AV Verses Vindicated

Waymarks Contender 63

2010-11-18T03:40:00.001-08:00

Report of Open Air Preaching

September 30^th LUTON Town Centre. I had hardly finished quoting John 3: 16-19 when two young women pushing baby buggies paused to enquire whether I was Catholic or Christian. I asked them why they made this kind of differentiation. They didn’t know. They both had broad Irish Republican accents, which I took to be an indication of their persuasion. A comment on my part that I believed in the Virgin Mary (that is, as to what Scripture says about her ) opened the way to present the gospel to them. They seemed to think that Protestants do not believe Mary even existed.

After they moved on, a young lady who had been standing by me holding an advertising board, asked me to tell her about the gospel. She is seeking and although brought up Catholic had “tried” the JW’s. She wanted to read the Bible and had no idea it was comprised of two testaments. She believed there was “something” after death, and wanted to know that God would accept her and not punish her. Thus I was able to present the gospel to her. I believe this was another occasion when I could have drawn a confession from her, there in the street. We conversed for over an hour. Her name is Hayley, about 20 years old.

October 7^th LTC. I had been preaching for half an hour when Hayley arrived. She greeted me but said she couldn’t talk as her boss had given her a pile of leaflets to distribute. I carried on preaching and a few minutes later a lady passed by Amening and halleluyahing. She was so pleased to hear the gospel being proclaimed in the open air. She let everybody know it. She handed me a card and invited me to her prayer meeting held every day at 3pm.

I looked at the card. It was issued by the Chaplet of Divine Mercy and gave instructions on praying with the Rosary. This was an Acts 16: 16 situation and we do not accept support from the evil systems of men.

I told the woman she needed to be born again. “I have been born again” she said. When? She didn’t know. She was a baby at the time. So how do you know you are born again? My mum told me. What happened then? “I was baptised.” She replied. By a Catholic priest? How can H₂O splashed on your face by a godless man fit you for heaven?

She fastened her eyes on me and commanded the evil spirit to come out of me. I repeated my question. More eye fastening and incantations ensued. I wanted to tell her she would have to shout louder; the evil spirit apparently wasn’t listening.

She got angry as I repeatedly called on her to acknowledge she was ignorant of God’s salvation. She demanded to be listened to as she intended (she said ) to defend her faith. She was trying to defend popery, which, with Islam, represent the twin curses of civilisation.

She made off in high dudgeon and an Asian man, who had been listening to all this, stepped into the breach. During this altercation, Hayley, who had been giving out her leaflets, further up the street, came to ask me if I was OK.

I couldn’t understand the Asian man but l illicited from him in the end that he attended the LCF in Luton. This is an apostate Pentecostal church.

The words on the woman’s card were, “Eternal Father, I offer to You the Body and Blood, Soul and Divnity of you dearly beloved Son…” What a foul, obscene, and blasphemous statement. This the faith she was determined to defend!

*****

AV Verses Vindicated

The Song of Solomon 2: 17

Until the day break (puach), and the shadows flee away, turn my beloved,….

“Until the day be cool….” RV

“Until the cool of the day….” NASB

The term daybreak has been in the English language since 1520AD. The translators of the Hebrew (OT) knew daybreak adequately expressed puach. Rationalists have altered this to mean dusk. They have taken their licence from the literal meaning of puach which is to puff and made it a cool wind of evening. This is wrong. We read in 4: 16, …and come, thou south; blow (puach) upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden,and eat his pleasant fruits.

This is a warm and pleasant breeze, which metaphorically blows away the shadows of the night. It shows that the AV translators were well aware of all the shades of meaning of puach.

I found a literal translation of the LXX rendering to be “until the day blows through (eos ou diapneuse). This is obviously ambiguous.

The faithfulness and devotion of the Shulamite maiden is besmirched by the modern critics.

Isaiah 44: 2

Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb

“I am your Creator. You were in my care even before you were born.” CEV

R Warren quotes this CEV perversion of Scripture in his book, The Purpose Driven Life. Thus Warren appears to teach that an individual is nurtured by God from eternity. This is similar to the Mormon teaching of the pre-existence of the human soul before conception.

Acts 6: 3

Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom….

“….full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom…..” JND

“….full of the Spirit and of wisdom”…. NIV NASB ( the editions I checked both maintained the capital S)

“…whom the people know are spiritually wise….” GW

The denial of the personality of the Holy Spirit is seen in modern versions.

Romans 13: 9

Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet….

The words underlined are missing from modern translations.

Popery has a slogan, “The end justifies the means”. It is quite in order to vilify the Lord’s servants so that Rome can be promoted and glorified. We see the hand of the enemy of souls involved in the removal of these words of Scripture. The manuscript evidence for their inclusion is good. Their preservation in Scripture is sufficient for the Bible believer who will also remember the Lord’s words in Matt. 5: 11, Blessed are ye when men shall reproach you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

1 Corinthians 6: 20

For ye are bought with a price: glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s

“….glorify God therefore in your body” RV

“….So use your bodies for God’s glory.” GNB

“And in your spirit” is missing from modern versions.They do not require one to glorify God in one’s spirit. These words are well attested in the majority of cursive manuscripts, and in ancient translations. God is to be glorified with one’s whole being.

Ephesians 5 9

(For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth;)

“(for the fruit of the light is in all goodness and righteousness and truth,)” JND

“(for the fruit of light is found in all that is good and right and true), ESV

The Holy Spirit is removed so that Gnostic views might gain ground. Note that N Darby, the Father of Brethrenism, reveals his own rationalistic views here and in many other places.

(See my notes on Acts 6: 13).

1 Timothy 5: 12

Having damnation, because they have cast off their first faith

“….and so become guilty of breaking their earlier promise to him.” GNB

“having condemnation, because they have rejected their first faith.” RV

Bible critics cannot cope with the subject of damnation, so the word must be altered from the Authorized Version reading. The GNB rejects the subject of faith also. The world makes promises and often has no intention of honouring their word.

The AV Bible defines the casting off of faith as apostasy. …that day [the Day of Christ] shall not come, except there come a falling away (apostasia) first 2 Thess. 2: 3

One cannot fall away from what was never held. Neither can a true believer fall away anyway.

Paul had already given warning to Timothy in the latter times some shall depart from the faith (1 Tim. 4: 1). So here we learn that some are already turned aside after Satan. (5: 15)

Some women in church fellowship felt the appeal of Satan to be stronger than that of Christ. There are those who think that church membership equates to salvation.

The AV translators were well aware that krima could be translated ‘judgment’ because they did this in several other places. It is a pity our critics do not take note of this. But in 1 Tim. 5: 12 their immense linguistic ability and their understanding led them to use the word damnation. Also, if we do not accept the superintendence of the Spirit of God in the production of our time honoured Bible then we drift in the fog of unbelief. Nothing can be trusted.

The verb krino is translated ‘damned’ at 2 Thess 2: 12. that they all might be damned who believed not the truth. JND and other critics do not like this either. Just let them be judged instead. They might just be let off with a caution!

‘Damnation’ has been in the English language for 700 years and means ‘condemned to hell by God’. We are not surprised that the enemies of the cross hate the word. We believe this to be the meaning of krima in this context.

*****

By the Way….

I have heard some say that it is very difficult to know God’s guidance. Would God wish to make it difficult for us to know His guidance in our lives? I think not. The difficulty is often within ourselves. We have already made up our minds what we want the outcome to be concerning some future circumstance. We mould our prayer requests around the required answer.

The answers to all guidance lie in the Bible. There is one answer to all circumstances and it is found in Proverbs 3: 5,6 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.

Keep close to the Lord. Don’t trust your own wisdom. Make sure the course of your life is consistent with Scripture. He will do the rest.

A believer, in tune with the Lord, doesn’t need to pray about every little detail along the way. Paul didn’t. He purposed to return through Macedonia. Acts 20: 3. He made up his own mind about it. He had the mind of the Lord and was free to make his own decisions within the purposes of God.

Some may yet ask, “how do I know that the Lord is directing my path?” This is the cry of doubt. The Lord has pledged Himself to this. Don’t be a Gideon in this. He put out his fleece only because he was unsure of the Lord’s word to him.

Believers must not tempt the Lord their God, even though He was indeed patient with Gideon. Gideon was a valiant man, but the Lord had already told him what was required of him.

The travellers had long and arduous journey ahead of them. They awaited their guide who was familiar with the terrain before them. They knew he would direct their path so they did one thing. They stuck close to him.

Of course, if one’s time is taken up with worldly pursuits and pleasures along the way, the guide will be lost sight of.

Lastly,God has given us free will. He has created us with the ability to think and to make decisions. As believers we have the indwelling Holy Spirit Who is teaching us all things..

So we let nothing come between us and the Lord, and we step out confidently, making our decisions as the light of His word shines on the path before us.

We must beware the evil doctrines of Reformed Theology that would reduce us to the state of unthinking Zombies where everything has been predetermined from eternity..

□ Was Elijah caught up into heaven, or did he only make it to the clouds? A strange email was sent to me recently which (among other strange doctrines) stated this:

2 Kings 2 v 11 tells us ‘Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven’. The word for ‘heaven’ (Strong’s No.8064) is that of the clouds. Gesenius states: i.e. “firmament which seems to be spread out like a vault over the globe, whence the rain is let down, and above which is the abode of God and the (holy) angels”.

….there is no indication that either Enoch or Elijah’s soul went directly into heaven, in advance of Christ’s redeeming work and the shedding of His cleansing blood (Ref. 1 John 1 v7, Eph 2 v13, Rev 1 v5, etc) — written by a Brother in Assembly Fellowship.

If Enoch and Elijah were not taken up directly into heaven, where are they now? Did they crash back to earth again? We think not. Consider Psalm 49 14, Like sheep they are laid in the grave (sheol); death shall feed on them; and the upright shall have dominion over them in the morning;…. V.15, But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave; for he shall receive me. Selah.

V. 14 speaks of the ungodly. These go down into sheol/ hell. The Psalmist has no such anticipation Sheol has no power, no claim over the righteous man. His expectation is to be received directly by God. Note very carefully, The Psalmist is not expecting God to redeem his soul from out of sheol. His redemption is from its very power over him.

This we believe, was the expectation of every Old Testament saint. See also Ps. 55: 15

Jealousy is cruel as the grave (sheol). S of S. 8: 6. There is no suggestion of compartments here, where hopefully one part may be less cruel than the other.

*****

Beware of the Girls’ Fashion Industry by David Cloud. FBIS News Service
The fashion industry today is morally perverted and is seeking to sexualize children from very early ages. The following warning is very timely:
"It was a hot summer's day in 2002 when I decided to buy sandals for our 4- and 6-year-old daughters. I never anticipated our retail excursion would prove to be so educational. We're talking sandals, now. Plain, ordinary sandals, the kind every one of us grew up in. But after going to eleven different stores I still couldn't find anything even remotely suitable. Why? Because every pair of sandals I found--every single pair--had high heels.
"High heels for a 4-year-old? How can a child run and jump and play wearing high heels? I'll tell you the answer: She can't. Apparently, girls' sandals aren't meant for running and jumping and playing. They're meant to make little girls look like tarts. ...
"It amazes me that 40 years after the sexual revolution that was supposed to 'free' women from the 'oppression' of men, we find ourselves teaching our daughters that their only worth is in looking slutty. Boys don't respect girls anymore because girls don't require and demand it. And it all starts by buying 4-year-olds high-heeled sandals and Bratz dolls.
"So, who is at fault for pre-sexualizing our kids? Sure, we can blame a lot of things. Society. The fashion industry. Hollywood. Public schools. Pick one.
"But what it boils down to is you, the parent, allowing it. Yes, allowing it. ...
"I've heard some parents say they can't 'stop' pre-sexualization because kids will learn it in school or from peers. Many parents feel victimized, swept helplessly along the tide of society and unable to do anything about it. Hogwash. It's parents who are permitting inappropriate clothing, toys, posters and music into their homes" ("Sexy Six Year Olds," WorldNetDaily, May 31, 2008).

*****

Accountability, or how to dominate the Lord’s servants

Acts 13 describes the sending forth of two men, Barnabas and Saul, for the spread of he gospel. They were called and sent forth by the Holy Spirit. Their call was revealed to certain named men in the church at Antioch. They were not called, selected, appointed, or ordained by any member of the church. They were to be separated, released from, all commitments in the church at Antioch.

The manner of this calling can hardly be a template for all further exercises in missionary endeavour. We do not believe the Holy Spirit reveals to a select company within the church, however godly, gifted, and faithful, what are His purposes for other brethren and what they are, authoritatively, to do about it.

This passage, however, is used by certain Brethren to justify what they call “Commending to the Work”. This is a practice which allows a rigid control over any who wish to serve the Lord in a full time capacity. But our Brethren go far beyond what we read in Acts 13.

So we read in Truth and Tidings,

With Barnabas and Saul, the Spirit of God used the leadership in the commending assembly to recognize that God called these individuals (Acts 13:1-4). In a special sense, the workers commended from Antioch were accountable to that assembly to inform them about how they had fulfilled their work (14:26, 27). A report of their work to another assembly would not have that same specific focus on "fulfilling" their work. Barnabas and Saul were particularly accountable to the Antioch assembly, because through that assembly, the Lord confirmed their work. [my italics –RS]

A present-day worker may become part of an assembly the Lord has planted through his labours. In this case, he definitely should retain accountability to his commending assembly. An assembly planted through his labours may find it difficult to carry out responsibilities associated with accountability for either doctrinal error or moral misbehaviour. As devastating as such a case would be for this relatively new assembly, having to confront a father in the faith and deal with such a matter could divide and destroy this assembly. In addition, some believers might question the objectivity of the worker’s own spiritual "children."

In a different scenario, a commended worker may move to an established, mature assembly. Even in this case, the commending assembly still seems to bear some unique responsibility for commending that individual. If, for instance, the assembly to which he has moved decides that the worker needs to limit his work or that he should be removed from the work, that assembly would hardly negate his letter. That assembly’s elders would contact the commending assembly. Altering his letter would be the commending assembly’s responsibility; they signed it. [my italics-RS] The principle of Christian courtesy (1 Peter 3:8) would require that consideration! Even Paul would not make a decision in a matter that was Philemon’s responsibility (Phe 14)—David Oliver..

It appears that the “commended worker” will carry a letter; his licence to preach, a kind of work permit which will detail the kind of work and where he is to perform it.

Here is another departure from Acts 13. We cannot believe that Paul and Barnabas carried with them a “letter of commendation”. As they were engaged in pioneer work, to whom would they have presented it?

To whom are the commending brethren accountable? They will answer, “we are accountable to the Lord”. But they will not allow this for the Lord’s servants. The commending Brethren are the elders and they answer to none but themselves.

And what is the Lord’s Servant to do if his home assembly becomes defunct as happens so often?

*****

Calvinist Collings strikes again

Read the online copy of Precious Seed Vo.65; No.3; Aug. 2010.

In his article we learn that Collings believes in a progressive god. At some point in eternity past his god developed a notion that he would preselect certain individuals for salvation. This would be based on his foreknowledge. What foreknowledge? Will it be the foreknowledge that he had preselected them? Will it be the foreknowledge that the selectee cannot do anything about it? Or will it be on the foreknowledge that these folk would have accepted the conscription, even if they had been free to make their own choice, which of course, they hadn’t? They will be saved anyway, like it or lump it.

Here is part of what Collings wrote. The verses he quotes do not support his opinions on election.

In the timeless ages before the foundation of the world, when there was no one but God, nowhere but the third heaven [where were the first and second heavens in eternity?- R.S.] and nothing except the manifestation of divine characteristics, [manifested to whom??-R.S.] God made choices. In the majesty of His divine sovereignty and by means of His foreknowledge, He picked out of the masses of humanity specific individuals. As a result of the death, burial and resurrection of His Son those thus chosen were certain to be saved and will one day, be in God’s presence ‘holy and without blame’, Eph 1: 4. There are several verses that could be presented to establish the fact that election relates to specific individuals, including, Acts 13: 48, 1 Thess. 1: 4, 2 Thess.2: 13, and 2 John 1: 13.— R Collings

According to Collings, God, in His picking out, obviously cares little for the descendants of Ham, and not much for those of Shem either. The majority of those saved seem historically to be white.

Think of the Asian masses, eternally doomed.

We note the editorial rider; “All the trustees may not agree with everything that is stated in any one article.” So we cannot expect a unity in doctrine from these folk. It is the principle of “anything goes; take your pick”. Precious Seed may not be relied upon to present the truth of Scripture. It cannot be trusted in the building up of the saints in their most holy faith.

The persistent use of perversions and parodies of Scripture reveal just where these men stand.

Collings has publicly denied a conversion experience and it plainly is of no consequence to any of the Precious Seed committee.

We believe the views expressed in the article quoted above are false, misleading, and dangerous. These are not matters that can be left to personal preference. Consider the article below.

*****

Brethren attitude to Doctrine. It must not divide us!

We have noted in recent times a downgrade in doctrine among Bible teachers. Nothing must be emphasised too strongly. We must avoid controversial subjects. Of course, Calvinists will press their views, and some brethren will disagree but few will separate from each other on doctrinal grounds.

There are those among us who believe that the Lord was able to sin while here in the flesh. Some disagree with them but they can still laugh and joke together. Others believe the Lord lacked full deity while dwell on earth. This must not stop us breaking bread together.

I quote an example; While we were members of the assembly meeting in Springfield Road, Scartho, A man stated during the Breaking of Bread meeting, “When the Lord was on earth he was in essence less than God,” I recorded those words at the time. They were not regarded by the assembly as grounds for division. I understand that this man is still the leading “brother”, nearly 40 years later.

I withdrew the same morning, and we sold up, I handed in my notice to my employer, and we left Grimsby for what we hoped would be a sounder church.

The indifference to doctrine among the Brethren, once regarded as “people of the Book”, is because of the fear of following the pattern of the Exclusive Brethren, who in their early days were marked by split after split. Now, anything goes.

The doctrine of salvation is weakened by the opinions of the editorial committee of Precious Seed who do not see the need for a decisive conversion.

Worst must be their rejection of any definitive Bible seen in their abandonment of the Authorized Version of Scripture, and the acceptance of virtually any perversion of the bible they can find. This is the situation across the whole spectrum of Brethenism.

Men are now allowed on the platform who teach that divorce and remarriage may be permitted and that this does not constitute grounds for excommunication

Others tell us there was a long interval of time between Genesis 1: 1 and Genesis 1: 2. This is known as “The Gap Theory”, a fable that denies that sin entered the world through Adam.

Then we have the “Bi-compartment theory of Hades, where Hell and Paradise are next to each other. This leads to the popish error of Christ descending into hell.

Enoch and Elijah, we have been informed went up into the sky but didn’t get to heaven.

“Surely we all believe in the Immaculate Conception” said one Luton elder.

Almost all unite to tell us there is no Bible we can trust from cover to cover.

All of these things I have heard taught in various Gospel Halls.

*****

A verse that assures us the Church will not go through the Tribulation

REVELATION 3:10 by D C Ice

The logic of this verse is that since “you [the Philadelphia church of the first century, but extended to the entire church] have kept the word of My perseverance, I [the Lord] also will keep you [the church] from the hour [or time] of testing” by means of the rapture before that time. The Lord will keep the church out of the hour of testing because that testing is not for the church, since Christ’s bride has already been tested and has endured during the church age. This “hour of testing” will test the entire world, which here is seen in contrast to the church. MacArthur writes, “Unbelievers will either pass the test by repenting, or fail it by refusing to repent. Revelation 6:9-11; 7:9-10, 14; 14:4; and 17:14 describe those who repent during the Tribulation and are saved, thus passing the test; Revelation 6:15-17; 9:20; 16:11; and 19:17-18 describe those who refuse to repent, thus failing the test, and are damned.”26

The Tribulation is like a final examination; it is the great test at the end for Gentile humanity. Also Israel will be tested. Besides Isaiah 24-26, a number of other passages speak of the testing of Israel in the Tribulation (Ezek. 20:33-44; 22:17-22; Dan. 12:1, 10; Zeph. 1:7-18; Zech. 13:8-9). The purpose for Israel’s scrutiny is to “purge from you the rebels” (Ezek. 20:38), so that only the elect are

“Even though the church at Philadelphia would go to glory via death long before the time of trouble would come, if the church here is taken to be typical of the body of Christ standing true to the faith, the promise seems to go beyond the Philadelphia church to all those who are believers in Christ” (John F. Walvoord, “Revelation,” in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, New Testament, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton, IL: Victor, 1983; reprint, Colorado Springs: Cook, 1996], 939).

Immediately after verse 10, verse 11 says, “I am coming quickly.” Thus Christ’s coming is in the context of Revelation 3:10. By Christ’s coming at the rapture the church will be “kept from the hour.”

26 John MacArthur, Revelation 1—11, MacArthur New Testament Commentary: (Chicago: Moody, 1999), 124.

The Meaning of “Earth Dwellers” in Revelation 357

left to “call on My name” (Zech. 13:9), and “thus all Israel will be saved” (Rom. 11:26).27

——taken from The Meaning of Earth Dwellers in Revelation. Bibliotheca Sacra 166 (July-September 2009: 350-65

*****

CORRESPONDENCE (From the past, but still my view)

(by email) 7/18/00

Dear friend,

I feel I need to point to the fact that what you share on your site is very much the fruit of a very traditional, conservative and old fashioned view of englishnity. Praise God that Jesus is alive today in the 21^st century as he has always been and as such His word is still alive today, whether in “high” english or “common” english.

By the way why once again discuss about translations? Or have you forgotten that Jesus did not speak english but english or, to put it in modern terms, “common english”?

In love to all

Alex.

Dear Alex,

Thank you for your email and for looking at my website. You say that what I share is the fruit of a very traditional, conservative and old fashioned view of Christianity. What I share, is the fruit of my own labours and research. It is not the result of a biased view, for I had to change my mind many years ago when I realized the NIV that I had bought was not what it claimed to be. It is not a bigoted view because I have the works of most of the leading Textual Critics on my bookshelves and I have read them before publishing my own conclusions.

