there are more than the few I have pointed out) we have in our Bible are the inspired words of God. If a fundamentalist chooses not to believe in inspired translations, he will have to do it contrary to the Bible practice.
Here is a question for them - Why would ANY of the words need updating if "not one single fundamental doctrine of the faith was affected?" Why THAT is the alibi these apostates use when justifying their own alterations of the Authorized Version text in 30,000 places (The Revised Version, The American Standard Version, The New American Standard Version, The Revised Standard Version, The New Revised Standard Version, The New International Version, etc.)
Why the double standard? Simple: the foundation of the Alexandrian Cult is raising conflicting authorities so the scholar can pose as the final authority: i.e., "GOD."
Now note again the peculiar Satanic dementia that afflicts liars like these, for by their logic, one would have to also ask: "What about the Russians AFTER 1900?" If only the "verbally inspired originals" are the word of God, then neither Russia, Germany, America, France, Sweden, China, Japan, Africa, Asia, Australia, Cuba, Argentina, Hawaii, Alaska, Spain, Italy, or Mexico EVER had the "Word of God," and they never will have the "Word of God. " You will have to admit that a King James Bible in 700 languages worldwide sure has the "original autographs" beat to a phrazzle when it comes to AVAILABILITY.
Consider: what kind of a God would inspire a Book where three-quarters of it in the "originals" was written in a language spoken by less than 2 % of the world's population? The Old Testament is in Hebrew. How did the Russians make out with that? The Japanese? How about the Chinese? Do you want to line up the Hebrew-speaking Chinese today with the Engishspeaking ones and see whether or not the "originals" did the job?
When the world was a Greek-speaking world, God had for it a Syrian-type Greek text from the New Testament Church at Antioch (Acts 11:26). When the gospel went EAST, it went into a SYRIAC text from the New Testament church at Antioch. When the world was a Latin-speaking world, God gave it an Old Latin Waldensian text that preceded Jerome by 100 years. When the Reformation began in Germany, God produced a German Textus Receptus for the Continent, and when He left the Continent and went "worldwide" from an island nation, He gave the world an English Bible in "The King's English".
Where was the word of God before 1611? ALL OVER THE COTTON PICKIN' PLANET: what of it?
Your problem is that you are about half nuts. Sin has burned your brains out. The nearest thing to "Bibliolatry" on the face of this earth are the statements made by Paul in the New Testament on COPIES OF THE SCRIPTURES. They are in Galatians 3:8 and Romans 9:17, and you will not find them discussed in ANY literature printed by a major Christian educational outlet in this country. Many people have worn out five Bibles printed on the best paper you can buy. If you told those people that "they have worn out God five times," you would appear exactly for what you are: a dangerous, silly, irresponsible liar with the moral standards of a double agent. Liars, in "Biblical Scholarship" circles, make a living by lying. That's their "bread and butter."
The ad said only: "Among such perversions of Holy Scripture this Congress would identify the following: Good News for Modern Man, The Living Bible, The Revised Standard Version, and The New English Bible. " Any others? He didn't say. He just didn't MENTION the New International Version , The American Standard Version, The Revised Version, or The New American Standard Version. He left it wide open so no one would guess that they were teaching that the American Standard Version and the New American Standard Version were reliable, even though they came from the same Alexandrian source as the New English Bible, Good News for Modern Man, and the Revised Standard Version.
These types of "Christian" ads have to be measured and calculated with a smooth, slick, crafty, Satanic mind behind them. Fred Afman, who taught at Bob Jones University, spoke up from the faculty lounge of Tennessee Temple and said: "I have taught for thirty years in the field of Old Testament and New Testament; for twenty-four years at Bob Jones University and for six years at Tennessee Temple Schools. NEITHER OF THESE SCHOOLS TAKES A STAND AGAINST THE AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION OR THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION."
Truer words were never spoken by any professional liar. In the same letter, Afman says that Bible-believers will become a CULTIC group and "grieve the Spirit of God." Lied like a dog; slandered your brothers in Christ, didn't you?
Do you know what Bruce Musselman Jr. says about slanderers like Afman?
A. They teach infidelity.
B. They cause confusion in the minds
of believers.
C. They reinstate the Roman Catholic
Bible.
D. They repudiate the Protestant
Reformation.