What is wrong with tradition? Paul warns to separate from every brother that walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.2 Thes.3:6 If you will not have tradition under any circumstance, then on the authority of the word of God, I bid you farewell. Tradition based on Scripture is essential for the child of God. If you are speaking of the traditions of men (Col.2 :7) then we must beware them. Modern versionism is the tradition of men. It is based on an apostate scholarship which men highly esteem. The Bible which I believe in is the one “handed down” through the centuries, having a proven pedigree, which no modern bible has.

The child of God, following his Lord and Master will be conservative, because his Lord and Master is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and for ever. Heb.13:8. His unchangeability is true conservatism. Jude urges us to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. V.3. The faith¾ its practices and precepts¾ have been delivered once and for all. They are valid today without the need for any updating. Those determined on change are the liberalists. They are marked by a carelessness of attitude in worship, being casual in dress and in language. They are ‘into’ Contemporary Christian(?) Music with its devilish beat. They do not live lives separated from the world. They love the world with its theatres and football and television. And being worldlings they use the worldlings’ modern versions. They simply do not like the straight paths. Yes, I do indeed seek to maintain the old conservative values. This is because I have been converted.

You may call me ‘old-fashioned’ if you will. What I believe and practice is not out of date. We are careful about our language in prayer to God. Our womenfolk cover their heads in the gatherings of the Lord’s people and they remain silent. Our godly young women do not parade themselves trousered, bob-haired, mouths painted, and jewelry hanging from their ears. They are not seen on the beach near-naked either.

I believe it is faith in God that you describe as old-fashioned. Perhaps you hold to things new-fangled? They are the things produced by an apostate Christendom.

I don’t know anything about “high” English. I do know that the translators of the NIV went down to the New York ghettoes to gather their common (rather, gutter) English.

I do know that my AV Bible is written in plain English, a large number of its words being of one syllable.

You say that your Jesus is alive today in the 21^st century. I don’t recognize him. He bears no relationship to the Christ of glory in Whom I have trusted these past 45 years. I find my Saviour outside the camp and still despised and hated by the world.

Lastly, you ask ‘why once again discuss about translations?’ While wicked men are foisting their money making perversions and parodies of Scripture on an apostate Christendom we raise our voice against them and encourage believers to maintain their confidence in the pure word of God. The Lord spoke Hebrew. There is no evidence that He or the apostles spoke in Aramaic. That is an old wives tale on a par with Darwinism and the gap theory.

*****

No Other Doctrine?

….that thou mightest charge some that they teach no other doctrine, 1 Tim. 1: 3.

The Critical Text on which modern versions are based changes doctrine. The selected examples given below are drawn from Dr Sorenson’s book, Touch not the Unclean Thing.

The Critical Text weakens the doctrines of heaven and hell.

Mark 3: 29 damnation removed

Mark 9: 24,25 whole verses removed.

The Critical Text weakens the doctrine of salvation.

Romans 1: 16 Christ removed

Galatians 4: 7 through Christ removed

Revelation 21: 24 them which are saved removed

The Critical Text weakens the doctrine of Christ.

2 John 9 of Christ removed

Matthew 1 15 firstborn removed

John 6: 69 Christ, the Son of the living God removed

Acts 8: 37 Whole verse removed.

The Critical Text weakens the Omnipresence of Christ

John 3 13 which is in heaven removed.

The Critical Text weakens the Resurrection of Christ.

Acts 2 30 according to the flesh he would raise up Christ removed.

Dr Sorenson gives many more examples and his book is well worth reading.

We note also how the doctrine of Eschatology is altered.

2 Thessalonians 2: 2 day of Christ removed and “Day of the Lord inserted”

There is no authority for this change.

Dr Moorman gives a manuscript digest of 356 doctrinal passages in his book, Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version. This is an important book for the serious Bible student who wishes to expose the errors of the Textual Critics. All Dr. Moorman’s books are highly recommended. Many of them can be found online.

*****

"I LOVE THE BLESSED BIBLE."

' We have not followed cunningly devised fables.’ 2 peter i. 16.

Some tell me that the Bible

Is not God's sacred Word,

And brand as cunning fables

The records of the Lord ;

That Moses is a fiction,

And Prophets never spake;

And e'en the blessed gospels

As myths I should forsake.

There was a time I listened

To these old serpent's lies,—

My foolish heart sore tempted

The Bible to despise :

Its holiness rebuked me,

Its precepts crossed my will;

I wished to silence conscience,

And thus my lusts fulfil.

I cared not for the Saviour,

This present world I loved;

Its lusts, and wealth, and glory,

Alone my passions moved.

I cared not for a heaven,

I hoped there were no hell;

I wished for no hereafter,

I loved my sins too well.

Alas ! in mad rebellion,

I hoped there were no God :

I cared not for His favour,

Though trembling at His rod ;

I wished His word a fable

That warned of wrath to come ; "

No God," my heart would mutter,

" No future weal, or doom !"

And yet my mother taught me,

In tones so sweet and mild,
To know its holy pages

E'en when I was a child ;

She read to rne of Jesus,

Of all His grace and love;

And sought with tears my blessing-

His blessing from above.

Oh, why did I so madly

My mother's law forsake ?

Oh, why did I so basely

God's righteous precepts break ?

Oh, why did I so blindly

His warnings all despise,

And from the Friend of Sinners

Avert my heart and eyes ?

His mercy still pursued me

While wand'ring far away ;

His hand with sickness smote me,

To wound, but not to slay:

His Spirit then convinced me,

And brought my guilt to light;

I saw my lost condition,

How awful was the sight!

The serpent's crafty teachings,

The heart's deceptive lies,

The sceptic's subtle reasonings,

All vanished from mine eyes:

Naked, and lost, and guilty,

Beneath God's searching eye—

Eternity before me—

Oh, whither could I fly ?

Oh then what beauteous sunshine

Burst on my raptured sight!

It chased away the darkness,

And all was life, and light :

I saw how grace and glory

In God's free gospel shone;

Before the cross, my terrors

And unbelief were gone.

I love the blessed Bible,

I know it all is true;

It is a faithful mirror

In which myself I view:

It shows me all my weakness,

My folly and my shame ;

But makes thereby more precious

My Saviour's grace and name.

Oh what a light in darkness !

Oh what a balm in woe !

What streams of consolation

Through all its pages flow !

What mines of richest treasure,

What glories fresh I meet,

While, pondering the Scriptures,

I sit at Jesus' feet!

His name, like sweetest music,

Falls ever on mine ear;

I go to it, expecting

My Saviour's voice to hear:
A monument of mercy! ,

Oh, may my life proclaim

The truth of God's salvation,

The glory of His name!

J G Deck

AV Bible Vindicated

2010-10-21T07:17:00.001-07:00

These pages are added to from time to time

AV VersesVindicated. OT

2010-06-12T02:32:00.001-07:00

AV Verses Vindicated (collated from Waymarks issues 1-60)

In recent years it has become fashionable to question the reliability of translation in hundreds of places in the AV Bible. The underlying Hebrew and Greek texts, known as the Masoretic (for the OT) and the Received Text (for the NT) are also questioned in hundreds of places. None of these is justified. Holding to the AV Bible is not merely a matter of faith or tradition. There is ample evidence available to confirm the reliability of the English Authorized Bible.
Some tell us that only the original Scriptures were inspired. If this is so then we have no Scripture today for ALL Scripture IS given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim.3:16. What is not inspired is not Scripture. But inspiration is not lost through translation as the many OT (Hebrew) verses quoted in the NT (Greek) prove.
A correspondent has reminded me of a statement made by Mr. Newberry in his introduction to his Englishman's Bible. There we read "The plenary inspiration of the original Scriptures is taken for granted”. The original Scriptures disappeared a long time ago so we conclude that there are no plenary inspired scriptures existing today, according to Mr. Newberry. So we have no trustworthy Bible today and we are compelled to accept the opinions of the "experts". But having given His inspired word, would God not be able to preserve that same word for ever? Or is the Scripture The Word of the Lord endureth for ever false? And what about Isa.48v.8; 1Pet.1v.23; Ps.12vv.6,7?
The Authorized Version did not need a fresh act of inspiration. The words breathed out by God and originally set down in Hebrew and Greek are the same words we now have translated into English. We are fully persuaded that God oversaw this translation.

Our God is able to preserve His own Word,: For ever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven. Psalm 119:89. If God's word is settled in heaven, why should it be unsettled on earth? Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away, Mt.24:35. That the original manuscripts no longer exist is not surprising, as they would have been very quickly worn out through constant handling. But they were faithfully copied multitudes of times. Early translations were also made such as the 2nd Cent. Peshitto in the Syriac language. The vast majority of manuscripts and early versions are in agreement with the Received Text.

We can have confidence in our AV Bible. Its pedigree can be traced to at least the 2nd Century. The text of the RV and subsequent versions was shown to be corrupt more than 100 years ago, being based on two depraved manuscripts; the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus. These two are still the basis of the modern evolving text of Nestle/UBS.
I wish to show in the following verses that departure from the AV reading is unwarranted. All the verses referred to have appeared in Waymarks from August 1993 to date.

It is recommended that in order to understand the comments in this work, the context of each passage under consideration is read and meditated upon.

I have relied heavily on the works of Dr. J Moorman for the manuscript evidence of the AV readings.

OLD TESTAMENT

Genesis 1:1,2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep.

On page 26 of the Genesis commentary in the What the Bible Teaches series, the author quotes two verses from the RV; “...waste and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep¨, and “God...formed the earth and made it; he established it, he created it not a waste, he formed it to be inhabited¨.(Isa.45:18).
These two spurious readings favour the “Gap Theory” which teaches that God didn’t originally create the world a waste but by Gen.1:2 it had become so. Therefore the first “day” of creation actually begins at verse two. This is implied in the commentary:

The process of creating order continues throughout the six days.
But before [my italics] this orderly distinction of things which differ was established, a series of steps had to be gone through. Initially the earth “was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep” RV). In Isaiah we learn (45:18) that “God... created it not a waste”.

The AV Bible has The earth was without form, and void. (1:2) That is, in the initial act of creation the earth was unformed and unfilled. Isaiah 45:18 tells us he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited. The earth was not created to no purpose, but that it might be inhabited.
The translators of the AV were well aware that the same Hebrew word occurs in both passages, but with obviously different shades of meaning. If the meanings should be the same then a contradiction exists and the only acceptable explanation is the Gap Theory where a cataclysmic disaster occurs between the first two verses of Genesis, and God has to start again. Pember in his book Earth’s Earliest Ages taught the existence of a pre-Adamic race. The Gap Theory denies that sin came in by one man, but that it existed in a race previous to Adam’s. It is therefore a serious error, denying Romans 5:12 and with it the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ.

Genesis 1: 6
And God said, Let there be a firmament (raqiya) in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

And God said, “Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters....” NRSV
God said, “Let there be a dome in the middle of the water;.... “ CJB (Complete Jewish bible)
And God said, “Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters....” ESV

Strong defines raqiya as “properly an expanse ,that is, the firmament or (apparently ) visible arch of the sky.”

A false conclusion appears to be drawn that raqiya may be translated “dome”. For this one would have to believe in a flat earth. A dome is hemispherical, or bowl shaped. God called the firmament Heaven (shameh).
Raqiya can have the sense of beating out precious metals with stretching involved in the action. God has stretched out the heaven over this whole sphere, in one great expanse.
The English translation, “firmament” suggests a strengthening, something resting on the floor of the earth and supporting the vault of the sky.
There is another reason why “dome” is an unsatisfactory translation. The tent of Numbers 25: 8 is the qubbah, and this is the only place in Scripture where the word is used. It means “a domed pavilion” and was a temple of Baalpeor where fornication was practised in the name of this religion.
False religion today has its domed edifices.

Genesis 2: 18
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

“.... I will make him a helper comparable to him.” NKJV.
Feminists will hardly approve of the NKJV rendering of neged (AV=meet) which suggests one worthy to be compared, or conforming in every respect. Was this God’s intended role for the wife? Is the woman to be assessed as coming up to the man’s standard?
To be a help according to Scripture is to fulfil a most precious and high calling. Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield. Ps. 33: 20. A wife is a help and is meet (this is not an archaic word) for her husband. He looks to her and keeps her ever before him for he cannot operate fully on his own. She is his counterpart.

Genesis 3: 15
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

This is the first prophecy in Scripture concerning Christ as Redeemer. Of this man’s seed hath God according to his promise raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (Acts 13: 23). This man being David, seed of Eve. In Luke ch. 3, the Lord’s genealogy is traced back, via David, to Adam. The prophecy is very clear.

Yet the RC Westminster version (1958 AD) reads “I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.” The change of gender is very audacious and is designed to promote Mariolatry.
Not even the RSV Catholic edition makes such a change, but reads “…he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel”.
The Catholic New American Bible; (1970AD) retains the masculine form and a footnote links this verse with the promise of a Redeemer.
According to M Marlowe; Bible Research, this NAB version displeased Pope John Paul II because of its inclusive language.

Genesis 3:21
Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Anyone with no knowledge of Hebrew but able to use a Hebrew/English interlinear Bible in conjunction with a Bagster's Lexicon will discover that the Hebrew gohr is singular, (=skin, not skins). The plural would spoil the type, we are told, speaking of the redemptive work of Christ. The clothing of Adam and Eve is indeed a beautiful picture of redemption in Christ, but is the AV translation wrong? No type can sufficiently portray the anti-type, the Lord Jesus. Hence two goats were required on the day of Atonement. Also the tabernacle required a covering of rams' skins dyed red, and a covering above of badgers' skins. One skin simply would not have been sufficient. All, together, must speak of the glories and perfections of the Lord Jesus, and then only faintly.

In this connection we find an interesting verse, I clothed thee also with broidered work, and shod thee with badgers' skin, Ezek.16:10. Here God speaks of His love towards an erring Israel. We suggest, in view of the use and symbolism of badger skins that these animals were used to clothe Adam and Eve. One skin would not be enough to cover one person nor to speak of Christ.
For those who still demur at the AV translation, we refer to the verse before Ezek.16:10, where we read in v.9, I throughly washed away thy blood from thee, then note the marginal reading, "Heb.=bloods" . Putting bloods into the English reading would make nonsense of our language, so the translators used the singular instead of the plural. Skins is a faithful translation. Bear in mind that there is probably none alive today with the command of languages that these AV translators had. They were right in Gen.3:21, we conclude.

Genesis 4: 7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Whether khat-taw-aw’ should be translated “sin” or “sin offering” depends on the context. Where a sin offering is involved it is usually obvious from the passage, as we find in the first mention in the Bible ─ But the flesh of the bullock, and his skin, and his dung, shalt thou burn with fire without the camp: it is a sin offering. Ex.29: 14
(The first time an offering is mentioned is in Gen. 4: 3,5 where the offerings were voluntary.) Cain’s offering, a bloodless offering, was unacceptable to God. Cain sinned in making such an offering and with this he was charged. If he would not acknowledge his error, sin, lying at the door would enter and seize hold of him, desiring to master him. Failure to master (rule over) sin in his life would have disastrous consequences.
Those who insist that the English Bible is defective in this reading will need to explain how a sin offering would desire Cain, and how he could rule over it.

Genesis 4:8
And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.

The editor of What the Bible Teaches tells his readers that “all the authors share the conviction that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God”. But the first contributor, the author of the Genesis commentary, wrote concerning 4:8, (p.50),

Verse 8 also contains a verbal oddity. It opens with the incomplete statement, “And Cain told Abel his brother...” (RV). The Septuagint reads, “And Cain said to his brother Abel, Let us go out into the field/plain”. If this is a correct reading then a clause has dropped out of the Hebrew manuscripts because it had an ending similar to the next clause. This is the solution followed in the REB, NIV and other versions; it is also noted in the RV margin. This text would lead smoothly into the account of the murder, but it is difficult to be sure it is correct.

The author lacks the conviction that verse eight is the word of God in any version! He thinks that a part of the Bible has got lost, or else it has been tampered with making it difficult [for the critics] to be sure it is correct. Thus verbal inspiration is denied.
The words of Matt.11:25 are pertinent in this connection: Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. That is, the verse in our AV Bible is clearly understood by simple believers to mean exactly what it says.

Genesis 36: 24
And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules (yem) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

The RV and most modern versions has “....this is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness.”

There are no Hebrew manuscripts carrying a variant reading. The word is yem and means mule.
However, Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has a footnote showing that the Versio Syriaca Hexaplaris has a variant reading, changing the word (in Syriac) to mean springs. Jerome’s Vulgate (Latin) has the same change. It is suggested that the author of the Syriac version altered yemim (mules)to mayim (springs) and Jerome later took this up.
Clarke tells us that Bochart believed the Emim are meant.

yem occurs here only in the O.T. and is not the common word for mules but this is no excuse for altering the word of God.
Isaac Leeser in his The Twenty four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translated ACCORDING TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT after the best Jewish Authorities; Bloch Publishing co. 1907, reads “....this was that Anah that found the mules...”
Anah discovered (found) how to cross horses with asses and he produced the first mules. After this mules are referred to in the O.T. as pered ....and they brought ....horses and mules (1 Kings 10: 25). So the reason mules are not mentioned in Scripture before this point is simple: there weren’t any.

Genesis 37:3
Now Israel loved Joseph more than all his children, because he was the son of his old age: and he made him a coat of many colours.

The latest volume of John Ritchie’s What the Bible Teaches, a commentary on Genesis, has this to say about this verse:-

Our translation “of many colours” (PASSIM-6446) derives from the ancient Greek versions, for the word is not common. The word is found in Scripture only in this chapter and in 2 Samuel 13:18,19 where David’s daughter Tamar had a similar garment, for with such robes were the king’s daughters that were virgins apparelled¨. Most modern translators prefer to translate the word as meaning “long¨ or “long-sleeved¨. A long or long-sleeved, robe might mark the favoured son out as being above manual labour.

We note that modern translators are not too sure what kind of a coat Joseph had. The AV is specific. The Ritchie commentary tells us that our AV translators had no idea what the Hebrew word meant so they had to go to a later Greek translation.
In fact, the AV translators were aware of the possibility of a different meaning, so they put the less likely meaning in the margin. The word they put in the margin was ”pieces”, not “long¨ or long-sleeved” for which there is no authority whatsoever.

Genesis 49: 10
The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

It is generally agreed that this prophetic verse refers to the second coming of Christ to earth and the setting up of His millennial kingdom. Modern versions read peoples (amim) but there is no need for this. Believers from all nations will enter that kingdom when He returns.
Modern versions also alter gathering to read obedience.

Exodus 25: 31 (see also Revelation 1: 12)
And thou shalt make a candlestick of pure gold.

An unfortunate blunder occurs in the Precious Seed publication, Day by Day. In the reading for June 6th, commenting on this verse,the writers J Bennet and J Scarsbrook write, “lampstand is preferable to ‘candlestick’. The latter is self consuming whereas the lights of the lampstand were fed with oil continuously.”

But gold is self consuming? Did these writers not notice that the manufacture of a gold candleSTICK is being described? Do these writers consider the AV translators to be dimwits? In Exodus (AV), Oil is mentioned 23 times. Must we assume they did not comprehend what they were translating?
The oil was fed continuously! Only if a human being kept the flow going! Could a human being not remember to keep replacing a wax candle before it burnt out?
The word Candelstikke was in use before 1000AD. Candel originally meant light or torch. The meaning of “candlestick” is very simple as far as our Bible is concerned; it is a LIGHTBEARER. Lampstand improves on this not one little whit.
“The Hebrew word denotes properly any kind of candle or lamp or torch.” — from Easton’s 1897 Bible Dictionary

Num 23: 22
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of a unicorn.

Those who like to rubbish the Bible pretend that this verse ( and Num.24: 8; Job 39: 9,10; Ps.29: 6, 92: 10) is referring to some mythical creature. A few think it might refer to a wild ox. They show their ignorance. They have never heard of the Rhinoceros Unicornis which is also known as the
Asian Rhinoceros. It has only one horn, hence its name. Simple isn’t it?

Deuteronomy 1:1,5
These be the words which Moses spake unto all Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness....

The NIV has "east of Jordan" instead of this side Jordan. Critics will argue that this is quite correct. It was on the east side of Jordan, in the wilderness, that Moses spoke to the children of Israel. Moses died there in the wilderness and the people then journeyed westward into the promised land.
The implication behind this change is that the authorship of Deuteronomy is challenged. If the words this side are correct then Deuteronomy was written in the wilderness prior to the occupation of Canaan, and could only have been written by Moses. By making this change the NIV is suggesting that though Moses spoke the words, they may not have been recorded until a much later date. The RV (an obsolete version) read "beyond Jordan", declaring thereby that Moses certainly did not write the book of Deuteronomy. Most other versions have something similar.
So is this side a true translation? Those turning to a concordance might feel that doubt remains because the Hebrew word is geh-ver which may be translated "the other side", "the side of", "beyond", "this side", etc. depending on the context. All translators therefore have to make a judgment as to which word to use.
There is no problem for the believer because Deuteronomy states that when Moses had made an end of WRITING the words of this law in a book, he commanded that the book be placed in the side of the Ark of the Covenant, (31:24). "This law" is the whole book of Deuteronomy, which Moses began to declare on this side Jordan (1:5).
The AV translators believed in the verbal inspiration of Scripture. They knew that Moses both spoke and wrote Deuteronomy in the wilderness, east of Jordan, which from his point of view was this side. To translate any other wise is mischievous, deceitful, an abuse of the word of God. It reveals a heart of blind unbelief and wilful opposition to the things of God. Such versions cannot be trusted and need to be rejected in their entirety. The strange thing is that modern versions do acknowledge Moses to be the writer ("so Moses wrote down this law and gave it to the priests" 31:9,NIV). Presumably they think he did it posthumously.

We hear one last cry from the unbeliever; "if Moses wrote the whole of Deuteronomy how is it we read o f his death and burial in the final chapter?" We patiently reply, "because God had told him all about it. Why don't you read the book?

Deuteronomy has been under attack very largely because of its prophetic character. Moses forewarned the children of Israel before they ever entered into the promised land that they would deny their God and therefore would be driven back out into captivity, scattered among the nations. (As they are today).But they would be restored to their land at the coming again of the Lord (30:1-5). Moses believed in the premillenial return of Christ. Those who do not believe Moses do not believe Christ. He said, Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me (John 5:46).
Challenging the authorship of books of the Bible is the work of Higher Criticism. Those who hold to the NIV show that they are tainted by both Higher and Lower (Textual) Criticism. The two cannot be divorced.

Judges 6:11,12
Gideon threshed wheat by the wine press, to hide it from the Midianites. And the angel of the Lord appeared unto him, and said unto him, The Lord is with thee, thou mighty man of valour.

Perversions of Scripture, from JND's New Translation (1878) onwards, and unbelieving commentaries (What the Bible teaches; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, edited by W S Stevely and D E West) would have Gideon threshing wheat IN the wine press, thus discrediting him and the angel of the Lord. There would have been nothing particularly valiant in this. It would have been physically impossible to THRESH wheat in a wine press, especially if he were using a stick, as some suggest. He might have trodden out a few grains for his own use but the reference to his valour tells us he was doing it for all Israel. No one else had sufficient courage to do what he was doing, for fear of the Midianites. So he would need space. The Midianites would be watching the threshing floors, so, it not being the time of the grape harvest, he threshed BY the wine press. The Midianites would not think to look there.

The scholars will tell us that the Hebrew preposition may be translated "in" as well as "by", but they merely follow that parody of Scripture, the Septuagint. The use of "in" here makes a mockery of the truth. Reliable translations read "by".

1 Samuel 13:21
Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

“The charge for sharpening was a pim for plowshares, mattocks, three-pronged forks, and axes, and for setting the goads”. Jewish Study Bible.

Prof. David Gooding wrote concerning this verse: " In 1 Sam.13:21 there occur the Hebrew letter [sic] pym. Now for centuries no one knew exactly what these letters meant in this context. The AV Translators did their best and came up with a translation of the verse, 'they had a file for the mattocks'. In comparatively recent times, however, as Alan Millard has reminded us in a very interesting article (Bulletin of the Anglo Israel Archeological Society, Vol.6, 1986-8, p.46), archeologists discovered a number of ancient weights inscribed in the early Hebrew script with the letters pym - just like years ago we used to see big brass weights in butchers' shops stamped with the letters 1lb, or 2lbs. From the weight of these ancient Hebrew weights it was easy to deduce that the letters pym inscribed on them meant 'two thirds of a shekel'.
In the light of this new information we can see that 1 Sam. 13:21 means, not 'they had a file for the mattocks', but' and a charge was a pym for the ploughshares'.... We should be grateful to God for the work of archeologists and scholars which enable us to obtain ever more exact and precise renderings of His infallible word". The Word; issue 34; p.4.
The professor has not done his homework. The AV Old Testament is based on the Masoretic text in which the word pym occurs nowhere. It is therefore not a Bible word. The Hebrew word found in 1 Sam.13:21 is p'tzee-rah, which our translators, being Hebrew scholars as yet unsurpassed, knew meant 'a file'. they gave a fuller meaning in the margin without any hint of a doubt attached to it.

It is likely that the Hebrew text was first mutilated by Origen when he produced his Septuagint version. Certainly the change is made there. this has been seized upon by modern Bible mutilators who cannot bear to think that God would faithfully preserve His word.
I have an exact and precise translation of God's infallible word. It is called 'The Holy Bible'. It is the Authorized Version. One blemish alone would make it unholy, but there are no flies in this precious ointment. I do not need ungodly and apostate men scrabbling in the dirt for MY bible to be ever updated. I am not an evolutionist!
The verse tells us that though no smith was to be found in the land (what a sad day that was!) yet they had a file which maybe they had hidden from the Philistines. Just as Saul and Jonathan had managed to hide their swords from the Philistines, v.22.

It is the height of folly to alter Scripture solely on the basis of some archeological discovery.

2 Kings 8:26
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chron.22:2
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother¡¦s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

The Bible critics love these verses as they seem (to them) to be a plain contradiction. They reason for this contradiction (they say) is that some careless scribe made the error, writing forty two instead of twenty two in 2 Chronicles.
This is very strange because most of the alterations in the manuscripts are made by scribes correcting earlier errors (so they tell us). But they missed this one. So one scribe got it wrong and for the next few millenia it was accepted as a known error that nobody knew how to deal with until the NIV came along and changed it without so much as a footnote to let you know that the word of God had been altered.
There was no possibility of a scribal error. Those who think so deny the verbal inspiration of Scripture. The suggestion of scribal error is made out of ignorance because the Jews and the Masoretes took a most exquisite care in copying the manuscripts. Any mistake would have been instantly noted and the whole page destroyed and rewritten. The same care was taken with the New Testament documents.
The believer accepts the word of God as it stands. He may not always understand it and may not always have a slick answer to explain away difficulties. But he does believe it. We do not have to have an “answer” in order to believe what we read on the holy page. We believe it and then wait for the Holy Spirit to teach us.
But the difficulty is not so great with these verses. Here is one very simple explanation. The Chronicler is obviously writing from a different viewpoint to that of the writer of the book of Kings.
In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah was anointed king at the age of twenty two but because of continuing conflict he was not able to occupy the throne until he was forty two. And then it was necessary for the inhabitants of Jerusalem to intervene. A reason for this is given by Bullinger in his Companion Bible:-
Forty and two years old = a son of forty-two years: i.e. of the house of Omri, on account of his connection with it through his mother (832-790=42). In 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah¡¦s actual age (twenty-two years) is given when he began to reign (790) during the two years of his father¡¦s disease. His father, Jehoram, was thirty-two when he began to reign with Jehoshaphat, two years before the latter’s death (2 Kings 8:16). This was in 796. Jehoram therefore was born in 828. Ahaziah, his son, being twenty-two when he began his co-regency, was therefore born in 812; his father being sixteen years old.

Some like to tell us that there were two Ahaziahs, uncle and nephew, and that sometimes close relatives are counted as having the same parentage.
It has also been pointed out that Ahaziah is sometimes referred to as Azariah and that 2 Chron.21:2 tells us of two Azariahs, both sons of Jehoshaphat. Bullinger¡¦s explanation seems the most likely. In any case we know that the Bible is true.

Nehemiah 4: 23
None of us put off our clothes saving that everyone put them off for washing.

JND “none of us put off our garments; everyone had his weapon on his right side.” (footnote: others [read]: “to the water”.)
NASB “….each took his weapon to the water”.
RV “everyone went with his weapon to the water.” (footnote: Some scholars emend the MT reading “the waters” to “in his right hand” or “they held on the right side”)
ESV “each kept his weapon at his right hand”
JERUSALEM BIBLE (Jewish) everyone brought his weapon with him, even to the water.”
NIV “…each had his weapon, even when he went for water”. (footnote: The meaning of the Hebrew for this clause is uncertain”.

There are a number of versions and translations that agree with the AV. Among them are the Bishops Bible, Geneva Bible, Newberry Bible, and also the Latin Vulgate and RC Bibles. The RV footnote gives the game away! It is not a matter of some Hebrew manuscripts having a different reading —The Massoretic Text (MT) is accepted here but the scholars don’t like it. Bear in mind that most of these scholars are unconverted men. The AV translators had little problem with the text and the way the AV reads makes perfect sense. The AV margin (Or, everyone went with his weapon for water) shows that the translators were aware of a possible alternative meaning but gave it less weight.
The alterations to the AV made by the critics demonstrates that they do not trust any Bible to be the inspired word of God.

Darby’s reading implies that everyone was left-handed. They would have to be to draw their weapon from their right side. Read Judges 3: 15,16, Ehud was a left-handed man and had his dagger on his right thigh. It was one cubit in length. It is not possible to draw such a weapon from the right side with the right hand; even less so a full length sword. This is enough to show up Darby’s ignorance. He made up his own reading.

Job 28:2
Iron is taken out of the earth and brass is molten out of the stone.

The opening verses of Job 28 are sometimes referred to as the mining passage. Verse two may imply a mining activity but the Hebrew does not actually say so. Therefore a false translation is made in modern translations to accommodate the idea. In v.4 "flood" (nah-ghal) is made to read "shaft" and the rest of the verse is mangled beyond recognition. But how do they arrive at "shaft"? GESENIUS says "probably a mine" without any evidence. We note that WILKINSON wrote, "Gesenius, a notorious liberal, specialised in hanging the theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals". (Our Bible Vindicated; p.104)
The NEB suggests in a footnote that the Hebrew is obscure, but the AV translators never thought so. The word is not uncommon in the OT and is translated consistently in relation to torrents of running water, (Ps.18:4, 74:15, etc.). So JND and a host of others perpetuate the error. Lest any should think there really is uncertainty in the meaning of the Hebrew word, let a company of modern orthodox Jews have the last word. In 1988, in Jerusalem, they published a bible based on the most accurate Masoretic text available (they say) in which the word nah-ghal is translated "watercourse". I have the book in front of me. It is a parallel Hebrew/English edition, known as the Jerusalem Bible. (Not the RC one by that name!).

Psalm 8: 4,5
What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour.

The ESV has “....yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings. A footnote then gives -or than God: Septuagint, than the angels.
In this case the Septuagint has a correct translation and the ESV has a false humanisitic translation. This is born out by the reading in Hebrews 2: 6,7 where the Greek word aggelos which can only be translated “angels”. The ESV has “angels” here with no footnote so plainly they did not need one in Psalm 8.

Psalm 16:10
For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell.

This verse is quoted by Peter in Acts 2:27 where the Greek word hades is translated "hell". Thus we see that the OT sheol is equivalent to the NT hades meaning hell. But hell is an unpopular word among the critics so it must be removed. We are assured by these critics that any changes are made for clarity or accuracy. One Bible critic, Mr Vine, would rather have the word hades put into our English NT instead of hell. So we ask him what does the word hades mean? But he confesses that he does not know. I quote from his dictionary, "It has been thought by some that the word etymologically meant the unseen (from a negative, and eido to see), but this derivation is questionable; [by whom?] a more probable derivation is from hado, signifying all-receiving". His words "more probable" means that he hadn't got a clue and his guess is no better than anyone else's.

This interpretation allows for the two-compartment hell popularized by Schofield. That is, everybody went to hell in OT times, the good to the Paradise side and the bad to the burning side. When Christ rose He took Paradise with Him. But this is mere conjecture. There is no verse that says any such thing.
That hell (sheol) was not all embracing can be seen from Ps.9:17.The wicked shall be turned into hell. If all go to hell anyway, why do the wicked need to be spoken of? Or else why does not Scripture specify "the wicked shall be turned into hell-badside"? David never expected to go DOWN into sheol (See Bible margin; grave=hell).Ps.49:14. That was for the wicked. He expected to go UP to heaven, Ps.55:15. Amos assures us that heaven is up and hell is down. Amos 9:2. That is how it has always been. That is how it still is. No saint ever went down into hell. Some suggest that Jacob thought he might end up there in hell, but no Scripture says that he ever did.

So does "Hades" clarify the reading? It is only the anglicised form of the Greek word that does not help us at all. The scholars put it in because they don't know what it means! But they do know what hell means, and that may be why they fear the word and leave it out.
The Greek word gehenna is also translated "hell" in the AV, e.g. Mt.5:29 The whole body shall be cast into hell. Comparing Scripture with Scripture we note that the body is not cast into the hades/hell. It is the soul which goes down into that hell. Gehenna relates to the Lake of Fire into which hades/hell will eventually be cast, Rev.20:14. There death and hell give up their prey, the body from the grave and the soul from hell to be reunited in the Lake of Fire at the end of time. This is the dreadful fate of those who die in unbelief. I have no difficulty over one English word being used to translate two different Greek words. The fire of hell is for ever. Just use your concordance and look up all the references and the meanings become clear. There is no need to tamper with the translation.

Psalm 45: 13
The king’s daughter is all glorious within

The royal daughter is all glorious within the palace. NKJV
In her chamber, the royal daughter is all glorious. HCSB (Holman Christian Standard Bible)
All glorious is the princess in her chamber. ESV.

NKJV and HCSB have their additions to the text in italics, which is an admission that the added words, “palace” and “chamber” have no Hebrew manuscript authority. Kittel gives two mss, Cod. Alexandrinus and Cod. Vaticanus. which have variant readings, but these two are Greek translations and he thinks v.13 is possibly corrupted. In any case he thinks vv 12 to 16 are an interpolation. Most modern versions carry similar additions to the text as the above three.

What the Bible mutilators don’t want you to think is that the king’s daughter has an inward purity. Very grievously, the commentaries (William McDonald and others take their wisdom from the perverted versions. This is the benefit of modern scholarship. Jim Flanigan tells us ‘this “within” is disputed. (What the Bible Teaches; Psalms; J. Ritchie.)
Flanigan doesn’t believe the Book on which he bases his commentary.

Psalm 58:1
Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?

A commentator tells us,

It is universally agreed that the opening words of the Psalm are obscure. The word which by the AV is rendered “congregation” (482) is the word elem, and is found elsewhere only once, in the title of Psalm 56, “Jonath-elem-rechokim”. .Apart from those who argue a textual corruption it is agreed by all others that the word is elem and means “silence”. JN Darby will therefore translate, “Is righteousness indeed silent?” -What the Bible Teaches-Psalms.

The obscurity of the verse is not universally agreed of course. Men will make such assertions in order to promote their own rationalistic views and to ape the apostate scholars. Bible believers see no obscurity and accept the verse as it stands. The AV translators saw no obscurity for they made no account of it in the margin.
Darby is compelled to ignore the verb to speak which is also plainly in the Hebrew reading. Otherwise we get the gobble-de-gook version “Do ye indeed speak righteousness in silence?”
This congregation did not speak righteousness. They did not judge uprightly. These conditions repeat themselves in our day.
The preface to this commentary assures the reader,

The authors of these volumes are not scholars of the original languages and rely for guidance on the best modern views [my italics] of word meanings and similar matters. all it However all the authors share the conviction that the Bible in its entirety is the word of God. They believe it to be reliable, accurate and intended “for our learning”.

If it is the conviction of these men that the Bible in its entirety is the Word of God,(they do not call it Scripture) then it is mischief of a high order for them to question it and alter it as they repeatedly do. But in this day of double talk, when they say ”Bible” they don’t mean what I understand by the word Bible. Their bible is a nebulous thing, not confined to a single version or translation. They do not believe that the word of God in its entirety is to be found between the covers of one single Book. This is the view held and taught not only among the liberal but also by those once regarded as conservative fundamentalist brethren. By their own confession they are Modernists.

So how is "Congregation¨ to be justified as the correct interpretation of elem? It is justified by its presence in the English Bible. The believer does not call into doubt the words that he finds on the holy page of Scripture. Let our modernist friends attempt to justify their alteration. They tell us they rely on “modern views”.
They turn to H F W Gesenius (1786-1842), a noted German rationalistic theologian. His lexicon was translated into English by S P Tregelles who spent some time among the Exclusive Brethren.
Gesenius wrote of elem,

[elem] m. silence. [“It may be worth inquiry whether [elem] should not be dropped, having sprung perhaps from a careless repetition of nma¡”. This conjecture is wholly needless.]

In this Gesenius showed his contempt for the verbal inspiration of Scripture. His words are those between the speech marks. He is described by B Wilkinson as “Gesenius a notorious liberal, [who] specialised in changing the theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals”. Our Authorized Bible Vindicated p104.

Psalm 84:3
Yea, the sparrow hath found an house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she may lay her young, even thine altars, O LORD of hosts, my King and my God.

Mr H. Paisley, (brother of Ian who does believe the Bible to be the inspired word of God), tells us, "It seems evident that a sparrow or swallow could not build a nest in the altars, or their vicinity. The two altars, the copper altar of the burnt offering and the golden altar of incense, were things most holy unto the Lord. The reading of the text in the AV and RV would infer the possibility, but the law of the altar prohibits such an action of birds building nests in or around the altars. The passage should be read:' My soul longeth, yea even fainteth for the courts of the Lord, My heart and flesh crieth out for the Living God' (v.2). A parenthesis follows (yea the sparrow hath found a house, and the swallow a nest for herself, where she might lay her young) Even thine altars, O lord of hosts. The last clause of verse 3 is a continuation of verse 2.

Mr Modern Man knows better than the Psalmist. There is no parenthesis in any version that I know of and I looked at several. Paisley doesn't cite one. He doesn't tell us what this anti-bird law is either. Men who do not understand the Scriptures frequently seek to mutilate it to fit their own whim and fancy.
The Psalmist, probably David in exile, longed to enjoy what the sparrows and the swallows freely enjoyed. I believe my Bible. I don't need anybody to tell me what must be read into it. I accept the page of Scripture as it stands.

Psalms 120-134
A song of Degrees. (Ps.122, 124, 131, 133, A song of degrees of David; Ps.127 A Song of degrees for Solomon).

Some modern versions read “A Song of Ascents”. But some of our brethren , wishing to appear erudite and thereby displaying their ignorance, change it to “A Song of THE Degrees”. They point out that the Hebrew definite article is present. (Ask them to show it to you in a Hebrew Bible. That will flummox them! ) Certainly the definite article is present but if they think that the AV translators were not aware of this then they must think the Bible was translated by imbeciles. Those AV translators were master linguists. And don’t swallow the modernistic lie that not much Hebrew or Greek was known in those days.
Just ask our critics to explain to you the use of the generic definite article in the Masoretic text. Our translators understood the usage and that’s why it was omitted in the English translation.
The critic next has to look for an interpretation. His theory is if he doesn’t understand a word or sentence or passage in the Bible then the Bible is wrong and must be altered to fit his own views. You will come across this theory whenever you insist that a particular AV word is correctly translated. The response from the critic will be to ask you what it means. They don’t know. The Bible is right or wrong according to the critic’s understanding. The believer accepts the word of Scripture whether he understands it or not. He waits on the Spirit of God to reveal the meaning to him. He approaches the Scriptures in faith.
So the critic gives us a fanciful interpretation for his “song of THE degrees. “The only ‘degrees’ of which we read in the Bible are ‘the degrees’ on the sundial of Ahaz, by which the sun went backward in the says of his son Hezekiah....Scripture knows of no other steps or ‘degrees’ that can be connected with the shadow of the sun”, says one commentator, quoting a Dr Thirtle. This really is convoluted thinking. Where in Scripture do we read that the Psalmic ‘degrees’ have to be connected thus?
In fact the statement that the only degrees mentioned in Scripture are those pertaining to the sundial of Ahaz is false.
We find the same word for degrees (mah-ġălāh’) used over forty times in the Old testament. It is translated “steps”, “stairs”, “to go up”, “things that come into”, “stories”, and “degrees”.
Ahaz’s sundial saw the shadow move TEN degrees. But there are fifteen degree psalms. Well, never mind, Hezekiah lived another fifteen years so there is the connection, say the Bible mockers.
So what about the SIX steps of 1 Ki.10: 19; the SEVEN steps of Ezek. 40: 22; the EIGHT steps of Ezek. 40: 31? Should there not be six, seven, and eight songs of THE degrees?
We do not believe Hezekiah had anything to do with Psalms 120-134. They are not HIS songs as another false teacher tried to tell us. They were probably all David’s, written about 250 years before Hezekiah came along. Neither do these fifteen psalms relate to the fifteen steps of the temple. This is an old wives’ fable. Nobody knows how many steps there were.
For an explanation of the term “A song of degrees” think about the final reference, Amos 9: 6, It is he that buildeth his stories (as in the stories of a house – RS) in the heaven. these psalms are heavenly spheres, lifting one ever higher.

Psalm 133; 1
Behold, how good and how pleasant for brethren to dwell together in unity!

“How wonderful it is, how pleasant, for God’s people to live together in harmony.” (Amity bible – NRSV?)

The ungodly masses of humanity like to refer to themselves as “God’s people”. But this living together in harmony hasn’t existed since Cain slew his brother. However, brethren (the term implying all of ONE family) are able to DWELL TOGETHER (implying or more settled state than mere living) in UNITY (implying a far higher standard than mere harmony.)
Amity’s abuse of Scripture carries political undertones.

Ecclesiastes 3:11
He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

The NIV has “He has also set eternity in the hearts of men.” This is a misleading translation of the Hebrew word goh-lahm” (Strong’s 5769). It presents entirely the wrong meaning of verse.
The word has to do with time and not eternity. Certainly the word is frequently translated in the AV Bible as “everlasting” or “for ever” but it is in relation to time and tells of time past (Deut.32:7, Josh.24:2 etc.) as well as time future (Isa. 45:17, where we read of world (goh-lahm) without end).. B Currie writes,

The first use in the Old Testament gives a clue as to how [gio-lahm] should be understood: “and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” (Gen. 3; 22) — What the Bible Teaches; Ecclesiastes; p.431.

We understand indeed! For Adam, TIME would have no end! The verse does not imply Adam would gain eternal life through knowledge. Currie has missed the point.

There is a time limitation in the word so that the everlasting statute of Lev. 16:34 is not applicable today. The servant for ever is servant no more (Deut.15:17). There is a time factor on the whole of Ecc.3:11; it is in his time!
It is a long time, (Isa. 42:14), so that the puny mind of man cannot take it all in. It is a temporal world, from the beginning of time to its end in which men cannot find out the work of God. The last clause of the verse spells this out this long time to us - from the beginning to the end.
Proud men do not like to be told that there are earthly things set in their heart that they cannot find out so they perversely alter the meaning of Scripture.

Eternity is not set in the heart of men, though they fear it and deny it.

Isaiah 3: 3, 4
He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not....yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...

According to the Revised English Bible this reads, “He was despised, shunned by all, pain-racked and afflicted by disease...while we thought of him as smitten by God, struck down by disease and misery.”