E. They cause DIVISION AMONG BELIEVERS.
F. They take the same position as
the Roman Catholic priests.
G. They demonstrate that they are
apostate.
H. They reject the wisdom of God.
I. They reject the verbal inspiration
of scripture.
J. They are Neo-Orthodox in practice.
K. They put Christian Scholarship
above the Bible.
L. They have no final authority.
M. They recommend versions that
are doctrinally corrupt.
When any old liar says "THE BEST TEXT," he is referring to the Roman Catholic text of 1582, translated in 1884 by the Revised Version, in 1901 by the the American Standard Version, in 1952 by the Revised Standard Version, in 1959 by the New American Standard Version, and in 1979 by the New International Version. If he says "A BETTER TRANSLATION SHOULD BE," even if he is using a Receptus, he is simply altering the Authorized Version text to suit himself so you will take HIS word for the text, instead of the Bible's word for the text.
The Authorized Version never confused anyone who believed it, but it sure has confused thousands of EGOTISTS who messed with it. As the charge is now presented to Bible Believers, "KJVonly preachers teach that God purposely misleads people." With that half-truth (undiscussed, undocumented, and just as unexamined as any Catholic statement on Church History), they leave the matter where it stood.
IT STILL STANDS AS IT IS GIVEN FROM 1 KINGS 22:19-23, EZEKIEL 14.1-11, ROMANS 11:8-10, AND THESSALONIANS 2:10-12. That is how the Holy Spirit intended for it to stand.
Sure, God will use an Authorized
Version to mess up your mind. "Light rejected becomes lightning." You mess
with that Book and God will mess with your mind - Romans 1. Sin
will blow out your pilot light.
There is not one "cult" or "sect"
in the Western Hemisphere that believes the Authorized Version of 1611
is the infallible word of God, containing the words of God: not one!
On the other hand, the Alexandrian Cult never believed ANY book on this earth was the word of God containing the words of God.
Bible-believers were called "Hussites"
because "they followed a man."
Bible-believers were called "Donatists"
because they "followed a man."
Bible-believers have been called
"Lutherans" and "Calvinists" because "they followed a man,"
In the early days, they were called
"Montanists " and "Waldenses " because they "followed a man. "
To tell the truth, all Bible-believers (Acts 24:14) began their long journey by being called "CHRISTIANS" (Acts 11:26), because they "followed a man."
When you hear some desperate liar on the faculty at Tennessee Temple or Pacific Coast Bible College, or Mid-South, or Mid-Western, or North-Western, or Moody Bible Institute say "YOU ARE FOLLOWING A MAN" - because you believe the Book - you know what you are dealing with: a mean, nasty, little, envious snipe, who couldn't get a real Christian man to follow him to a barbecue cookout.
Now, here the reader has been given some samples of the "goods" found in the stock-and-trade of the "Pros." These are the professional liars who are paid to propagate this kind of Satanic rot, year in and year out. Samples run into the thousands. Here, for example, is a pamphlet by Christian Weiss for the "Back to the Bible Hour". It shows that the Revised Standard Version and the New International Version and the New American Standard Version and other Roman Catholic 'corruptions' came not only from "discovered manuscripts," but from the "original manuscripts" and "early copies." The Authorized Version, on the other hand, only came from the Geneva Bible and the Vulgate: it had no relation to "original manuscripts" or "early copies" or "recently discovered manuscripts. "
That is deliberate and intentional falsification of facts with the manifest motive to replace the Authorized Version with corrupt nonsense. On the same chart, Weiss has drawn a line attacking the Roman Catholic Douay Rheims (Jesuit-1582) to THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS.
Moody Press joins in (The Practical Use of the Greek New Testament, 1946) with "English students simply cannot cope with the problem [Heb. 5:7]. The man who knows his Greek Testament ALWAYS HAS MORE OF THE TRUTH ON HAND" (p.65). A man who believes that is a dirty, rotten, low-down, lying SKUNK, and that is a compliment in his case.
There is no problem in Hebrews 5:7 a Bible-believer cannot "cope with" and the man who "knew his Greek New Testament" (in this case, John R. Rice), got the passage so screwed up that you couldn't unscrew it with a corkscrew. By "going to the Greek New Testament," Rice decided that there would be NO APOSTASY before the Second Advent!