This is one of the most highly blasphemous perversions of Scripture I have come across. The REB is teaching that Christ was riddled with disease and men though he deserved it. But they came to realise he was struck down with disease for their sakes. One must have a diseased mind to put this construction on this passage.
When we learn that the REB was planned by representatives of Baptist Union, Methodist Church, Society of Friends, Roman Catholic Church, Salvation Army, United Reformed Church , Bible Society, and a few other similar organizations, we are not surprised at the outcome.

The use of the word grief in Jer. 6: 7, and Jer. 10: 19 demonstrate the reasonableness of the AV translation in Isaiah 3:3,4. All the words are in plain non-archaic English, easy to be understood.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

A comment on this verse, found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, for October 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word “virgin” is clearly understood by all to mean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication is that almah is a vague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English “virgin”. almah occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that a young woman capable of bearing children conceived, all would reply, “some sign!”.
The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his son Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. (2:40). Luke speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.

Truth and Tidings tells us the sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz. It was not.Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of David. (v.11) . To Ahaz he says, Ask THEE a sign. Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to Ahaz would be the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiah’s wife, and not a virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of David; The Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to Thou (Singular) with a prophecy in relation to Ahaz.
It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those who regard themselves as the fount of all truth.

Isaiah 9:3
Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.

Regarding Isaiah 9:3, the Masoretic Text has the word "not" (the Heb. letters lamed aleph.) Therefore the AV is accurately translated here„oas everywhere. The exquisite care taken by the Masoretes in copying manuscripts is well known and there are no grounds whatsoever for altering the Hebrew Text. The AV translators were obviously puzzled by this. (They had no difficulty translating it) so they put in a marginal note: "or to Him." but they kept "not" in the reading. The AV stands entirely alone in this. No commentator attempts to explain the AV reading. All without exception ignore it.
The verse tells us that joy was not increased. It doesn't say that joy was not given, only that in this prophecy the existing joy was not increased. We must simply read the verse as it stands.
This is a significant case where the critics have altered the original Scripture in the modern versions on the ground that it doesn’t make sense to them. There are no alternative Hebrew readings that I know of.

Isaiah 9: 6
....and his name shall be called,.... The everlasting (Heb.= Ad) Father,....

“....Father of Eternity...” JND
“....Eternal Father....” GNB
“....Eternal Father....” ESV
“....the Father of the world to come....” DRB (Douay-Rheims bible)

J M Flanigan writes,
In the translation by J N Darby this appellate [sic] of Messiah is rendered “The Father of Eternity.” Others will suggest “The Father of the Ages” which is substantially the same. It is a declaration of the sovereignty of Messiah over all the cycles of time....
— Assembly Testimony, No.337; September/October 2008.

We are aware that ‘ad may be translated “eternity”, seeing that it is translated thus in Isa 57: 15. We note also the word is often translated “for ever and ever”. In Isa. 9: 6 the word is an adjective and is an attribute of the Son of God. In His Fatherhood He is everlasting He never ceases from being the everlasting Father.
But Flanigan wishes to prove that aion as in by whom he made the worlds (Heb. 1: 2) means “by whom he made the ages” He writes, “The word ‘worlds’ there is in fact [my italics] the word ‘ages’. He claims that Thayer shows this to be the basic meaning. He doesn’t explain that the Spirit of God is not compelled to use “basic” meanings. He does not tell his readers that Thayer (a Christ denying Unitarian, by the way) defines aion as also meaning “the worlds, the universe, i.e the aggregate of things contained in time. “
What Flanigan is leading to is the final statement of his article,

There will then be an eternal Sabbath, which is reckoned by many to be the eighth of the cycles of time. All these are ordered for His glory who is the Father of the Ages

The first seven ages being the seven great dispensations. If there is to be “time” in heaven we shall need clocks to measure it! And what when this eighth cycle ends?

Let J Riddle have the final word;

“The everlasting Father” Whilst this is often quoted as “the Father of eternity” (following JND) the AV rendering appears to convey the meaning more accurately. ....the title states that God’s people will never lack the divine love and care of a true father.
—What the Bible Teaches; Isaiah p.171

Isaiah 14: 12, 15
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! ... Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell.

Floyd Nolen Jones wrote the following concerning these verses. I quote them here to give an answer to the false notion given by D Oliver in Truth and Tidings, August 2006, that Lucifer may be referred to as “the Old Testament’s Morning Star”.
(We see how the blind acceptance of modern versions demonstrated repeatedly in the above mentioned magazine leads to blasphemous doctrines.)

However, the New International Version pens:

How you have fallen from heaven O morning star, son of the dawn ... but you are brought down to the grave.

Indeed, the New American Standard and all the modern versions read almost exactly like the NIV (except the NKJV). Yet historically Isaiah 14 has been cited throughout the Church as the singular biography and identification of Lucifer

[G.A. Riplinger, New Age Bible Versions, (Munroe Falls, OH: A.V. Publications, 1993), pp. 40-55]. In verse twelve of the King James, Lucifer is in heaven; in verse fifteen Satan is in hell, and the continuing context establishes that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same being. The new versions have removed the name "Lucifer" thereby eliminating the only reference to his true identity in the entire Bible – yet the change in these versions is not the result of translation from the Hebrew language.
The Hebrew here is helel, ben shachar which translates "Lucifer, son of the morning" (as is found in all the old English translations written before 1611 when the KJB was published). The NIV, NASB et al. read as though the
Hebrew was kokab shachar, ben shachar or "morning star, son of the dawn" (or "son of the morning"). But not only is the Hebrew word for star -kokab nowhere to be found in the text, "morning" appears only once as given in the KJB . [the ESV also reads, “how are you fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn!” – Ed.]

– not twice as the modern versions indicate. Moreover, the word kokab is translated as "star" dozens of other times by the translators of these new "bibles". Their editors also know that kokab boqer is "morning star" for it appears in plural form in Job 38:7 (i.e., morning stars). Had the Lord intended "morning star" in Isaiah 14, He could have eliminated any confusion by repeating kokab boqer there. God's selection of helel (lleyh, Hebrew for Lucifer) is unique as it appears nowhere else in the Old Testament.

Moreover, Revelation 22:16 (also 2:28 and II Pet.1:19) declares unequivocally that Jesus Christ is the "morning star" or "day star" (II Pet. 1:19, cp. Luk. 1:78; Mal. 4:2), meaning the sun – not the planet Venus.

I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

Thus it must be understood that the identification of Lucifer as being the morning star does not find its roots in the Hebrew O.T., but from classical mythology and witchcraft where he is connected with the planet Venus (the morning "star").

The wording in the modern versions reads such that it appears the fall recorded in Isaiah 14 is speaking of Jesus rather than Lucifer the Devil! The rendering of "morning star" in place of "Lucifer" in this passage must be seen by the Church as nothing less than the ultimate blasphemy. The NASV compounds its role as malefactor by placing II Peter 1:19 in the reference next to Isaiah 14 thereby solidifying the impression that the passage refers to Christ Jesus rather than Satan. But Lucifer (helel, lleyh) does not mean "morning star". It is Latin (from lux or lucis = light, plus fero = to bring) meaning "bright one", "light bearer" or "light bringer". Due to the brightness of the planet Venus, from ancient times the word "Lucifer" (helel, lleyh) has been associated in secular and/or pagan works with that heavenly body.

Among the modern versions, only the King James (and NKJV) gives proof that Lucifer is Satan. Without its testimony this central vital truth would soon be lost. This fact alone sets the King James Bible apart from and far above all modern would-be rivals. Truly, it is an achievement sui generis. Indeed, the older English versions (the 1560 Geneva etc.) also read "Lucifer".

The clarion has been faithfully and clearly sounded (I Cor.14:8). If the reader is not greatly alarmed by the above, it is pointless for him to continue reading. However, if concern has been aroused as to how this deception has been foisted not only upon the Christian Church, but on the general public as well – read on. The story lies before you.”

─ Which Version is the Bible; Floyd Nolen Jones; p.vii, 17th Ed. 1999

Isaiah 17: 12
Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the roaring of the seas;

The NIV does away with woe so we read, “Oh, the raging of many nations,
They rage like the raging of the sea.” The NRSV has “Ah [which makes it an expression of admiration], the thunder of many peoples!¨ . JND doesn’t like woe either so he has “Ha! A tumult of many peoples!” Ha can be an expression of joy.
We do know that the AV translates the Hebrew word hoh-¦ee as “ah” in seven places. This is why it is vital to consider the context.
But now we find much worse; the AV itself is tampered with. A friend tells me she has acquired a Cambridge AV Bible with this woe” printed in capitals. My facsimile 1611AD does not have capitals and I cannot find the word capitalised in any other edition. It is the practice for the first word in each chapter to be capitalised and as a new paragraph begins at 17: 12 this may be the reason for capitals here. However, new paragraphs are indicated by the symbol and capitals are not needed.

Isaiah 38: 8
Behold, I will bring again the shadow of the degrees, which is gone down in the sun dial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward. So the sun returned ten degrees, by which degrees it was gone down.

Most modern versions and parodies of Scripture read similar to the GNB ─ “On the stairway built by King Ahaz, the LORD will make the shadow go back ten steps. And the shadow moved back ten steps.”
The Hebrew word translated ‘degrees’ is ma’alah (Str.4609). I could find no manuscript variants. Modern versions accept this word but translate it ‘steps’. The word ‘dial’ is also ma’alah which word is found translated ‘steps’ in Ex.20: 26, Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar.
The modern translators therefore jump to the conclusion that Ahaz’s sun dial was a succession of steps on which the length of the shadow would indicate the hour. Actually a post knocked into flat ground would have served the same purpose. The length of the shadow would be measured more effectively.
But the modern men are making gobble-de-gook of the Scripture. These mighty steps would need to be swung through 180o at midday, otherwise there would be no shadow at all for the rest of the day.
Persisting in this nonsense some tell us that David’s songs of degrees (Psalms 120-134) were composed on these steps. David lived more than 200 years before Ahaz.
The AV translators were well aware that ma’alah has a variety of meanings. Here is a third; 1 Chron. 17: 17, a man of high degree.
The Egyptians had invented a sun dial long before the days of Ahaz. Perhaps his sun dial was based on theirs. It was ‘T’ shaped with a raised cross bar causing a shadow to fall on the stem. This instrument lay flat on the ground and was rotated through 180o at midday. (See sundial: Enc. Brit.)
Textual critics are proven deceivers. Beware.

Isaiah 53: 5
….and with his stripes we are healed.

Isaiah 52: 15
So shall he sprinkle many nations; the kings shall shut their mouths at him.

“...so now he will startle many nations”. CJB (Complete Jewish Bible).
One must not think that being Jewish, these translators better understand the language.
Rather, they have accepted the variant in Kittel’s footnote to this verse, in his Biblia Hebraica;( my ed. 1909.)
The variant is thaumasontai from the Greek Septuagint and means “startle”. There are no other variants. This is an interpretation and is not a translation of the Hebrew word nazah meaning “sprinkle”.
nazah is consistently translated sprinkle in the OT. (24 times) and can apply to blood, water, , and oil, in a good or bad sense. Note the first reference; Ex. 29: 21 and thou shalt take of the blood that is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and sprinkle it upon Aaron...

The Septuagint is an extremely defective document. There is no evidence it existed before the first century AD or that currently there is a definitive version of it.
The alteration in this verse is designed to deny the Messiahship of Christ.
Some of us remember how Hitler startled the nations, causing them to wonder with great astonishment.

Wilson tells us concerning this word,

The uniform use of the word [nazah] in the sense of sprinkling with blood, in order to purify, establishes a most important application of this passage to the virtue of the Messiah’s atonement. — Old Testament Word Studies

William Macdonald, in his Believer’s Bible Commentary gives,

But when He comes again men will be startled (NKJV marg.)

In many places Macdonald takes the line of rationalism. His commentary is best avoided. The Bible Knowledge Commentary by John Walwoord is much more reliable. It is available online to those using E-sword.

(1 Peter 2: 24
….by whose stripes ye were healed.)

Peter makes it plain that the prophetic words of Isaiah 53: 5 have been fulfilled in the death of Christ upon the cross. The Hebrew word chabburah translated “stripes” in Isaiah is singular as also is the Greek word molopes translated “stripes” in 1 Peter. Some critics make a great play of this, suggesting that the AV translators were confused. But they had Wycliffe who in 1 Peter reads “bi whos wane wounde ye bin heelid”. They were also fluent in Hebrew and Greek. Wycliffe had only Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to go by but not even the Rheims has the singular. Tyndale, Cranmer and the Geneva all translate in the plural, as do most modern versions
including the NASB and Darby.

Dave Hunt, in his November ’04 Newletter makes a great play of this alleged error in the KJV pointing out that the MacArthur Study Bible shows the word to be singular and a number of eminent scholars wrote in to confirm this. We’ll just say here that Tyndale knew it as well.

Our modern men think their theology is upset by the plural form. They argue that we cannot be healed by the stripes that men laid on the Saviour; rather, our God laid one stripe upon Him which has brought our healing. But men nailed Him to the cross and the Scriptures speak much of the cross. Men put Him to death but He said, concerning His life, no man taketh it from me. I lay it
down of my self. Of course our salvation lies in what Christ did for us. It could not depend on the actions of wicked men. All that He endured was according to God’s predeterminate will and counsel.

Our translators knew what they were doing and were also masters of the English language. By His stripe we are healed simply would not make sense.

Isaiah 45: 7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.

Some of our brethren take exception at the thought of God creating evil. They reject the plain statement of Scripture because they do not understand it.
Evil, in this verse, is the English translation of rag. It is used first in Gen. 2: 9, And out of the ground made the LORD to grow....the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Its fruit was forbidden, but God created it!
Jacob, concerning Joseph, thought an evil beast hath devoured him. Gen. 37: 33. He would not have doubted that God had created this evil beast.
Jonah 3: 10 reads God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do unto them.
Micah 1: 12 tells us, evil came down from the LORD unto the gate of Jerusalem.

No doubt there are many more verses that the critic regards as offensive. They do not understand the Scriptures and they do not understand the nature of God.

God cannot sin and rag does not imply the presence of sin. It may simply be adversity, or rottenness ─ the evil figs of Jer. 24: 8 were not sinful we presume. Evil is everything which is not good, beneficial, wholesome. God in His permissive will allows a lot of this.

If our brethren would only read a little more of the Bible and not wrench verses out of context they would save themselves a lot of embarrassment.

Jeremiah 17:15
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked, who can know it?

The critics winced when they came across this verse, so they (Westcott & Hort) changed it in the RV to 'the heart is desperately sick'. turning the man into “an object of a weak compassion where the old translators made him guilty, an object of wrath” (G. Bishop; The Doctrines of Grace).
JND changes it to “....and incurable". which again is a false translation. It is not what the text says. The NIV gives “beyond cure”. None of these critics regarded their hearts as desperately wicked, which is why we do not red anywhere in their biographies of a conversion taking place.
The Hehrew word translated “desperately wicked” in the AV Bible is ah-nash. It is translated as 'incurable' in the AV Bible at Job 34:6, Jer. 15: 8, 30:12,15 and Micah 1: 9. It is 'verv sick' in 2 Sam.l2:15.
Critics will rush to tell us that the AV Bible therefore contradicts itself'. We point out that the AV translators clearly had a grasp of the various shades of ' meaning in the word ah-nash'. Physically it relates to disease; spiritually it relates to morality. Deceit is immoral and cannot he associated with sickness. Thus the deceitful heart is rightly described as desperately wicked.

The psalmist wrote, How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea sweeter than honey to my mouth! Through thy precepts I get understanding: Therefore I hate every false way. Ps. 119:103, 104..
Precepts are comprised of' words, of course. The psalmist loved the very words of God. They were sweeter than honey, so the precepts were not irksome to him. It was a joy and nourishment to his soul to keep them. They caused him to hate every false way.
It is not so with the revisionists. The NIV has, 'How sweet are your promises to my taste.... I hate every wrong path.' Promises are always for the future. Once fulfilled they is no longer a promises. So the NIV's psalmist doesn't hate every false way - just the wrong paths. That which is false is deceptive, counterfeit, treacherous.
The wrong path may be no more than inconvenient at the time. Modern versionism is a false way.

Jeremiah 23:30
Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, saith the Lord, that steal my words every one from his neighbour.

The neighbour in this context was the ordinary man who should have been taught the word of God by the prophet. The neighbours therefore were the common people, but they were happy with what their prophets and priests were giving them. So, in Jer.8:8,9 we read, the pen of the scribes in vain. The wise men are ashamed, they are dismayed and taken: lo, they have rejected the word of the Lord.
The result of this infidelity brought disaster to Israel. National life was destroyed and the people went into captivity.
History repeats itself„-because men will not learn„- and again there are religious leaders, self-styled bible teachers who fawn after the prophet-scholars of our day. The result must be the same„-a professing, but apostate, Christendom, disowned of the God of Heaven.
The critics and modern versionists steal God’s words. They tell the people that words, phrases, sentences, whole verses and passages ought not to be in the Bible. Their own words they will insert. Their efforts do not produce increased godliness and faith. What we see among those who ¡§prefer¡¨ the NKJV or the NIV is ungodliness, worldliness, and immorality. The judgment of God is against such.
What will the NIV make of Jeremiah’s words? Therefore, declares the Lord, “I am against the prophets who steal from one another words supposedly from me”.
The word supposedly does not occur in Scripture. The NIV is not giving what they like to call Dynamic Equivalence.The meaning itself is changed to what the NIV thinks Jeremiah meant to say. What they were stealing, says the NIV, may not have come from God at all, there is some doubt in it. So they reject the preceding verse, Is not my word like as a fire? Saith the Lord; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?
The NIV verse regards this as no more than infighting among the prophet fraternity, stealing from one another. Perhaps the NIV thinks it is no more than plagiarism . The prophets were doing what the NIV does, i.e. giving false words to the people and passing it off as the word of God.

Jeremiah 31: 22
How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Modern Versions deny the teaching of the Virgin Birth.
Compass (saw-bab’) commonly means to surround, as the men of Sodom, compassed the house round. Gen. 19: 4
A woman in pregnancy compasses the child. The changes in modern versions listed below (which is far from being an exhaustive list) show a conscious wilful attack on the virgin birth of Christ, because no man is involved in this creatorial act. It is a new creation on the Lord’s part.

“.... A transformed woman will embrace the transforming God.” The Message (MSG)
“....A woman will protect a man” God’s Word. Is this a new thing?? It is certainly not God’s word.
“....A woman turned into a man” REB
“....A woman with the strengths of a man.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

The NIV has “A woman will surround a man” and then uses a footnote to deny the Virgin Birth teaching in the verse; “or, will go about seeking, or, will protect”

William MacDonald in his Believer’s Bible Commentary, which is based on the NKJV denies there is any reference here to the virgin birth. He claims “The woman here is Israel and the man is Jehovah... the prediction is that the virgin of Israel will cease to go ‘hither and thither after idols’ and will seek and cleave to Immanuel.”
Those who read the prophecy of Jeremiah may note that about 40 times the nation is urged to return. RETURN, RETURN, RETURN. But this is to be a NEW creation so how can they return to a relationship that never before existed? Had Israel NEVER enjoyed a close relationship with God?
If God can reverse the backslidings of a nation through a creatorial act why has He not already done so? What love is this?

He goes on to quote Kelly (but does not identify which Kelly. J N D Kelly, William Kelly?) “a devout scholar of undoubted orthodoxy, explains why a popular interpretation is not valid...compassing a man has no reference whatever to the birth of a child.” Q E D??
So what about “In Jer.31: 22, ’A woman shall compass a man’ is a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah from a virgin”—Wilson’s Old Testament word Studies. Kregel.
The man here is gheh-ber’meaning a warrior or valiant man. The word is not used in relation to deity. But when we come to Isaiah 9: 6 which is an unequivocal reference to the virgin birth of Christ, we find another word used from the same root as gheber-ber’. It is unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.... The mighty( ghib-bore’) God.
Now we shall add our QED.

Daniel 3:25
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Nebuchadnezar knew what he was saying. He said (v28), Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him.
Nebuchadnezer was not some untutored clod. He knew the history of the Jewish people and he knew the Angel of the Lord, referred to in v28, to be the Son of God. He did not say in v25, ¡¥the fourth is the Son of God¡¦ but he was saying that the fourth person in that fiery furnace had the appearance of One who could not possibly be any other than the Son of God. Believers today have no doubt either that it was the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who stood with the three in their hour of need. We believe the manifestation of the Son of God was for Nebuchadnezzar¡¦s benefit as well as for the three.
J N Darby had different views. He translated the phrase as, the appearance of the fourth is like a son of God. He gives a footnote to this verse, which reads. “Or “of the gods” Elah, Aramaic, in the plural, corresponding to the Hebrew Elohim.” ( in which case Genesis 1:1 might well be in the beginning some gods (elohim) created the heavens and the earth). Darby grievously aligned himself with the Russellite (JW) perversion which reads the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods.
The NIV reads, the fourth looks like a son of the gods, together with many other modern versions. This is not what Nebuchadnezer said and it is not what Scripture says.
Daniel used the Chaldee word Elah 48 times, sometimes to indicate other gods but mostly with reference to his God. The meaning in v25 is made crystal clear by the context.
If the critics argue about the inclusion of the definite article„o the Son of God„o when one is not present in the original, they align themselves with the Russellites who in John 1:1 have the Word was a god which is a key statement in the JW heresy.

Amos 3: 3
Can two walk together except they be agreed?

“Do two walk together unless they have made an appointment?” NRSV

Some modern versions add “...to meet with each other” or similar words. The first mention of “together”, yakh’-ad is in Gen. 13: 6, the land was not able to bear them that they might dwell together. The meaning is being with each other, and not moving towards each other as modern versions teach. This latter produces a false idea that distance (from God, or my brother) does not matter as long as the intention is to meet up on some common ground. It is based on Strong’s definition that the word carries an implication to meet.
Rather, if there is to be continuing unity there has to be agreement on the course. If there is disagreement on fundamentals there can be no united testimony.
In Amos the two are God and Israel. Israel should have been in communion with her God but she was in disagreement because of her iniquities and so the walk together was disrupted.