Biblical Scholarship?
F.F. Bruce says that Today's English
Version is based on "THE GREEK NEW TESTAMENT TEXT." He is a liar. Remember,
there is no such thing as "THE Greek New Testament Text."
Ehrenstein also says it is from "THE GREEK TEXT." It isn't anything of the kind.
Lasor says of the Revised Standard Version that it is quite faithful to "the BEST Greek texts", and in some ways it the BEST translation available.
Michaelis says of the Revised Standard Version that it is "by far the BEST revision of the King James Version." (The two are not even related; they are not even from the same set of Greek texts, manuscripts, or Greek editions. Michaelis is a liar.
F.F. Bruce says of the Authorized Version that its defects are apparent, since it came from an "inferior text," and the translators were short in their understanding of the original languages. He is a liar.
Lasor says the Authorized Version has language that is often meaningless today, and since it came from an "inferior Greek text," and that since the Authorized Version is now dead, it should be given a "decent burial."
I have a better suggestion: put some manure on the graves where we have already buried all of these naive, ridiculous, and non-scientific OPINIONS. We buried the opinions of those kooks the first time they criticized the Holy Bible. Hawthorne says of the Authorized Version that, although it is a "masterpiece of English literature," it is only a revision of a revision and, therefore, can be accused of "bad scholarship, bad theology, bad English," and is sometimes obscure, and often crude.
This is what they say about a Book we believe to be the Holy Bible, containing God's words. We are to say nothing "nasty" in return that "would hurt our testimony." That is, we are never to respond as Christ responded to these same vicious liars in Matthew 23, or as Paul responded to the Greek theologians in Acts 17, or as Jeremiah responded to the recognized and qualified scholars of his day (Jer. 23).
No, according to the dictates of modern Laodicean Christianity, we are to speak "the truth in love" (Eph. 4:15) and kindly "win the erring" to Christ by manifesting "the love of Christ" to them.
Here is a gigantic, multi-colored, Madison Avenue spread from Lynchburg. It gives its readers "The New 1983 Christian Family Library, " which contains The Liberty Bible Commentary, the Bible Almanac, and a Super Giant Print Old Testament, " and all in a "beautiful binding. " On the reverse side is an open page of the commentary with the heading, "Here is your own BIBLE TEACHER to lead you through God's word anytime you wish!"
What does this "Bible teacher" teach?
A. Matthew
6:11 is a prayer that a Christian individual is praying to God
after the resurrection, because the Lord is "OBVIOUSLY THINKING OF CHRISTIAN
PEOPLE," And "...that is why I say this is a Christian prayer."
Like your father's mustache. You'd better go back to taking short orders
for junk food.
B. The coming "Kingdom" in
verse
10 is not Christ's return to reign over anything: it is a post-millennial,
Catholic interpretation that means the Christian believer is to conform
his INNER will to God's will.
How "godly" can one get?
My, aren't you lucky to get "YOUR OWN BIBLE teacher" from Liberty Baptist University?
John R. Rice in The Sword of the Lord tells you that Revelation 22:14 is a mistranslation that was corrected in the American Standard Version of 1901. He lied like a Persian rug. In the first place, if it needed correcting, it was "corrected" 400 years ago in 1582, by the Jesuits, more than 300 years before the American Standard Version came out, and in the second place, it was not mistranslated; to this day, there is not a board of revisers on the face of this earth who could prove that it was mistranslated. Rice simply aped his "peers." He passed on some Alexandrian tradition. He didn't stop there either; he said that he thought Acts 8:37 had no business being in the Authorized Version because it was a "GLOSS."
Wasn't he "godly?" Was Rice a "soul winner"? Was he a good, kind, nice man? Was John R. Rice a sweet, old, Christian gentleman? Of course. Then what should we do in regards to respecting his Biblical Scholarship and honoring his scholarly opinions and educated preferences? Exactly what we would do with the "Biblical scholarship" of Bob Ingersoll or Tom Paine, and exactly what we would do with the opinions of Bishop Sockman and Bishop Oxnam.