Zech.5:6
This is their resemblance through all the earth.

The reliability of the OT Scriptures has never been seriously challenged until recent times. The exquisite care of the Jews in transmitting the text from generation to generation was too well manifested for any attempt to falsify it in any part. The English translation in the AV Bible is acknowledged to be a 100% accurate translation of that text. It is a serious error therefore to think that the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures commonly known as the Septuagint is superior. Even liberal scholars are ready to admit that the Septuagint is a very defective translation. Yet we hear brethren quoting from it against the AV.
We have an example in this verse. "Resemblance" is a translation of the Hebrew word gah-yin which is more commonly translated "eyes", or "in the sight of". Orthodox Jews accept the AV translation. A modern Jewish bible puts it "their appearance". When the Septuagint changes it to "this is their iniquity" it has first of all to change the Hebrew word to gah-vohn without any authority. There is no ms. in existence with that reading. Darby notes this alternative but relegates it to a footnote without changing the text. The NIV has "iniquity" in the text, and “appearance" in a footnote. It is the NRSV-Catholic Edition which reads "this is their iniquity in all the land" and that is exactly how it was quoted by one of our leading Bible-teachers recently.
If public men think that their intellect is superior to the Scripture, so that they may change words to suit their own interpretations, then the great apostasy is well and truly upon us. Read the passage as we have it in the AV and ask what is being resembled by what? Then note a fourfold "this is" and the explanation is right before us. This is an ephah; this is a woman that sitteth in the midst of the ephah; this is their resemblance; this is wickedness. It is wickedness personified.

Zechariah 9: 16, 17
And the Lord their God shall save them in that day as the flock of his people: for they shall be as the stones of a crown, lifted up as an ensign upon his land. For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! corn shall make the young men cheerful, and new wine the maids.

The words in v.17, in the AV reading above, For how great is his goodness, and how great is his beauty! are altered in modern versions as shown below, robbing Christ of His goodness and great beauty.

“How very beautiful they will be” NIrV.
“Then how they’ll shine, shimmer, glow!” The Message
“How lovely they will be” CEV (Contemporary English Version)
“For what comeliness and beauty will be theirs” NASB (The ASV was nearer to the AV)
“How great is their goodness and how great their beauty”. NKJV

AV Verses Vindicated.Matt. to Acts

2010-06-12T02:30:00.003-07:00

AV Verses Vindicated (Collated from Waymarks 1-59)

NEW TESTAMENT.

Matthew to Acts

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.

Matthew 3: 6
....and were baptized of him in Jordan....
All modern versions have the word “baptized” , and indeed all ancient versions have the word “baptized” and translate the Greek baptizo accordingly in every place. It is strange therefore that some of our brethren seek to make an issue out of it and suggest the word should be translated immerse or dip. The AV translators were well of aware of the various meanings of the word for at Luke 16: 24 we read that he may dip (bapto ) the tip of his finger in water.
L Streeter, in his book Seventy five Problems, writes-

“[The word baptism] was an English word in 1611. … It had been an English word for hundreds of years before the King James translators were born. … Baptisid and baptym were found in Wycliffe’s Bible in A.D. 1380. This was 220 years before the King James translators used the word. … The word baptize does indeed mean to immerse, or to dip. That is the very literal meaning of the word. However, in using the word baptize FOR THE ORDINANCE OF WATER BAPTISM, the Holy Spirit obviously meant more than that. The ordinance of baptism is more than a burial. It is also a resurrection (Romans 6:4). … Therefore, we must conclude that the Holy Spirit helped the KJV translators to wisely use the word baptize rather than immerse. … Every new version we checked says ‘baptize.’ Not a single one of them says ‘immerse.’ Why do you suppose that the professor did not criticize the new versions on this point?” (pp. 57, 58). — found on Wayoflife.org

Mathew 4:1
Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil.

Some of our commentators tell us that the reading should be "carried up" and not led up. But in Lk.22:66 we have the same Greek word anago where we read, And as soon as it was day, the elders of the people and the chief priests and the scribes came together, and led him [Christ] into their council. We do not believe the Lord was carried in. He was always in full control of every situation whether in the Jews council or in the wilderness. In Matthew 4 we read of His willing response to the guiding of the Holy Spirit in fulfilling the will of the Father.

In Mk.1:12, immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. The Greek verb ekballo here is more often translated "cast out", but in Jn.2:15 it is translated as in Mk.1:12, He drove them all out of the temple. Mark expresses the Lord's willing determination and the power in all his movements in pleasing the Father.
We fear that sometimes Bible words are changed by preachers in order to give the impression that they have an inner knowledge not available to rank and file believers.

Matthew 6:13
For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Critics will not accept this verse as genuine.

These words which were added to our Lord’s Prayer make it contradictory. It would be useless to pray for God’s kingdom to come if the divine rule is already fully operative in the earth. At the time these uninspired words were added to the Lord’s Prayer, it was the general belief that Christ’s kingdom was ruling through the church-state systems of Europe, hence this effort to make the Bible support the claim.
─ www.bibletoday.com

Fred. Nolan, as long ago as 1815, proved in An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Received Text that this verse had existed from the beginning. As usual, it is but a handful of depraved Romish manuscripts that omit it. Tatian quoted it in his Diatessaron (150-160 AD).
Burgon wrote concerning the removal of this text, and others, from the text of Scripture,
May we be permitted to say without offence, that in our humble judgment, if the Church of England, at the Revisers’ bidding were to adopt this and thousands of other depravations of the sacred page,... she would deserve to be pointed at with scorn by the rest of Christendom?

It was never the “general belief” of the saints of God that Christ’s kingdom was ruling through the church-state systems. It is the kingdom of GOD that is referred to. David spoke of it in 1 Chron.29:11, Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty: for all that is in the heaven and in the earth is thine; thine is the kingdom, O LORD, and thou art exalted as head above all. The sovereignty of the eternal God extends through all ages and the time is fast approaching when Christ will rule on earth for a thousand years. The words of the thief on the cross were, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (Lk.23:42). He wasn’t thinking of heaven either, as the Lord made plain in His answer.

Matthew 7: 14
Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

“Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it”. (NKJV)
The way is narrow which leads to life, meaning that it is restricted. There is no room for pride and love of sin along this way. But the way is NOT difficult for one must come as a little child. The false translation of the NKJV paves the way for the false gospel of self-effort in order to be saved. It is not “do” but “done”.

Matthew 8: 2
There came a leper and worshipped him

Only deity is entitled to worship and here, and in ten other places recorded in the N.T., Jesus accepted worship. Darby did not like the idea of the Lord being worshipped so he changed it to “do homage”. The NIV has “kneeled before” in five of the eleven places.
The suggestion that it doesn’t really matter because the Lord’s deity is upheld in the other six references shows a v3ery careless approach to the Scriptures. Bible believers care about the omission of the truth even if it should be only in one verse.

Matthew 9: 13
But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

“to repentance” is missing from modern versions. This explains why repentance is missing from modern preaching. The Lord said, except ye repent ye shall all likewise perish. The removal of repentance ensures that multitudes of false Christians will go to the lake of fire.
The words are well attested in the Greek manuscripts and were removed in a few spurious manuscripts.
We note that J N Darby chopped these Spirit given words from his own translation. This will account for the unwillingness to preach repentance by those who follow Darby today.

Matthew 9:15
Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them?

Prof. David Gooding writes "When the Lord Jesus used the term 'children of the bridechamber', it was the every day expression for 'guests of the bridegroom'. But the fact is in English we do not call wedding guests 'children of the bridechamber', any more than we call potatoes 'earth-apples'. Why not then, use the straight forward, natural English expression which everybody immediately understands, instead of a literal translation of an oriental expression which in English sounds peculiar and puzzles many readers? At least, that is what many modern translations do in such cases, and why they differ from the AV". The Word; issue 36; p.23.
Gooding does not believe in verbal inspiration. 'Bridechamber' and 'bridegroom' are both mentioned in this verse and they are not the same. If guests of the bridegroom were intended then we would have to read, 'how can the guests of the bridegroom mourn as long as HE is with them?', as in the NIV. But that is a false reading. We must read Scripture carefully. Thus Prof. Edersheim tells us that "all the invited guests bore the general name of ' children of the bridechamber'. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah; Vol.1 p.355. the bride's guests were there as well. By this we see that modern versions fail to supply an accurate translation.

But the whole significance of the verse is denied in modern versions. We are not reading of an ordinary wedding feast. The context is the disciple's relationship with the Lord in something which is entirely new. They were not merely guests at this wedding feast, to go home when it was all over¾they were children. They would remain children of the bridechamber even after the bridegroom had been taken from them - and crucified.

Friends enjoy closer relationships than those who are but guests, but these first disciples were more than just friends of the bridegroom. The designation 'friend of the bridegroom'. belongs uniquely to John the Baptist, (Jn.3:29). The bride is made upon all believers from Pentecost to the Rapture. John was outside of that, being sent before Him. So these who were first described as children of the bridechamber, enjoying an intimate relationship with the bridegroom, are also part of that bride which is the Church. They were all together on the day of Pentecost, the birth day of the Church, when the Holy Spirit was poured out upon them.

Matthew 10: 5,8
These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying,....cleanse the lepers, raise the dead....

Dean ,Burgon who so skilfully dernolished the Westcott& Hort theories upon which the RV was based, was nevertheless not 100% in favour of the Received Text. But then neither were the AV translators.There are a number of places where AV readings are not found in the RT, Conversely, Burgon regretted that the phrase "Raise the dead" which IS in the RT, found its way into the AV.

Burgon wrote, "when our Lord first sent forth His twelve Apostles, it was certainly no part of His ministerial commission to them to 'raise the dead'. This is easily demonstrable. Yet is the spurious clause retained by our Revisionists: because it is found in those corrupt witnesses- א B C D, and the Latin copies. But he might also have
pointed out that the words were kept in the RT because of the stronq ancient testimony to them|.
It may be that Burgon's real objection was that the comand to raise the dead did not seem to fit in with the Lord’s Commission" This, he says, is easily demonstrable. Only he didn’t demonstrate it . That the
Apostles did have the miraculous powers given to them in Matt. l0, and that they used them after the Lord’s ascension is demonstrated in the book of Acts.

Particularly we note Acts 9:36-45. where we read of the death of Dorcas. Peter raised her to life again- He obviously knew he had this power for it would have been very damaging to the furtherance of the gospel if Peter had told her to arise and nothing had happened. It follows also that the men who went to fetch Peter knew that he had been given this power. There would have been no value in calling him to come and look at a corpse if he could do nothing about it. So we need not be surprised to read in the gospels of the occasion when the Lord conferred this power on the apostles. Paul also raised Eutychus from the dead, Acts 20: 9-12.
This is ore of the very few placcs where Burgon slipped up and allowed his judgment to be coloured by subjective reasoning. Dr. Letis has pointed this out in his book, The Eccliastical Text.

Matthew 12: 40
For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Some do not like the idea of Jonah being swallowed by a whale. They have even suggested, quite falsely, that whales have never been known in the Mediterranean Sea. They think it was a great fish. The biggest fish, the whale shark, is incapable of swallowing anything but plankton. ketos (whale) is found here only in the New Testament and scholars are unable to determine its derivation. It is better then simply to believe the Bible.
The whale is mentioned in Gen. 1:21, and God created great whales (tanniyn = land or sea monster), Job 7: 2, Am I a sea, or a whale and the same Hebrew word is found again in Ezek. 32: 2 Thou art as a whale.
We learn in Jonah 1:17 The Lord had prepared a great fish and in 2: 10 The Lord spoke unto the fish and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry ground. (dag= fish; often used collectively-Strong). No fish can swallow a man whole. The word dag is inclusive. Its first usage in Gen. 9: 2 reveals this. Three classes of creatures are mentioned; beasts of the earth, fowls of the air, and fishes of the sea. Whales therefore must fit into one of these three categories. Believers do not swallow the great lie of evolution so they know whales are categorized with the fishes of the sea.

Matthew 13:4
Some seeds fell by the wayside.

It is being taught by some that “seeds” in this verse is not the Word, but refers to persons being sown. They concede that in Luke 8:11, The seed is the word of God is an accurate translation, so making the Lord contradict Himself as do all the modern versions. They know that the word is the seed and he which received seed by the wayside (Mt.13:19) means he that was sown with the seed by the wayside or had the seed sown in him. It was sown in his heart, the verse says so. The sower never sowed him anywhere. The scholars cannot grasp these elementary truths.

Matthew 17: 21
Howbeit this kind (faith as a grain of mustard seed, in making prayer requests, v.20) goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.

“....(omitted text)” ESV
V.21 not even referred to. no explanation s to why it is missing. NRSV

In this gluttonous age men will not pray and certainly they will not fast. No fasting: no tremendous answers to prayer.

However, there is extensive manuscript evidence for this verse and only two depraved manuscripts supporting the omission; Aleph* and B theta.
It is clear therefore that the words were wrested from Scripture by ungodly hands. The omission today is supported by the ungodly textual critics
Matthew 18: 11
For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.

Modern Bible critics do not want the Son of man coming to save that which was lost. The verse is therefore rejected in most modern versions.
One version rejecting these words is the NIrV. My copy was published in 1996 with introductions by Steve Chalke..
Under the heading “Verses not found in the earliest Greek New Testaments” we find the above verse listed. How does Chalke come by this information? What and where are these “earliest New Testaments”? Reference to New Testament implies all the books of the New Testament bound together in one. To which New Testaments does he refer? He doesn’t tell us.
As it happens the verse is found in numerous papyri (these being older than any complete Greek N.T.), also it is found in the majority the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is missing form very few manuscripts. Chalke wants us to believe the verse was added by some illiterate believer very early on —and then astonishingly kept in almost without exception by every subsequent copyist.
Chalke, has stated publicly that Catholicism is just another form of Christian worship (- Cecil Andrews; “Take Heed” Ministries ;Oct.2004). Chalke in his book The Lost Message of Jesus, denies the doctrine of Penal Substitution. That is, he denies that God sent His Son to be a propitiation for our sins.(1 John 4: 10).
Chalke has been described as a “Christian TV Star”.- Belfast Telegraph; 12th Nov 1994.

Matthew 18:15
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee...

It is alleged that the words “against thee” should be omitted from this verse. One reason given is that some Greek mss omit them. In fact just two mss omit them, against the majority which keep them. These two are the Sinaiticus (found in a rubbish bin in a Romish monastery by Tischendorf) and the Vaticanus, (kept in the Vatican and never fully inspected by any believer at any time in its history.) Newberry lists some of the mss supporting 'against thee' but his list is by no means complete. JND keeps the words without even a footnote. The RV keeps the words but has a footnote, as also the NIV. Not even the Doauy-Rheims omits them. We have to come to the J.W. New World Translation to find their omission.

The words are quoted by several of the so-called Fathers long before the Sin. and Vat. were invented. They are inspired words of Scripture. Their removal makes way for the Romish confessional box. Their removal allows sin to be covered up, for I can go to a sinning brother, who has sinned, not against me but against another brother, or maybe against his neighbour and certainly against his God and if I can persuade him to stop then no one else need know. We can sweep it under the carpet. We trust that is not the reason why some of our dear brethren want the words wrested from Scripture.

More about Mtt.18: 15

Despite all the evidence in favour of the received text, we read in a magazine, Truth and Tidings: May, 2005, published on the internet - …”most of the manuscripts from which our translations come either omit ‘against thee’ or note that it may not have been in the original writings.” We wonder how such a writer (David Oliver) can be so ignorant. Or is this a malicious intent to deceive?

The above comments will be published in Waymarks 42, August 2005. You may wish to make a comment.

I received by email the following reply,

Dear Brother:
Thank you for your very careful and thorough handling of the issue. If you knew our brother Oliver well, you would not accuse him of being ignorant. Likewise, to call in question his motive - "Is this a malicious intent to deceive" would be the last thing you would do. If I remember correctly, Paul does warn against judging motives (1 Cor 4).
I am not writing to defend, only to caution and to welcome helpful insights and comments without the unnecessary innuendoes and suggestions. Our brother Oliver would be the last to condone sin or to encourage the pathway you have warned against.
We welcome your thoughts and appreciate your honesty and the time spent in writing.
Warmly in Him,
Sandy

Dr Higgins appears to assure us that when Mr Oliver told his readers that most manuscripts reject “against thee” when in fact only two popish manuscripts do, he knew what he was doing! The words “against thee” are part of holy Scripture given by inspiration of God. It is a very serious matter to tamper with the word of God. Mr Oliver has compounded his error with his lie. All attacks on Scripture are malicious. They cannot be anything else. Mr Oliver’s motives have not been questioned by me. I know not whether his action springs out of pride, or the desire to appear erudite, or contempt for the AV Bible which is the word of God, or a desire to destroy the faith of many, or such.
We note that the error was not corrected in the next issue of Truth and Tidings. Let its readers remain misled!
Mr Oliver also attacked the virgin birth of Christ in an earlier issue of Truth and Tidings. This was answered in Waymarks no. 28, repeated below.

A comment on this verse, Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7: 14), found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, for October 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word “virgin” is clearly understood by all to mean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication is that the Hebrew almah is a vague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English virgin. almah occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that a “young woman capable of bearing children” conceived, all would reply, “some sign!”.
The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 was to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his son Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. (2:40). Luke speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.
Truth and Tidings tells us this sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz. It was not! Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of David. (v.11) . To Ahaz he says “Ask THEE (singular0 a sign.” Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to Ahaz would be the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiah’s wife, and not a virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of David; The Lord Himself shall give YOU (plural) a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to Thou (Singular) with a prophecy in relation to Ahaz.
It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those who regard themselves as the fount of all truth.

Matt.18: 20
For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

There are some who make a play of the first “in”. They want to make it read “unto my name” on the grounds that the preposition eis may be translated “unto”. J N Darby appears to be the first (and only translator, that I can find ) who makes this change. The change was made in order to promote an ecclesiastical system. The system became known as Exclusive Brethrenism and is now as much a false cult as any can be.
“Unto” is an archaic word and has been replaced almost entirely by “to” (not “in”) in modern usage.. Eis is translated by many English prepositions; to, into. in, throughout, for, unto, by, at, among, against, upon, toward, on, concerning. “In” is used at least 70 times, so we may deduce there is no reason at all why it should not be “in” in Matt. 18: 20.

“The idea in the original Greek of the New Testament is ‘having been and being gathered together’” —Present Truth; Vol.15, June 2009, No. 172,`p. 52.
Yet no translation or version carries so much as a hint of this “idea”. It is cult talk.

Matt. 19:9
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

Such is the Satan’s fury against Christ and His Word, that in this chapter nineteen of Matthew’s gospel alone, 35 changes are made by the critical text.
In verse nine the words and whosoever marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery are not found in the revised Greek NA text, and so are missing from modern versions. Yet the manuscript authority for them is extensive.
The authority for retaining this clause is found in the following mss:-

Papyri: (P25) B C* E F G H K N O U V W Y Z Delta Theta Pi Sigma Phi 078
Cursives: MAJORITY fam 1, 13
Old Latin: aur c f g2 Vulg
Syr: pesh harc pal
Cop: bo
Arm: Eth
Also extant in Omega 047 055 0211 0233?

Authorities rejecting this clause:

Papyri: Aleph C-3 D L S
Cursives: pc (i.e. a small handful)
Old Latin: a b d e ff1,2 g1 h l r1
Syriac: sin cur sa bo-ms

Thus we find overwhelming evidence in favour of this clause.
Wycliffe’s translation of Jerome’s Latin vulgate c.1380 at this verse makes interesting reading; “And I seie to 3ou, that who ever leeveth his wijf, but for fornycacion, and weddeth another, doith letcherie; and he that weddeth the forsaken wijf, doith letcherie.

Men will mutilate Scripture to serve their own ungodly purposes. The divorced partner may well be innocent but the marriage bond still holds in heaven, so she is not free to remarry.
Some are trying to get round this by saying that if the marriage is not consummated, the marriage can be annulled. But it is not consummation that makes the bond before God, but rather the formal marriage vow taken before witnesses. This binds until the death of one annuls it.

Matthew 20: 30
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children, with her sons, worshiping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.

Worship is the entitlement of God alone. Matthew, writing the gospel knew this; he had already recorded the Lord’s response to Satan in ch.4, v.10’ Get thee hence Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The Lord Jesus Christ accepted worship while on earth. The mother of Zebedee;s children knew Him to be the Lord her God.
By this perversions of Scripture become apparent when they deny worship to Jesus Christ here in the flesh.
So, J N Darby will have her and her sons merely “doing homage” which is no more than acknowledging one of a higher status. The Rheims Version has “bowing down”; Knox has “falling on her knees” and the NIV has her “kneeling down”.
The RT has proskuneo which is the usual word for worship in the Greek NT. The Critical Text mischievously changes the Greek word to proserkomai which is first used in the TR at Mtt.4 : 3 when the tempter came to him and is never translated worship in the AV Bible.

Matthew 23:8
But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your master, even Christ.

Exception is taken to these words by some of our teachers. They do not like Christ being Master, so they tell us, "the editors of the Greek Text amend verse 8 to read didaskolos = teacher (RV), though JND uses "instructor..." (What the Bible Teaches; Mt./Mk.p.308). What Greek Text? We presume the Westcott / Hort text is meant. These two Anglicans dabbled in Spiritism and were hostile to evangelical truth. The Greek word for "Master" occurs in the majority of mss, the alternative being found in a handful of Romish mss. They go on to tell us that as the word should be "teacher", so the words "even Christ" should be omitted because the Holy Spirit is now our Teacher and not Christ. But these words are well attested, being quoted by two of the early Fathers (so-called), NOVATIAN and GREGORY OF NYSSA. Critics should meditate upon Eph.4:20,21 where Paul reminds the Ephesian saints that they have heard and have been taught by the Christ that they probably never saw in the flesh. Those who do not hear His voice remain without eternal life. Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. Jn.13:13.

Matthew 23:24
Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

This should read “strain out a gnat” say the Bible critics. One of them, W E Glenny, makes a great play over this phrase. He writes in relation to this verse,

Most believers realize that people can make mistakes in copying and printing the Bible; furthermore, they believe that only the original autographs were inspired, not the KJV, or the TR, or any other translation or edition. However, for the King James-Only advocate, such differences are more than an embarrassment; they are a contradiction of the King James-Only position. How can the KJV be inspired and yet have errors in it that should be changed? If it has been changed, which edition is the inspired edition? —One Bible Only? P.90.

The word translated strain at (diulizo) is used here only in the whole of Scripture. In the 15th century it meant “to choke over/ to gag at”. It never meant “to strive for” and doesn’t mean “to strain out”. The Pharisees would choke over things of little consequence but would swallow the more serious things without demur. F F Bruce tells us that Vine, in his dictionary, relied on the definitions of Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur—all of them unbelieving rationalists. So Vine falsely renders the word in question.
Now we see the degree to which Bible critics will go to attack God’s Book. They reveal an innate hostility to the truth. The “Mistake” is with the critic. There are no errors in the Bible, so these men must invent them.
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

Matthew 24: 36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

Some modern versions, following a handful of Alexandrian mss, interpolate “nor the son” after not the angels of heaven. The majority of manuscripts do not have this phrase in Matthew. Neither the Son is found, correctly, in the parallel passage, Mark 13: 32

The practice of the critics is to reject what they do not understand, and Ehrman goes to great lengths trying to explain why the copyists did not include /exclude both phrases. The believer does not have to understand every word in his Bible before he judges it to be authentic. This is rationalism. The child of God believes the word and waits for the Holy Spirit to illumine his mind on what he reads.
Matthew is the gospel of the King. Mark is the gospel of the Servant. J Moorman links the phrase in Mark with John 15: 15 The servant knoweth not what his lord doeth. -Early manuscripts and the Authorized Version; BFT; p.72

And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

It is evident that the AV translators did not regard the words everlasting and eternal as having the same meaning and interchangeable. The two words in the same sentence are sufficient proof of this. We do not believe that English words were used indiscriminately by the translators, as some suggest. They were well aware, of course, that they were translating one Greek word, aionios. We learn as we read our Bible with a believing mind, that aionios has two meanings which are not identical and cannot be interchanged. The Spirit of God led our translators to see this. (I am not implying that the AV was a newly inspired book).
God is eternal; without beginning and without end. We are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life (1 John 5:20). The gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The believer, being in Christ,
receives that eternal life which is the life of Christ imparted. From the moment of conversion one’s new life begins and it is therefore everlasting life.
Underneath are the everlasting arms. God doesn’t have eternal arms, but from the time men needed them they were there.

Matthew 26:6-13
....A woman having an alabaster box of very precious ointment....
(Also see Mk.14:1-9, Lk.7:36-50, Jn.12:1-9).

There appears in all four Gospels an account of a woman pouring an ointment on the Lord. The careless reader concludes that the same event is being referred to in all four gospels. A careful comparison reveals three separate occasions when a woman approached the Lord with ointment.

The first time was during the Lord's Galilean Ministry, recorded for us by Luke. We learn from v.24 that John the Baptist was still alive so this happened quite early in the Lord's public ministry.
The second time was six days before the Passover, recorded by John. It was the day before the Lord rode into Jerusalem seated upon an ass, (12:12.) so it was at the end of the Lord's public ministry and it took place in Judea and not in Galilee.

The third time was only two days before the Passover, being the same Passover recorded by John, evident in the fact that both Matthew and Mark tell us that the disciples prepared for that supper, it being the night of His betrayal. Matthew and Mark speak of that third anointing.

In order to harmonize these accounts (and beware of men who want to "harmonize" the Scriptures) certain criteria are followed by the critics. The first is that the Bible is no different from any other literary work. That is, it does not have any divine origin. It then follows that the writers are liable to make mistakes (no such thing as verbal inspiration) and what they did write down was largely legendary, passed on from earlier sources by word of mouth. Then, the gospel writers allegedly copied from each other. They were therefore guilty of plagiarism!

So we find in Readings in St John's Gospel; by William Temple, "He comes first to His friends at Bethany. They most naturally arrange a supper for Him. They do this not in their own house, but in the house of Simon the Leper (St. Mark xiv,3, only St. Mark has a wrong note of time; his chronology of Holy Week, and consequently that of the other two synoptists, is mistaken at several points, especially the date of the crucifixion itself. St. John is all through this period both referring to the Marcan record and correcting it)."

Temple was a prominent apostate of his day (1881-1944). He was a one -time Archbishop of York and then of Canterbury. (Need we say more?). We know that godless clerics could not possibly produce any spiritual work, but what is grievous is that the same wicked lies are now commonly promoted from our own platforms. The lie is this:- Matthew and Mark say TWO days whilst John says SIX days so at least one of them has got it wrong. How frustrated God must be "trying to get the message across" and these gospel writers keep getting it muddled up. It is a satanic lie of course. If one does not believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture then there is no way one will get into God's heaven. One simply is not a believer. How can a person be saved if he does not believe in the infallible, inerrant word of God? Some are so confused over the matter that they tell us that six days might mean two days!
This subject has nothing to do with versions either. Either you believe the Bible implicitly or not at all. You cannot pick and choose what you want to believe.

Now a little application. There is an interesting omission in Luke's account. The Lord did not say that the woman had done it for His burial as the other three writers tell us. For the Lord had not up to that time spoken to His disciples concerning His death. This was a poor sinful woman who came to the Saviour in simple faith and devotion and received forgiveness of sins.

At the end of His ministry the Lord had spoken of His impending crucifixion, burial and resurrection. The disciples could not grasp it but two women did. Mary, who was not a sinful woman like the woman of Luke 7, was a spiritual woman and that is why she brought her 1lb of spikenard and anointed His feet. she had appreciated what lay before her Lord. It was done against His burial, the Lord said so. Four days later another woman wished to be associated with His death so she anointed the Lord's head as Mary had anointed His feet.

Chart of Spikenard Anointings
Matt.26:6-13 Mark 14: 1-10 Luke 7: 36-50 John 12: 1-9
WHEN After two days, the last
Passover. After two days, the last
Passover John Baptist still alive
(v.24) Six days before the
(last) Passover
WHERE Bethasny, house of Simon
the leper. Bethany, house of Simon
the leper. A Pharisee’s house in
Galilee Bethany, Martha serving.
(by implication, her house)
WHO did it A woman A woman A woman who was a
sinner. Mary, sister of Martha.
WHAT was used Very precious ointment Spikenard Ointment 1lb. Spikenard
HOW On the Lord’s head On the Lord’s head On the Lord’s feet, after
Washing with tears and
Wiping with her hair Anointed the Lord’s feet
Then wiped them with
Her hair.
WHY For His burial To the burying ------------- Against His burial
VALUE For much 300 pence ------------- 300 pence
REACTION Disciples had indignation Some had indignation The Pharisees murmered
Because she was a sinner Judas murmered

Matthew 27: 3, 4
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.

The word metamellomai, here translated “repented” is used only five times in the New Testament and is not the usual word for repent. Some don’t like the idea of Judas repenting (though he brought forth fruit meet unto repentance) so they tell us he did no more than “regret” his betrayal. See God’s Word to the Nations now being quoted by one of our leading conservative evangelists.
If it is regret here, then it must be regret in the other four places. (Matt. 21: 29,32; 2 Cor. 7: 8; Heb. 7: 21).

Matthew 27:46
And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli,eli, lama sabachtani? that is to say, My God, My God, Why hast thou forsaken me?
(Mark 15: 34 Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachtani?)

This has been changed to ' why didst thou forsake me' by W Kelly and this has been taken up with some enthusiasm by some of our brethren. However, we find the following all in agreement with the AV:- Tyndale, JND, RSV, NIV, Doauy, and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist tense and never mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and learn that it is in '2nd Pers.sing. Aorist Indic. Active.' and Mr Newberry tells us the aorist is a 'point in the expanse of time'. So now we know. But note 2 Tim.4:10, for Demas hath forsaken me. The same Greek word is used and is also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of forsaking took place in a moment of time but the condition of being forsaken continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy

We believe the Lord was still forsaken as He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not, then uncertainty is cast on the efficacy of His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words why didst thou forsake me? suggest that the forsaking had ended before He died. The AV translation is the only acceptable one.
3being interpreted, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? This we are told, is in the vernacular whereas the words in Matthew are given in Hebrew.

Four hundred years before the birth of Christ the prevailing condition was this: Jews....had married wives of Ashdod, of Ammon, and of Moab: And their children spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews language, but according to the language of each people. Neh.13:23,24.
Not all the Jews had done this. There was always a faithful remnant. But many of those who had returned after the captivity were of mixed marriage. Many didn't return anyway. So there were very few left who could speak in the Jew's language. But for a Jew not to speak in Hebrew was a disgrace before God. The offspring of the unfaithful spoke half in the language of Ashdod. Ashdod was a Philistine town where was the house of Dagon the fish-god.
We digress for a moment. Christendom today worships the fish-god, which is why his symbol of a fish is seen on the back of every other car. Its speech is "half-Ashdod". That is, when they pray it is no longer the language of the Bible, "Thou art", etc. but "you are", etc as is found in all the Philistinish bible versions.

Malachi was a contemporary of Nehemiah. Malachi was the last of the OT prophets. There were no more until John the Baptist 400 years later. So conditions did not improve over those 400 years. God had nothing to say. No Scripture was given; no prophet was raised up.

However, during these four centuries between the OT and the NT era the Apocrypha was produced and, it is alleged, the Septuagint. This latter was supposedly the OT in Greek. Seeing that God was silent during this period in regard to His written word, and also in regard to His spoken word via the prophet, the Apocrypha and the Septuagint clearly did not come from God. They must both have come from the pit.

God broke His 400 years silence when John cried out Repent ye: for the kingdom of God is at hand....prepare ye the way of the Lord. Mt.3:2,3. And there was a faithful remnant waiting for Him. Do you think they were not of pure speech? Aramaic may well have been the common language in Palestine at the time as some allege, but Hebrew was still the speech of those who loved the Lord.

There are ten references to the Hebrew language in the NT and none to the Aramaic language, (not even in Acts 2:8-11). Paul spoke in the Hebrew tongue, Acts21:40. The risen Lord spoke to Paul in the Hebrew tongue, Acts 26:14. The words on the cross were in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. There were no Aramaic words written on the cross. Golgotha is a Hebrew name, John19:17. This latter being refuted in the Oxford Companion to the Bible, p.272. I quote,-

Several verses in the New Testament appear at first sight [my italics] to refer to the Hebrew language and the Greek word translated as "Hebrew" (hebraisti) does indeed refer to that language in Rev.9:11 and 10:16. But it is also used of the Aramaic words Gabbatha and Golgotha in John 19:13,17. and it probably [my italics] denotes a Semitic (as distinct from Greek) language spoken by the Jews, including both Hebrew and Aramaic, rather than referring to Hebrew in distinction from Aramaic. Similarly the Aramaic expression Akeldama is said in Acts 1:19 to be 'in their language', that is in the language of the people of Jerusalem."

But it doesn't say "in their language" at Acts 1:19. The correct reading is that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood. And it was not the people of Jerusalem but the disciples who were speaking. See how these "scholars" are out to deceive you? The disciples knew what was the proper tongue of those dwelling in Jerusalem. Their own language was Hebrew. If my Bible says Gabbatha and Golgotha are Hebrew names, then I believe at first, second and thousandth sight. The man who wrote the article quoted above is J A Emerton, Regius Professor of Hebrew, and fellow, St John's College, University of Cambridge, England. I remain unimpressed. I still would rather believe my Bible.

Emerton suggests there probably was a Semitic language, not Greek, not pure Hebrew either, not even Aramaic, spoken by the Jews at this time. Only, the professor doesn't know what it was! But it certainly was not Aramaic, though there may have been a few Aramaic words in use in those times. If the world's leading authority on the subject is uncertain as to the precise language spoken by the Jews in first century Palestine, why challenge the Biblical testimony to the use of Hebrew?

Scripture is twisted in modern versions to cater for the view that other than pure Hebrew was spoken in NT times. Some have called this hybrid Hebrew/Aramaic "the vernacular".
There is a coming day when all will speak a pure language. That will be one language spoken by all nations. Zeph.3:9. It will be pure, not a mixture of languages. It will not therefore be English, although this is plainly God's world language for these last days. I am quite sure it will not be Aramaic, Chaldee, Syriac, or Yiddish. It will be the language of God's ancient people, Israel, which is Hebrew. All will speak this language for a thousand years during the soon coming earthly reign of Christ.

The mistranslation of Mtt.27: 45, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? to read “...why didst thou forsake me?” has led to a more serious error. It is being taught that in the hours of darkness on the cross Christ paid the penalty of our sins.
So we have stated at a conference “In those hours of darkness Christ paid the price of our sins, and paid it all”. (Easter conference, Basingstoke, 2004). In which case Christ did not die for our sins; the penalty had been meted out while He yet lived. This false teaching now gaining ground among the Brethren destroys the foundation of our faith. It is based upon the perversion of Scripture made popular by Darby, Tregelles, and Vine

We are not told what took place during the hours of darkness. God hid from the eyes of the world the agonies of the suffering Saviour during those three hours. We understand therefore that God does not wish us to know what transpired then between Father and Son. We can but believe it was that He who knew no sin should be made sin. He bore our sins in His own body on the tree, and God’s wrath against sin fell upon Him then. He came under God’s judgment for our sin, as He became our sin-bearer. So He made the awful cry, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me. And then He died. In His death He paid the price of our redemption. Six times we read in the New Testament that Christ died. He died for the ungodly; He died for us; He died for all.

We are reminded also that without shedding of blood is no remission (Heb. 9: 22). This verse is seldom quoted accurately. We have heard it said that God guided the hand that threw the spear that pierced the Saviour’s side, somit was the Roman spear drew forth the atoning blood.

God’s redeeming work did not depend on the actions of an ungodly Roman soldier. The Lord was already dead and His work completed when His side was pierced. Neither was it the cross that caused His death, because He had power to lay down His own life. Some have suggested that the Lord died of a broken heart.

The act of killing a man is, in the Old Testament, described as the shedding of blood,
Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed. (Gen. 9: 6). It was not necessary that the victim’s blood should flow from his body. The expression is used frequently in the Scriptures

Matthew 28: 19
Baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

This should read “ ‘into the name’, i.e. into the covenant relationship and communion with the triune God” says P. Schaff in his introduction to The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament; .Harpur & Brothers; 1873.
Well of course, the preposition is eis which is commonly translated “into”. but he doesn’t let his readers know that 20 to 30 other English words are used to translate eis including “in”. Should we read “He came and dwelt into (eis) a city called Nazareth”?
Schaff’s change is governed by his theology. He believed water could produce a living relationship with God. Many still follow this pernicious error.

Mark 1:2
As it is written in the prophets.

This verse is followed by two quotations, one from Malachi, and the other from Isaiah. Textual critics tell us that the original reading was "as it is written in Isaiah", and that "someone, who recognized that the citation was a collation from two prophets, simply 'corrected' the text". The original writer was Mark. Thus modern scholars regard Mark as stupid, ignorant of OT Scripture, and not Spirit-led. They also show themselves to be apostate, not believing in the verbal inspiration of Scripture, or else they believe that the Holy Spirit directed Mark to write lies, if indeed they believe that Mark wrote Mark 's Gospel in the first place. The modern versions all carry the lie, from JND's New Translation; the RV and onwards. Notice also how JND (with most modern versions) omits "without a cause" from Mat.5:22, thereby charging the Lord with sin. See Mk.3:5

Mark 1:12 (see Mtt.4:1)

Mark 6:20
For Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him: and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.

This is a much mutilated verse in the modern versions. The NIV reads "Because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled, yet he liked to listen to him".

The AV Translators knew what the simplest Bible reader is able to grasp, that Herod certainly did not protect John but allowed the scheming and vile Herodias to have him beheaded. Of course, the Translators also knew that the word for "observed" may be translated as "protected" or "kept him (safe)" but as it plainly cannot mean that in this context, they relegated that translation to the margin. The meaning is brought out in Luke 2:19, where the same Greek word is used, Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. That is what Herod did with John. What a pity our critics didn't notice this verse. Scripture is its own interpreter. The NIV tells us that Mary treasured up all these things. As the critics complain about inconsistencies so-called in the AV translation perhaps they might have been consistent themselves and have Herod treasuring up John. But they cannot bear the thought of Herod actually understanding what John was saying to him. That is because no modern critic understands the truths of Scripture and they assume that therefore no other of their ilk could understand it either. So they have Herod puzzled instead of doing many things. This time the alteration is not a matter of translation but of a different Greek text. The critics have changed the original Greek word. Only a few ancient mss. support the modern reading and the vast majority of mss. support the AV (as always!). So what are the "many things" that Herod did? If you cannot tell us, say the critics, that proves the AV is wrong. Everything has to be explained away to these dark-minded rationalists. The Scripture doesn't tell us what these many things were that Herod did and that is enough for any Bible believer. But what that man did was as a result of hearing John's preaching, which was essentially a message of repentance. The wretched man presumably started trying to put his life right but he had left it too late. One other thing, you do not listen gladly to a man you cannot understand. That alone shows us the nonsense of modern translations.

James White is one of those who mutilate Scripture, as he writes in his book, The King James only Controversy, concerning Mark 6:20. "The Greek term simply does not mean 'observe' but instead means 'to protect'". We have shown that to be false, simply by looking in a concordance. The title of his book is misleading. He teaches that there is a cult that will not read, use , or recognize any bible apart from the AV. Then he proceeds to knock down his straw man. I have never met any such people, for those who know that the AV is the word of God for English speaking believers know perfectly well that the same Scriptures have been accurately translated into all the major languages of the world. And the "controversy" is with those who deny that God could possibly preserve his word for all generations.

Therefore Mr, White has to corrupt Ps.12:6,7. He says, Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever should really be "O Lord, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people for ever." What people does Mr White wish to be protected from? They can only be the godly and faithful of v.1. He gives no reasons at all for the change, only that Ps.12 doesn't mention the "King James Version of the Bible", and, "nowhere does this passage tell us how God will preserve His words". So therefore He can't, according to Mr White. Any believer knows how God has preserved His words. The unbeliever thinks he can meddle with Scripture as he will. This whole book is an attack, not merely on the AV, but on the integrity of Holy Spirit given Scripture.

How has Scripture been preserved? By the faithful copying of faithful men, a work overseen by the Holy Spirit of God.

Mark 9: 42
And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Darby puts “in me” in square brackets, indicating his objection to these words and casting doubt on their genuineness. They have indeed been bracketed in the Critical Text and are now missing from some modern versions, notably the NASV.
The manuscript evidence in favour of “in me” is massive. Their removal is therefore malicious. To some it matters not what is believed as long as one does not believe in Christ.
What confounds the critic is that not even the Codex Vaticanus omits “in me” while its twin pillar of the critical Text has thrown out these words.

Mark 10: 21
…. And come, take up the cross, and follow me.

The NIV reads “….then come, follow me.” There is no need to take up the cross. The Nestle-Aland Greek Text removes it as it is not found in the Greek Mss Aleph B C Delta Theta Psi 0274 and a handful of cursives. There is strong ms evidence for its inclusion.
The cross remains an offence and they are the liberal neo-evangelicals who object to discipleship and thus promote the modern versions, which will remove the cross.

Mark 10: 24
Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God.

The NIV reads: “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God”.
Worse than this, the CEV has “So Jesus told them again, ‘It’s terribly hard to get into God’s kingdom.”
Sinking lower, the Message [form hell?] has “Jesus kept on: ‘you can’t imagine how difficult.’
The implication is that possession of wealth is a sufficient obstacle to entrance into the kingdom of heaven. But the Lord taught that trust in riches was the hindrance. Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
These modern versions suggest that self effort and works are required in order to gain salvation. Thus repentance toward God and faith in the shed blood of Christ are denied.

Friendship with the world is enmity with God.
What is in the world? Religion for one thing. Beware of this world’s religions Some of our brethren are all pally with Rome. They go into its schools and “share” the gospel with them. So their mouths are shut as far as truth is concerned. They dare not tell the students of the once and for all sacrifice for sin by Christ on the cross. They dare not denounce any of the wicked blasphemous doctrines of popery. They tell us it is not their business to pass judgments, only to preach the gospel. What gospel is this that denies Christ? What they really want is the praise of men.

The modern gospel states “all you have to do to be saved is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ”. The chief rulers, we read in John 12, believed on Him. But they were not saved as the passage reveals (v42,43). The praise of men was all\ important to them. The Lord warned that which is highly esteemed among men is abominatio0n in the sight of God (Luke 16: 15). Anything whatsoever it is, however apparently moral and legitimate, having the approval of this world, is loathsome to our God.
So the “gospel preacher” returns from his visit to the school and reports how well he was received by its staff and pupils. Note 1 Thess. 2: 6, Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you.

Mark 10:29 30
And Jesus answered and said, Verily I say unto you, There is no man that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my sake, and the gospel's, but he shall receive an hundredfold…

"Or wife", the critics tell us, was never in the original. They were added to the Greek text by a later copyist. They are quite dogmatic about it. There is no room for alternative views. "Or wife" has so little manuscript support, they insist, that it is not even mentioned in the extensive footnotes of the UBS's definitive Greek New Testament, Fourth Revised Edition (1994). Fourth edition? What about the first three editions then? Have they only now decided to ignore the words? What about the fifth edition, will they pop back in again? Or maybe in the sixth? There is no end to their Darwinian fantasy.

Were the AV translators inconsistent when they put in these words, forgetting what they had put in 1 Corinthians 9:4? Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles? Did they forget that Peter had apparently not left his wife? Mt.8:14. So when he said, we have left all, Peter certainly never had it in his mind that he had left his wife to follow the Lord.