Do you know who put out the Revised Standard Version? Well, out of 95 men who put it out, 30 of them had Communist affiliations with 90 different Communist front organizations. One of them (Russell Bowie) had 29 Communist affiliations. Another (Leroy Waterman) had 25, and another (Fleming James) had 22. These men produced a book which Michaelis said was the "best revision of the King James Version available." Strange minds, don't you think?
Here is Moody Monthly for September, 1977. "HAVE YOU GOT THE WORD? THE ORIGINAL GREEK WORD!.... now the serious Bible student [hackneyed cliche used by all apostates] can learn to understand THE ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT... read from THE ORIGNAL GREEK TEXT by understanding the ORIGINAL WORDS." Lie down, Rover. And don't get too near the dogs. They'll get fleas from you. A bigger, fatter, juicier lie was never found in the entire history of the Third Reich from Goebbels in 1933 to Admiral Doenitz in 1946. It came from Moody Bible Institute.
Notice how as they apostates gradually loose their minds sin will drive you crazy: absolutely bananas - they are forced to accept something as infallible and inspired; so, having rejected the Authorized Holy Bible of the Protestant Reformation, they "go a fishing" (John 21:3), in hopes that some infallible substitute can be found. They usually land on NESTLE'S Greek text, or ALAND and METZGER'S Greek text. Thus, they wind up with an inspired so-called "ORIGINAL GREEK TEXT" that is the product of apostates in Alexandria, Egypt, and preserved in the Vatican.
Here is the classic example: we cite
a letter from the head of the Bible Department at Bob Jones University,
who has just stated four dozen times that "ONLY THE ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS
ARE INERRANT AND INSPIRED." Having passed on this hypothetical non-scriptural
tradition for twenty years, he comes out with this! "There is no doubt
in my mind about my position.... As far as having an INSPIRED AND INFALLIBLE
BIBLE, yes, I have one. THE GREEK TESTAMENT that I HOLD IN MY HANDS I will
defend EVERY WORD in. There is not a single doubt in my mind about the
contents of THAT book. So, as far as having a verbally inspired Bible,
I HAVE ONE: AND I READ IT EVERY DAY."
You incredible oaf! (They used to
say, "vile wretch" in the Anglican and Puritan tracts between 1600 and
1800.) You didn't even tell us what you are reading! Imagine a man who
has the inerrant, infallible, inspired word of God in his hand and is reading
it daily, and then he will not tell anyone what it is! Isn't that the most
incredible thing you ever read in your life?
Is Stewart Custer "separated?" Yes.
Does he support NeoEvangelicalism? No. Is he not a "reverent Biblicist?"
Yes? Is he premillennial? Certainly. Is he an honest man? Are you trying
to be funny?
This is the man who wrote a pamphlet
called "THE TRUTH ABOUT THE KING JAMES VERSION CONTROVERSY." Can you match
that? Robert Ripley couldn't find anything to match it in 60 years.
We will have the courage to tell
you what Stewart Custer was reading, without asking his permission, counsel,
advice, or response. He was either reading Nestle's Critical Greek New
Testament, or he was reading Aland and Metzger's United Bible Societies
publication, which is 98% the same Catholic Greek text, coming from a Society
that has Roman Catholic priests on it, dictating the content of foreign
translations. And if Custer was defending "every word" of THAT text, he
was supporting the Jehovah's Witness reading of John
1:18, which says Jesus Christ was a "BEGOTTEN GOD."
Dementia. Kooks from Kookville, bananas loose from the bunch, wimps on the ropes, boobies out of the hatch, ding-alings out of the bell tower.
SIN WILL DRIVE YOU CRAZY.
One more good, godly, dedicated liar: this time, it is Oswald Smith, one of the greatest missionary statesmen of the Twentieth Century. "The Bible alone is unchangeable.... there is NO OTHER AUTHORITY. The Bible is God's INFALLIBLE WORD.... THIS BOOK I HOLD IN MY HAND is a Roman Catholic Bible.... it is INFALLIBLE for IT IS THE WORD OF GOD.... it is not the "only begotten Son" as in the Authorized Version; it is the ONLY BEGOTTEN GOD.... the difficulty in regard to the use and meanings of these various words lies in the erroneous translation of the Greek and Hebrew words in OUR AUTHORIZED Version of the Bible.... in THE ORIGINAL these terms are never misused, but in the AUTHORIZED VERSION ONE IS HOPELESSLY AT SEA."