Should they not have paid heed to the fact that some foolish copyist had slipped in "or wife" because of Peter's words? We can't think why any one would wish to add words that were not in the original unless it should be some person who could see that by becoming a missionary one could escape a nagging wife as well as escaping from all other domestic responsibilities.

But we have great difficulty in treating the AV translators as ignoramuses. They were not. They understood what the Lord meant by leaving. By wresting "or wife" from Holy Writ, these modern mutilators of Scripture show that they do not grasp the spiritual significance of the Lord's words. The Lord never taught that by following Him one could forsake his responsibilities to home, wife and family.

We believe the Lord certainly did say "or wife". The evidence is there. The words are present in the majority of mss. They are also present in Luke 18:29, though a few mss change the order of the words.
So what did the Lord mean? Firstly the Lord was not giving a commandment; “thou shalt leave….” He said, "There is no man that hath left….” Thus the reasons for the action are left open. Peter had proclaimed that he had left all to follow the Lord. But the Lord is no man's debtor. There is reward to such. There is no sacrifice so great that the Lord cannot reward for it both now and in eternity.

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.

Mark 15:34 (see Mat.27:46)

Mark 16:16
but he that believeth not shall be damned.

We can understand why apostate critics gnash at the Scriptures and tear out whole passages when they read words such as these. Some tell us that vv.9-20 of Mark 16 should be omitted from Scripture. But the evidence for their inclusion is overwhelming. Even the AV critic, J N Darby, wrote, "I do not enter on the question of the authenticity of verses 9-20 here. I read them as Scripture. Burgon has pretty well demolished the authorities [he meant the perverted mss] against them". However, he did not like the word "damned" so he changed it to "condemned", keeping in line with most modern versions. When we demur at this change we are told "don't you appreciate that the AV translates katakrino as "condemned" in every other instance but one?". "Yes", we reply, "we also have a concordance. But have YE not read he that believeth not is condemned already? Jn.3:18". But that should read "judged already", say the critics. That change also is seen as false because the judgment of unbelievers is reserved until that great day of Judgment at the Great White Throne (Rev.20:13). God does not judge twice for the same offence, as the modern versionists would have it.

God's order is this; all are condemned from birth by unbelief, for none was ever born a believer, and all are to be righteously judged for unbelief AND FOR EVERY ACT OF SIN at that final assize, unless refuge is sought at the Cross. The unbeliever, refusing Christ, will be damned eternally at that coming day. Men do not like the word damned because they know what it means, and that is why Satan has placed the word on the tongue of unbelievers as a daily invective in order to take the sting out of it. For the same reason he has introduced "hell" as an oath on the lips of the ungodly. So our coy bible teachers will "prefer" hades to hell.

To be damned is to be eternally ruined yet never annihilated in the everlasting flames of the Lake of Fire. And if they are figurative flames as some of our unbelieving critics tell us, then whatever must the reality be like?

Luke 2: 7
And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn (kataluma).

There is no reason to reject the traditional understanding of this passage. There are no problems with the text (i.e. underlying Greek text) or the translation. But some are teaching that the Lord was born in an open field thereby negating the prophecy of Micah 5: 2, But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. This prophecy relates to the birth of Christ, indicating that the birth would take place within Bethlehem.
We do not believe there were open fields within Bethlehem’s bounds. The critics deny that kataluma could have anything to do with a stable because the word is translated “Guestchamber” in Mk.14: 14 and Luke 22: 11.
Those who make a play of the Greek word kataluma show their distrust of the English Bible where we read the word “inn”. Inn is a satisfactory translation.
Inns in New Testament times were places for the traveller to rest. Like modern inns they usually had parking places for the traveller’s vehicle; then it would be a stable at the base of the inn where the vehicle (an ass) might be parked overnight. It would need refuelling and a separate charge was usually made to the traveller for provender (hay) provided. Thus a manger was provided. (See Life in New Testament Times; A C Bouquet.)
We would hardly expect to find a manger in an open field. Would not the sheep just eat the grass? Why would they need a manger?

Luke 2: 14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men.

B Osborne, in the neo-evangelical magazine Precious Seed (Vol. 60, No.3, p.2), writes;

‘Peace on earth, goodwill to all men’. That was the message of the angels to the shepherds at Bethlehem. But the coming of Jesus did not bring peace on earth and wars have raged throughout history since then. And ‘goodwill to all men’? What of the industrial strife, disputes, family discords, church divisions?

We do not know where Osborne found this quaint reading. It is certainly not AV, neither did I manage to locate it in the 30 or so versions that I checked. He goes on to quote the NIV and several other parodies of Scripture that happen to agree with the NIV. He seems unaware that these have all trotted out from the same Westcott and Hort stable. These tell us it is “Peace on earth among men on whom His favour rests.” This can mean only one thing ─ Christ came only for the favoured few. What caused some to be among the favoured few? Osborne tells us they are those who “receive His life”. So Christ died only for those He knew would later “receive his life”!

We note that God’s goodwill is removed by the modern versions and replaced by the goodwill of men. Robertson shows that they are the usual Alexandrian mss that make the alteration ─
Among men in whom he is well pleased (en anthrōpois eudokias). The Textus Receptus (Authorized Version also has eudokia, but the genitive eudokias is undoubtedly correct, supported by the oldest and best uncials. (Aleph, A B D W). C has a lacuna here.” – Robertson’s word Pictures.

We believe the TR to be correct, supported as it is by the overwhelming majority of manuscripts. Those who deny it fail to grasp the message of the angels. There will be complete peace on earth in the ultimate fulfilment of the angelic pronouncement.
Of course there is peace on earth now. It is available individually through faith in Christ to a whole human race alienated by wicked works. This alteration by the critics is therefore a doctrinal change. It denies the doctrine of salvation, denies the millennial reign of Christ, and supports Reformed Theology.

Luke 2:22
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord;

Modern versions read "their purification" because, they tell us, that is what the Greek says. It matters not what Lev.12 says concerning the woman alone being required to make purification. They care nothing that Joseph is therefore regarded as the father of the child, and that all the family was unclean and needing purification. They are not concerned that Scripture is made to contradict itself and that they show themselves to be unbelievers. Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. (Jn.5:46). To say that there is no Greek text for the singular reading is false because the TBS published one, and Scrivener, who was on the RV committee, published his in1881. I have my copies in front of me.

Luke 2: 33, 48
And Joseph and his mother marveled at those things which were spoken of him. (v.33)
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. (v.48)

It is important to notice first that verse 33 is Luke’s commentary, written under the inspiration of God. Verse 48 is a report of Mary’s words, spoken at a time of deep stress, also given by inspiration of God.

Ehrman writes concerning these verses

Joseph is called Jesus' father twice in Luke's birth narrative (2:33, 48). In both instances scribes have modified the text to eliminate what must have appeared incongruous with the firmly entrenched notion that although Joseph was Mary's betrothed, he was not the father of Jesus. Thus, Luke 2:33 states that Jesus' "father and mother began to marvel" at the things being said about him. The majority of Greek manuscripts, however, along with a number of Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic witnesses, have changed the text to read "Joseph and his mother began to marvel." The change makes perfect sense, given the orthodox view that Joseph was in fact not Jesus' father. There can be little doubt that in this case the majority text represents a corruption rather than the original reading: a wide range of early and superior manuscripts consistently give the reading that is also more difficult. The wide attestation of the variant reading and the confluence of ancient versions in its support, however, do show that the text had been changed relatively early in the history of its transmission, at least in the third century and more likely in the second—precisely during the time of the adoptionist controversies.

The doctrine of the virgin birth is to Ehrman no more than a firmly entrenched notion. He regards it as the view that had become “popular” by the second or third century. Therefore scribes altered the earlier manuscripts which spoke of the “father and mother” of the Lord, to accommodate the prevailing view. Ehrman’s views are based on the doctrine that earliest is best. The older a manuscript, the more faithful it is. He acknowledges that the majority of witnesses carry the words we find in the received text. He fails to point out Tatian, one of the early fathers, also quotes the “received” text! But all of this he writes off as a “corruption rather than the original text”.
Many sound scholars have shown why the few apparently early texts are false. The early church rejected them. They were discarded early on only to be rediscovered around the 19th century. The true manuscripts were repeatedly copied as they became worn out and so quite obviously only later copies remain available.

It is worth noting that the child Jesus corrected his mother’s slip by replying How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? (v.49) His Father is the Father in Heaven and no other. If not then there was no Christ and no Saviour. He would not have been able to confess I am the truth. Christianity collapses and we would be forced to conclude that God also is a figment of our imagination and maybe we ourselves do not actually exist.

Luke 2:40, 52
And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him.
And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

These verses appear much the same in all the versions that I looked at, including the pernicious JW bible. None of them changed the word "wisdom". One is astounded therefore to read in Foundations; Issue No.42; Spring 1999, published by the British Evangelical Council, the following statement: "It is clear that Christ did not call on his divine knowledge to inform his human mind. So, for example, he grew in knowledge [my italics], Luke 2:40,52."

So the Scripture is flagrantly mutilated in order to promote a blasphemy, that the Lord was not omniscient. Partial omniscience is a nonsense as is temporary omniscience. Omniscience is an attribute of deity and if ALL knowledge was not at all times held in that perfect holy human mind then His deity is defective. So would be His human personality. It is folly to speak of the ignorance associated with His human nature, while He remained omniscient in His divine nature. Christ proclaimed neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son. Mat.11:27. This must be the supreme knowledge. It must mean also that what is known to the Father is known by the Son. We are also told of Jesus, knowing all things, Jn.18:4.

Unbelievers and rationalists will seize upon Mark 13:32 to prove the limitations of Christ. But of that day and that hour, knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

Unless we think (in our ignorance) that there are contradictions in Scripture, then we must look for another explanation. It is that in His role as Son of Man, it was not given to Him of the Father to reveal such knowledge. He said to His disciples, It is not for you to know the times and the seasons. Acts 1:7.

What of His growth in wisdom? Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. Heb.5:8. It was a learning through human experience, by which the Lord grew in wisdom.

Luke 2:49
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business?

The RSV changes this to, “Did you not know I must be in my Father’s house?” The Greek word for house, oikos, is not found here, as it is in John 2:16, where we read, make not my Father’s house an house of merchandise. Thus the emphasis in Luke is not on the house, but on the affairs of the Father. The Lord’s words indicate His deity. He is the Son who has come from the Father to conduct His affairs on earth.
When the Lord said In my Father’s house there are many mansions, (John 14: 1), He was clearly referring to heaven and not to the earthly temple. This temple was desecrated and Judaism was godless. Neither was He informing Mary and Joseph, at the age of twelve, that He ought to be in heaven. The words in my Father’s business satisfactorily translate en tois tou patros mou.
The RSV and other modern versions making this change rob Christ of His deity.

Luke 9: 31
Who appeared in glory, and spoke of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

The RSV replaces decease with departure. This is unnecessary as the word decease originally included the sense of departure. This is another word, which has been redefined to mean death only—and by implication, extinction.
The AV translators might have left the word in an anglicised form—exodus, but they didn’t. The Lord was speaking of his death at Jerusalem. The verse tells us so. But believers know that Christ rose again and will reign in glory in His kingdom.
Peter used the same word concerning himself (2 Peter 1: 15).

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.

Luke 16:22,23
The rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,

The average man in the street knows what is meant by hell. He knows it is a place beyond the grave for the godless and the profane and that is why it is an expletive commonly upon his lips. Satan has done his best to take the sting out of it.
Religionists and modern versionists have helped to this end. We find an early amendment in the 1879 edition of Wycliffe’s New Testament. Wycliffe wrote ‘ and the riche man was deed also, and was biried in helle. And he reseide hise i3en, whanne he was in turmentis’, but in the glossary at the end of the book we find this interpretation given:
helle, s, grave, Lk.xvi.23.
It will require a fantastic faith to believe that this rich man’s rotting corpse was placed in the (physical) grave and then all of a sudden it opened its eyes, being in torments, and cried out ‘ I am tormented in this flame’! Hell is not the grave. The rich man’s body was buried in a grave, but his soul was buried in hell.
Some have taught that hell (Greek hades, Hebrew sheol) was the place to which all departed spirits went until Christ came. So says J N Darby,

‘Hades’ like ‘Sheol’ ….is a very vague expression used in general to designate the temporary state of departed spirits, the unseen or invisible world of spirits, upon which, till the coming of Christ, darkness and obscurity rested, as may be seen in the Old Testament. It is applied to Christ, who went into paradise, and to the rich man in Luke 16, who found himself in torment. New Translation; fn to Mt.11:23.

Darby therefore would not translate hades but left the word in its anglicized form. Likewise the RV.
Psalm 9:17 tells us, The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God. This verse is sufficient to assure us that believers do not and never did get put into hell, otherwise the verse is meaningless. David anticipated heaven, for he wrote But God shall redeem my soul from the power of the grave [sheol], for he shall receive me. Ps.49:15. Jacob thought he might go down into sheol at death (Gen.37:35), but this doesn’t mean that he did. The teaching that Christ descended into hell at His death is heretical.
‘Grave’ in the O T translates five different Hebrew words, the commonest for the physical grave being keh’-ver,and for hell it is sheol. The context usually reveals whether ‘grave’ stands for the burying place of the body, or the place where the soul is buried. The grave in the N T is always the burying place of the body.

Gehenna is translated hell in the N T but is not synonymous with hades as the words of the Lord show. Mt.5:29 reads, the whole body should be cast into hell, and Mt.10:28 reads fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The body is placed in an earthly grave while the soul is consigned to hell (hades). Thus Gehenna is a picture of the Lake of Fire, Rev.20:14 into which, in that awful coming day, death (the body) and hell (the soul) shall be cast.

Luke 23:15
No, nor yet Herod: for I sent you to him; and, lo, nothing worthy of death is done unto him.

'D.G.' writes in a Christian magazine, 'Note these last three words, 'done unto Him'. They are a mistaken translation. the correct rendering of the Greek would be 'done by Him'. Greek grammar puts the matter beyond doubt;.....All modern translations (including .N.Darby's) agree that the AV's translation is mistaken here. How its translators came to make what is such an elementary mistake in Greek grammar we shall never know.'
There were eight scholars responsible for the AV translation of Luke's gospel. This is what A McCure tells us of them in his book, Translators Revived :-

HENRY SAVILE: Tutor in Greek and Maths to Elizabeth I. He became famous for his mathematical learning. Later made Warden of Merton College.

JOHN HARMER: King's professor of Greek; Headmaster of Winchester School for 9 years; Warden of his college for 17 years.

JOHN AGLIONBY: Fellow of Queen's College, Oxford. An excellent linguist.

LEONARD HUTTON: Known as an excellent Grecian, well versed in the learned languages.

GEORGE ABBOT: Entered Balliol College, Oxford at age of fourteen. Fellow at age of twenty one.
We are to understand that eight men, each of them of outstanding ability in the field of linguistics, and working together on the AV translation all made the same 'elementary mistake'! Not one of them spotted it. Neither did the other teams of academics as they cross checked each others' work. If 'D.G.'s (David Gooding's) academic attainments are not higher than those achieved by the men of the AV, then we trust that we shall never hear of him again. We must assume that he is also as fluent in Greek and several other languages as he is in his mother tongue, because they were.

But 'D. G.' is wrong. He has misunderstood the passage and appears only to be looking for opportunity to decry the translation that God has mightily blessed since 1611.

I am not a Greek student. All I can do is look in my Wenham's and note that auto means “to him”. It is auto in every Greek ms. If some then tell us that there is an unusual grammatical construction in this verse, we point out that it was well enough known in 1611. So if we keep to the AV translation, what does it mean? Norman Crawford explains the verse precisely, '[Pilate] sent Christ to Herod and no sentence of death was pronounced by the Tetrarch.' What the Bible Teaches; Vol.7. That is, Herod did not do anything with the Lord that would require the death sentence to be passed. That was the amazing thing! So Pilate said in that case he would just chastise the Lord and let Him go (v.16).

If we accept 'D.G.'s translation, 'I sent you to Him [sic]; and lo, nothing worthy of death is done by Him', we would understand that Pilate had sent the chief priests and rulers to Herod, and amazingly, Christ did not do anything in front of Herod to warrant death. Pilate was already well aware that the Lord was not guilty of any offence. He did not need Herod to tell him that. He hoped that the evil Herod would destroy Him anyway. But Herod did not even put the Lord on trial.

And do 'all modern translations agree that the AV is wrong here'? That statement is not justified by examination. Here is what one modern version says: 'No, nor Herod neither. For I sent you to him, and behold nothing worthy of death is done to him'. The Layman's New Testament; Sheed and Ward; 1927.

Those who attack the AV often make sweeping statements without bothering to check the evidence.

Luke 23 : 33
....the place, which is called Calvary, ....

Kranion, translated Calvary in Luke is “skull” in Mtt. 27: 33 and Mark 15: 22. a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull. Golgotha is of `Hebrew origin. Note John 19: 17, the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha. It is not a Chaldee word as lexicons will inform us. (Trust the Bible!)
Why did the AV translators use the word Calvary in Luke? The answer is simple. They used the latin word calvaria which means skull. They did not wish to use the Hebrew Golgotha to translate a Greek word for English readers.
They anglicised calvaria to give us Calvary. It is not a Roman Catholic word as some mischievously suggest.
The English language is full of latin words (together with words drawn from a multitude of other languages). No fault can be found in reading Calvary at Luke 23: 33.

John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.
Also see Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. 1.John.3:1

Some are telling us that John never spoke of believers as being the sons of God. The above two verses show that he did, using two different words, uios and teknon. However, they say that the Greek word uios (son) is a title that John reserved solely for the Son of God. However, we note that the word is used in 1:42, 4:5,12,46,47,50,53, 9:19,20, 12:36, and 17:12 without reference to the Lord. The word uios may be equally translated child, Acts 13:10; children, John 4:12 etc. It is in his first two epistles that John reserves the title for the Son of God.

So we find in modern versions the phrase "sons of God" being changed to "children of God". The difference, we are told, is that as children we are introduced into the family of God, and as sons we enjoy the dignity, heirship, and the spiritual blessing of being able to use the title Father in addressing God. All of which we do not dispute. But this does not give licence to alter the word of God. The AV reading is found in the Geneva Bible and other early translations. The AV translators saw no need for any change though they carefully considered the phrase.

This is really another case of altering the Bible to fit one's theology. So I do believe that when I received Christ, and believed on His name as the Scripture instructed me, I then became one of the sons of God. That is what my Bible says. That is what has been held to for centuries, and I don't believe there is any need to change it now.
Why not also change Rom.8:14,19 to read children of God? Why do modern versions not make the change here? The same Greek words are involved. The reason is a theological interpretation is being made, rather than a formal translation.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Wycliffe, having only the Latin Vulgate for his translation in 1380, wrote, ‘no man sai euer God, no but the oon bigetun sone, that is in the bosum of the fadir, he hath teld out’. The Vulgate reads, ‘Deum nemo vidit unquam, unigentius filius, qui est in sinus patris, ipse enarravit’. Oon bigetun sone = unigentius filius = the only begotten Son.
These are all formally equivalent translations of the Greek verse as it appears in the Received Text. Tyndale’s reading is identical to the AV excepting that he has a full-stop after time, and not a semi-colon.
The weight of evidence for the RT reading is massive. In which case one might wonder why the NASV reads, ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him’. J Moorman writes.

This is the classic Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of ‘intermediary gods.’ It is the trademark of corruption in the early Egyptian manuscripts which unfortunately spread to some others.¾ Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version.

E F Hills draws our attention to the source of this error in his book Believing Bible Study,

Burgon (1896) long ago traced these corruptions of the sacred text to their source, namely Valentinus. Burgon pointed out that the first time John 1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference is made to the doctrines of Valentinus. …. What could be more probable than Dean Burgon’s suggestion that Valentinus fabricated this reading by changing the only begotten Son to the only begotten God.? His motive for doing so would be his apparent desire to distinguish between the Son and the Word (Logos).

Valentinus may have been the perpetrator of the Egyptian Papyrus 75 which has this reading. This P75 was not used by Jerome as far as Jn.1:18 is concerned when he revised the Old Latin Bible in 382 AD. It is Jerome’s revision that became known as the Latin Vulgate. If Wycliffe knew of P75, he chose not to use it either. Tyndale and the AV translators knew about this alternative and rejected it. The NASV chose to use it.

There are no grounds for omitting the word “begotten”. It speaks of the intimate relationship that ever existed and continues to exist between the Eternal Father and the Eternal Son, the One ever in the bosom of the Father. Wycliffe kept ‘begotten’ and so did Westcott and Hort.
Hills points out that those who insist that begotten should always be omitted need to consider John 1:14, which they would be compelled to translate as ‘we have beheld his glory, glory as of an only from the Father’. That is nonsensical so they add the word Son without any authority whatsoever.

John 1: 28
These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Modern versions deny that these things were done in Bethabara. They insist the place was Bethany. Metzger is attributed as saying that the reading was altered to read Bethabara “to remove difficulties which would require tedious explanation”.
The Bible believer will find ample difficulty with Bethany. It is not “beyond” Jordan, but is about twenty miles from it, being close to Jerusalem and near to the Mount of Olives. Peran, translated “beyond” here, is several times translated “other side of”. John was baptizing in the Jordan at Bethabara, ten miles south of the Sea of Galilee. It was there the Lord came to John and there the Lord met the Galileeans Andrew, Peter, and Philip. The third day found the Lord still in Galilee at the wedding in Cana. We do not believe the Lord was in the proximity of Jerusalem on the first days of His public testimony.
We find the usual depraved mss responsible for the change to Bethany; Siniaticus, Vaticanus and also the Vulgate. Origen boasted that “this obtained in almost all the copies if his time” (Smith’s Dictionary). Yet “altered” his edition of the gospels to read Bethabara.. Now where did he get that from? And why did Jerome keep Bethabara in his Onomasticon?
It is Lachmann, Tischendorf, and other modern textual critics who have seized upon the two demonstratably corrupted mss to make the change from Bethabara to Bethany.
Bethabara means House of Ford The Jordan was shallow and crossable at this point.