The name of that book was THE BATTLE
FOR THE TRUTH. Isn't that the most remarkable book title you ever saw in
your life? Isn't that fantastic? He almost crossed the finish line before
Custer, didn't he, when it comes to pure out-and-out LYING? Oswald
J. Smith was a "good, godly, dedicated, saved, born-again, soul winning,
pre-millennial, missionary statesman. " In matters of FINAL AUTHORITY you
couldn't trust him, or his son, as far as you could kick a dead Humming
Bird.
Would you care to see this old double-tongued flim-flam in operation one more time? Let's cite Dr. Allan Macrae (March 14, 1975) and Dr. Robert Newman in their forward to Facts About the Textus Receptus. (They do love that word "facts," don't they? That's a real hang-up with them. Almost as good as "scientific.") Well, Sir! The authors of this pamphlet believe that "THE BIBLE IS GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD...and that its original autographs were verbally inspired and completely free from error of any kind."
Bible Believers, right? Don't be silly.
You're dealing with the Scholar's Union of the Alexandrian Cult. FACTS are no longer available. There isn't one verse in any version of any translation in any edition of any Bible on the face of this earth that says the "original autographs were completely free from error of any kind." You just got the opinion of two men whose opinions are "facts" in their own way of thinking. Now! Having said that "THE BIBLE IS GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD," we get this: "We are sorry that it is sometimes asserted that the KJV is the only Bible in the English language that REPRESENTS the Word of God."
Now, read that again. Isn't he implying (if not stating outright) that there are OTHER "BIBLES" in the English language that "represent the Word of God?" Of course. Read it one more time, and see if we have misrepresented MacRae and Newman.
Note: MacRae and Newman believe in English BIBLES, not just one English "BIBLE." But what is this? They just said "THE BIBLE" is "God's infallible Word." Which Bible? You say, "The original autographs. " The original autographs were never together in any "Bible. " No "Bible" on this earth had sixty-six "original autographs" in it. You say, "Well, they meant...." Don't give us that moonshine. They said "The Bible" was "God's infallible Word," and that the Authorized Version is not the only English Bible that "represents God's Word." Other English BIBLES (did you get that! "BIBLES!") must also "represent God's Word."
A. "The Bible" is NOT God's "Word."
B. The Bible only "represents God's
Word. "
C. But, "the Bible is infallible,
" but....
D. NOT ANY BIBLE YOU EVER SAW, OR
EVER WILL SEE.
E. However! You can get something
that "represents God's Word," and CALL IT A "BIBLE," even though it is
NOT "infallible," for it is only THE BIBLE that "IS GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD."
What are MacRae and Newman trying to say, with hot mush in their mouth and smoked glasses over their eyes? They are trying to say "THERE IS NO BIBLE ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH IN ANY LANGUAGE." They just didn't have the courage to say it. It would have cost them something (I Timothy 6:10). You can't make a good living saying what you really believe, so you duck, dodge, twist, turn, omit statements while making implications, and then pretend you are a "Bible-believer."
According to the sane meaning of the English words found in a dictionary written by a sane man, these men just said this: "THE BIBLE IS GOD'S INFALLIBLE WORD .... IT IS SOMETIMES ASSERTED THAT THE KJV IS THE ONLY INFALLIBLE WORD IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE THAT REPRESENTS GOD'S WORD. THERE ARE' OTHER INFALLIBLE 'WORDS THAT REPRESENT GOD'S WORD. "
Read it again. Check it with what
they just quoted. Read it one more time. That is Twentieth Century Fundamentalist
scholarship at the peak of scientific learning. MacRae and Newman are "manuscriptolators."
They are "Autograph-believers." They just couldn't make living presenting
their true colors, so they changed color: chameleons do it all the time.
Whoever wasted his time to read MacRae's and Newman's "Facts About the
Textus Receptus" did it after being warned by their own profession
that they would take the term "BIBLE" and apply it without any regard to
what they professed to believe was "THE BIBLE." Ditto Robert Sumner, John
R. Rice, Truman Dollar, Bob Jones III, and the faculty and staff of Moody,
Wheaton, Fuller, Denver, Dallas, Chicago, Arlington, Springfield, Lynchburg,
and Tennessee Temple.