John 3: 13
And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man which is in heaven.

The NIV changes the verse to read, “No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven-the Son of Man.
The AV Bible teaches that the Lord was in two places at the same time. He was walking on earth and at the same time He was in heaven, because He is one with the Father. The NIV and other perversions rob Christ of His omnipresence which is an attribute of Deity.

John 3:I5
Whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life..

These gospel words are very precious to the believer and they are also very plain. The statement is mutilated in the RV where "should not perish" is omitted without any just cause and instead of the positive have, there is substituted "may have". Thus one can believe but eternal life yet remains uncertain. The same is found in the NIV. -
Some try and tell us that no doctrine is affected by changes in modern versions. The doctrine of salvation is attacked here and the full assurance of salvation is denied. This is further proof that modern versionism is in the hands of unholy and unregenerate men.

John 3: 17
....that the world through him might be saved (sozo).

“He came to help, to put the world right again.” (The Message) This fiction is the work of Peterson who never believed in salvation through faith in Christ. His work is a very mischievous parody of the Scriptures.
Christ did not come to sort out social injustices. He came to seek and to save that which was lost. The day is coming when He will establish His kingdom on earth.

John 5: 3, 4
In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water, for an angel went down at a certain season into the pool and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

The words from “waiting for” to the end of verse 4 are omitted by the Critical Text. (Aland 26/27). They are regarded as a gloss by our modern scholars. Glosses are supposed changes to the original reading, made by copyists either intentionally, or by accident. Our modern scholars believe they are able to tell whether any reading is “original” or whether it is a gloss.
Prof J Heading in his commentary on this passage wrote,

Such a gloss was written in the margin of a manuscript not containing these words, as a sort of explanation to later readers who might wonder whatever the Jews were doing and thinking. a subsequent copyist of the text would then incorporate the gloss into the text itself, and that is why it appears in the TR from which the AV is translated. (What the Bible Teaches; Vol.6; p.87.J Ritchie Ltd.)

Prof Heading did not offer this as a theory. It is published as a statement of fact. Did Prof Heading ever see such a manuscript with its marginal insert? Did he know where this manuscript might be found? Has any person ever seen this manuscript? The answers are all negative.

If these words were not to be found in the “original” how is it that four of the Early Fathers- so called (Tatian, Tertullian, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Ambrose) quoted them?
Dr Moorman points out that “The indexes of ANPF do not show any pre-400 AD Father quoting John 5: 2, 5 with the disputed portion omitted”. (Early Church Fathers and the Authorized Version.)
Only the usual handful of mss omit this passage. It is found in the vast majority of mss.
It is also found in the English translations of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims, and Athorized.
Verse 7 is a testimony to the integrity of the passage. The paralyzed man testified to the miraculous stirrings of the water.

Yet Heading’s exposition is,

The descent of an angel to heal the first one who steps into the moving waters is a strange concept, and quite out of keeping with the way God acts in both OT and NT, and would even appear to be a rival to the Lord Jesus in His divine capacity to heal. Faith is not unintelligent when it has to weigh up such a strange concept whose absence from the text is supported by many manuscripts. In fact, it was an intermittent natural spring whose waters had healing properties.

“In fact” we are told, as Heading unfolds his wild theory. What “fact” is this, we wonder. What scientific or archaeological discoveries have been made in order to prove that the Bible is wrong here? Heading is proven to be false also concerning the many manuscripts. It may be Heading alsobelieved in the Lourdes superstition.
Faith accepts what God has recorded in His word. We may not understand it but it is only the rationalist who will attempt to alter the word of God.

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

The AV Bible rightly 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)

John 6:47
He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Most modern versions omit “on me”. The manuscript evidence in favour of “on me” is overwhelming while manuscript evidence for omission is flimsy (see Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version: J Moorman). Even the Catholic Doauy Version has “in me”.
John’s Gospel has the preposition eis (translated “in” or “on”) after the verb pisteuw (=I believe) thirty three times. It might be argued therefore that one omission can make very little difference to doctrine, but it needs only one fly in the ointment to make the ointment stink. If we find but one fly we might expect soon to find another...and another...until the whole is a putrefying mess. But that is what we find in modern versions and it is not found in the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible.
The omission here is critical. If belief in Christ is not specified, then everlasting life may be gained by believing anything. So, we find an article that assures its readers that the person who believes the Nicene Creed is a Christian. This kind of error arises through a reliance on a defective bible.
It is faith in Christ alone that brings salvation.

John 6: 69
And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.

The TBS Quarterly Record no.566 draws our attention to Scofield’s marginal note, ‘Or, we have believed and come to understand that thou art the Holy One of God’
This separates the Lord from the Old Testament prophecy concerning the coming Messiah. Scofield’s “or” hides the fact that his note is based on the critical text and implies that the marginal reading is on a par with the given reading. (The NA text makes 81 changes in John 6 – more than one for every verse.)
The omission of “that Christ” is made on the flimsiest of evidence. The words are omitted by seven mss (out of thousands); plus two Coptic mss and seven Gothic/Armenian/Ethiopian mss. The NA and the UBS have been unable to quote a single cursive omitting the words. They are found in all the major English translations:- Wycliffe. Tyndale, Geneva, Rheims. Great Bible and 1611 AV. We note that Wycliffe and the Rheims were based on the Latin Vulgate!
We see the damage done by Scofield even to this day in the number of brethren who blindly follow his notes. It is of little wonder that rationalism is strong among our teaching brethren who place such emphasis on those who follow a critical text as Scofield did.

John 7: 8
I go not up yet unto this feast.

J N Darby thought the Lord was capable of lying for he leaves the word “yet” (oupo) out of his translation. Not even the NIV does this! Neither does the JW New World Translation omit the word. Darby would have thought the Authorized Version to be on a par with these parodies of Scripture ― otherwise he would not have considered himself endowed with power to rewrite the whole Bible single-handed.
Darby was wrong. oupo is omitted by very few manuscripts.

John 7: 39
(....for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

Clarke writes in his commentary, “Δεδομενον, “given” is added by the Codex Vaticanus,(B) the Syriac, all the Persic, later Syriac with an asterisk, three copies of the Slavonic, Vulgate, and all the Itala but three; and several of the primitive fathers. The word seems necessary to the completion of the sense.”
To which last sentiment we concur.
The AV translators were more faithful in that they put given in italics. Italics in the AV are to show which English words have been necessarily added to make sense of the Hebrew/Greek reading.
The pedant, J N Darby, not finding given in the Greek, leaves the word out of his translation. so he writes “the Spirit was not yet,” leaving his readers to assume the Holy Ghost did not exist at that time.

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)

John 10:16
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold; them also must I bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold and one shepherd.

Bible critics seize on this verse as evidence of a defective translation in the AV. They have pointed out that the second fold (Gk.poimnee )should be translated "flock" because a different Greek word is used for each, the first fold being aulee. They think that the AV translators were too dull to notice the two different words. They clamour for Dynamic Equivalence but deny that liberty to the AV. So let our revisionists be consistent and make the verse read, "other sheep I have which are not of this palace", for that is how Darby translates aulee in Mt.26:3. These men will have to defend themselves so they tell us, "The difference is vital. Israel as a nation was kept in by a wall of separation (Eph.2:14) as in a fold. But today the ‘other sheep’ of the believing Gentiles are formed into ‘one flock’ with the believing Jews, and this is held together not by an external code of laws but by a common attraction to the ‘one Shepherd’. As has often been truly said, we are not all held in by a wall around us, we are all drawn in by a Shepherd in the midst of us." (JGT, Present Truth, Vol.8. No.93.

When we look at the context we see that boundaries are very much in view, even for the flock of God. If there is no wall round this flock then a door (v.9) is totally superfluous for us today. Common attraction does not hold sheep. Though the grass be ever so green where they are, yet they remain prone to wander. So His sheep are held secure in His hand and in His Father's hand. From that enfolding none can be plucked out and none can wander off. Of course, the true believer loves his Lord and loves the Shepherd's voice. So they will not follow a stranger. There are none stranger than the modern versionists.

Thus our translators knew what they were doing when they translated poimnee as fold, even though they translated it as flock in Mt.26:31, Lk.2:8, and 1 Cor.9:7. Objectors will have to believe that they were opposed to the teaching of the Holy Spirit in their translation. Those who have looked into the vexed question of modern versions know where the opposition lies.

Dynamic Equivalence is interpretation, rather than translation. The AV Translators used Formal Equivalence which is word for word translation as far as they were able. That means verb for verb, noun for noun, tense for tense etc. Modern men care nothing for this because they do not believe in verbal inspiration. Here is an example:- "For the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable". Romans 11:29 RSV. There is no Greek word in the NT that can be translated "irrevocable" and it is the calling that is being spoken of, not the call, which is without repentance. A few days after I was saved in 1955 I bought a copy of the RSV. The young brother who got me to go to the gospel meeting where I was then saved urged me to throw it in a dustbin. That was sound advice though it took me a few years to see it. The RSV is a pollution. We see it quoted in popular Christian journals with much sadness.

John 13:2
And supper being ended….

"During supper", says Darby. "The evening meal was being served", says the NIV. "Supper having come", say others.
Did the AV translators make a careless mistake, not noticing that the same chapter describes the supper continuing? Could they have been that stupid? Was it not rather that they had too rigid an approach to the Received Text so that they would have to blindly translate something that did not make sense? Many think so, with little consideration of the issues.

First, let us say that the AV is an accurate and faithful translation of the Received Text. Godet points out that genomenou (having taken place), is the reading of the received Text with ALL the other Maj. Mss.,all the Mins. and Versions and Origen (once);
ginomenou (taking place), is the reading of Aleph ,B L M X Or (four times). These latter five mss. (Five against thousands) are seriously depraved, but the critics "prefer" these to the overwhelming evidence in favour of the AV reading. Origen was one of the first correctors of Scripture. He was the first to teach much of what the JW's hold to. Those who make changes to the AV today follow his tradition. They are his children.
There were of course two suppers that night. It was the last time that the "Passover Supper" was to be observed by the Lord's disciples. So that supper being ended, something new was to be introduced. It would be preceded by the example of feet washing and then would follow the "Lord's Supper".

John 14:6
I am the way, the truth, and the life.

Men will use their defective grasp of the English language in order to malign the Scriptures, which is what so often happens when they attack the language of the Authorized Bible. An example, heard recently, is the misquoting of this verse to make it read, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life.". The critics will have us to know that there are two "ands" in the Greek text. (They only use the Greek when it suits them, otherwise they hold to what they call Dynamic Equivalence which means they can make it up as they go.)

The translators of the AV went in for accurate translation (known as Formal Translation ) but knew that in the English language a sentence carrying enumerations requires an "and" only between the last two items. Between earlier enumerations a comma suffices. Note the clumsy rendering of the verse by JND, Hort, the NIV, and others. If brethren do not understand plain English, how can they possibly expound the English Bible to us? Yet they will boast that they know a few Greek words. Let readers be assured that God is competent to produce an English Bible that we may safely refer to as the Scriptures, from cover to cover. Scripture does not, and cannot change but all modern versions change because their authors believe in an evolving bible.

John 14:23
If a man love me, he will keep my words.

Modern versions have ….”he will keep my word”. The critics will protest an error in the AV for making logos plural when in the Greek it is singular. In this the modern men lose the import of the statement. They think that the word may be kept in a general sense and individual words do not matter. It is the “message” that counts. This is claimed as licence to remove words they do not like and to add others that are not in the text.
It is not only a matter of practising the Lord’s teaching, which all who love the Lord do. Those who keep the Lord’s words preserve them. The AV men were well aware that ton logon in this verse embraces all the words of God. Those who hack it about with their pseudo-scholarship display a lack of love to Christ and come under the judgment of Rev. 22:19. If any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life.
Some young believers who for a while may be misled by the critic teachers, may not come under this judgment. Those men who boast that they have examined the version issue and then publicly condemn the Authorized Bible are in a different situation, placing themselves under the judgment of God. However, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men.
We pray for our teachers who think it smart to tell their congregations where the Bible is wrong. We know that many of them think it scholarly to be critical and they like to make an impression on their audiences.

John 18: 5,6
I am he. (ego eime)

Those who claim this 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)
See my notes on John 18: 5,6 in AV Verses Vindicated, Vol.1, Matt – Romans.

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.
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.

Acts 1:18,19
Now this man purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity....that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say, The field of blood.

Why change what is obvious and for which there are no textual variations? Three times in these two verses a field is referred to but some preachers like to appear to have special knowledge. So we are told that our Bible is wrong when it speaks of a field. It should be a farm. Luke couldn’t have been aware of this, assuming we don’t believe in the verbal inspiration of Scripture anyway.
Judas bought a field and it was still a field after he died for the name Aceldama tells us so. He may have built a house on the land as verse 21 suggests, but there is no authority for calling it a farm and there is no excuse for contradicting the word of God. The ground had been known as the potter’s field and the chief priests bought this land after Judas’s death, using the thirty pieces of silver, and turned it into a burial ground for strangers.
Strangely, in a different context, another preacher tells us that the Lord was born in a field—and therefore not in Bethlehem as Matt.2:1 so plainly tells us. We know very well that inns in NT times usually had stables attached to them (often in the basement) and mangers would be provided for the animals.
Scripture is being contradicted more and more by our preachers who want to impress us with their “inside” knowledge. They become modern day Gnostics.

Acts 1: 20
For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

It is alleged by some that “bishoprick” is one of the ecclesiastical words to be kept in the translation of the AV Bible. They seem unsure whether it was King James or Archbishop Bancroft who ordered it. We note that in 1 Peter 5:2 the word episkopeo is translated “oversight” and not, as we might have thought the Archbishop would have demanded, “bishopric”. Note also “overseers” for episkopos in Acts 20: 28. Perhaps even Bancroft thought that a faithful translation was more important than a mere clinging to ecclesiastical terms.
Bishoprick is a translation of the Greek episcope translated the office of a bishop in 1 Tim.3 :1. (nb. The phrase is not in italics) and visitation in Lk.19: 44 and 1 Pet.2: 12.
The Old English form of the word was biskop (or bisceop ) and appears in Wycliffe as bishopriche in 1 Tim.3: 1 and Acts 1: 20.

Tyndale has bisshoprycke and so Matthew’s Bible has bishopric. The Geneva Bible has “the room of this ministration”. The AV translation is therefore a move back to what it had been.
Episkope is literally translated “oversight” (this word occurring only once in the AV New testament, at 1 Pet. 5: 2) This was the role (office) occupied by the Apostles, of which Judas was one).
The AV reading causes no problem to the Bible believer. He will not want to tear the word out of his Bible simply because it has been hijacked and abused by men wishing to develop their own ecclesiastical hierarchies. There are many similar Bible words abused and misused today. We shall not surrender them to ungodly men.

Acts 2: 30
Therefore being a prophet and knowing that God had sworn with 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;…

The prophecy is that Christ would one day sit on the throne of David. This has yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled in the future millennial reign of Christ.
Prophecies relating to Christ, yet unfulfilled, are scorned by Christ rejectors, so the NIV reads, “But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne”. This might be any person. David knew that in a future day Christ Himself would occupy the throne of David. This is an embarrassment to A-millenialists of course which accounts form their mutilation of Scripture.

Acts2: 47
And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Modern versions omit “the church” (ekklesia). The Lord used the word first in Matt.16: 18, I will build my church;
showing that prior to this the church did not exist. It was not to be Israel in new guise. The church was not to be introduced solely because of Israel’s rejection of their Messiah. It was in the mind of God from eternity.
In Acts 5: 11 we see an established church. When we come to Acts 9 we find a multiplicity of churches (v.31).
The word Ekklesia is found 115 times in the New Testament. So why omit it in Acts 2? The reason is not hard to find; it disturbs Covenant Theology which refuses to recognise the differences between the Church and Israel..
Acts 4: 24
And when they heard that, they lifted up their voice to God with one accord, and said, Lord, thou art God, which hast made heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all that in them is:
Modern versions alter Thou art God to “thou art he”. Men do not like the deity of God to be acknowledged. The expression is in the Received Text.

Acts 4:27,30
For of a truth against thy holy child Jesus, whom thou hast anointed....by the name of thy holy child Jesus.

These verses link the deity of Christ with his virgin birth. The word “child” appears in Tyndale, the Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, the Bishop's Bible and even in the RC Rheims bible. Also there is not one ms. giving doulos (=servant). The Greek word used is pais which the AV Translators were well aware may be translated “child” or “servant according to the context. Thus, He hath holpen his servant Israel (Luke 1:54) and healed the child (Luke 9:42). If we read “servant” instead of “child” in Acts 4:27,30 then Christ is brought down to the level of a sinning man for in the same context we read thy servant David. (v.25). Again we see the spiritual intelligence of the AV Translators.

Acts 8:37
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God

This verse is missing entirely from all modern versions because it is a crystal clear confession of faith in Jesus Christ being the Son of God. It is a confession essential to any conversion. Darby in a footnote in his New Translation wrote, "v.37 in the Authorized Version is recognized as not genuine". If a lie is stated boldly some folk will believe it. However, it has been pointed out that the verse was quoted by Irenaeus 150 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written. It is cited by Cyprian 90 years before Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were written, and it has an unbroken chain of testimony from the Old Latin (2nd Cent.) and the Vulgate (5th Cent.) to the uncial manuscript "E" (6th to 7th Cent.) to the present time.(P Ruckman, Problem Texts; p.331.)

So why do some of our brethren refute the verse? Is it not because some of them are pseudo-brethren? (2 Cor.11:26). If the verse is not recognized it is because the god of this world hath blinded their minds.

Acts 12:4
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quarternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth unto the people.

Bible critics seize upon this verse in order to try to prove that the AV reading, Easter, is wrong. They are anxious to tell us that the true rendering should be "Passover". They ignore the wealth of evidence against the notion, and the volumes that have been written on the subject. A very useful defence of the use of the word Easter can be found in The Answer Book by Dr S G Gipp.

Yet we find the question raised again, "Is the word "Easter" just an inaccurate translation? Is Easter a Christian or a Jewish festival? The reply given, in Question Box; Believers Magazine, Dec.96. was "The actual word used in Acts 12:4 is Pascha and is of Aramaic origin. It refers to the Passover.... Thus Herod was waiting until after the Passover period was over". We reply, "How thoughtful of him. How kind and compassionate he must have been to the Jews. It mattered not that they had killed the Lord on Passover Day itself.

But is it the ACTUAL (i.e. the word I read in my Bible) word used? What about this? I open my Bible and find the ACTUAL word used is EASTER. The conclusion I must come to is that my Bible is not the ACTUAL word of God. And of course, no Bible on earth is the ACTUAL word of God because, insist the critics, God's ACTUAL words disappeared with the original manuscripts.
The New Nicolaitans will now inform us what is and what is not the ACTUAL word of God. These men now teach that we cannot, dare not, trust our Bible without the help of their scholarship. But all ought to be aware by now that 99.9% of all scholarship is apostate and has been so for the last 5000 years. Scholarship built the tower of Babel. (For a history of apostate scholarship begin reading at Gen.4:17-24. "Enoch"= initiated!).
Our translators were well aware that Pascha usually means "Passover". This is why they translated it thus 28 out of the 29 times where the word is found in the NT. They also knew that the Passover feast had in fact already gone and so a very significant phrase is inserted; then were the days of unleavened bread, these days being the days that follow immediately after the feast of the Passover. They also knew that Herod was a Roman idolater whose god, Astarte, was the "Queen of Heaven", to be worshipped particularly at sunrise on Easter Morning.
So, led by the Spirit of God, the word "Easter" was placed by the translators on to the Holy page of Scripture. There was no Greek word for Easter so Pascha had to be used by Luke and to avoid confusion he reminded his readers that these were the days of unleavened bread when Peter was seized. And no, Easter was not at that time a Christian feast. It never has been a Christian feast. The celebration of Easter in any form remains a Pagan rite, along with the celebration of the Christ-mass.
(see further notes at Gal.4:10)

Acts 13:33
God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Critics tell us that “again” ought not to be in the verse. Not finding any manuscript variation, they quote from spurious authorities for its exclusion ¾JND and the RV. Of course, they might well quote from almost any other modern version, but that might put brethren on their guard.
We quote

In Acts 13.33, where the AV reads, ''God hath fulfilled the same unto us. . .in that he hath raised up Jesus again'', note that the RV and JND, with others, omit the word ''again''. This is not the raising up of Jesus again from the dead, in resurrection, as in vv. 30 and 34. It is His being raised up amongst them as a man, as was David in v.22, ''He raised up unto them David''. This is obviously not resurrection. So, ''Of this man's seed hath God. . .raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus (v.23) . In connection with this true manhood, the apostle quotes the second Psalm in v.33. A Man had been raised up among them who was God's Son. ¾J Flannigan; What the Bible Teaches; Psalms; p23

So why does JND, in Matt.20:19, have “ the third day he shall rise again” and in 1 Thes. 4:13 “Jesus has died and has risen again”. The same word is used here, assuring us that the word in Acts 13:33 is the proper word for resurrection. It is a serious thing when brethren tamper with the word of God to promote their theological opinions. Also note Jn.11:23.

Flannigan’s note is from his commentary on Psalm 2 where he denies the Son to be eternally the only-begotten of the Father. This error is the product of Arianism. John tells us no man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (Jn.1:18). Again, God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. (1 Jn.4:9). This is an eternal relationship.

Acts 13:48
as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

This certainly appears to be a difficult verse for those who oppose Calvinism. Fisk, in his otherwise excellent book Calvinistic Paths Retraced, suggests that the AV translators were biased by their Calvinistic views when they came to this verse, and were influenced by the Latin Vulgate. He wrote: 'certain blunders many Protestants have fallen into are traceable to errors springing from that same Vulgate, which misconceptions members of the "Reformed faith" seem reluctant to acknowledge or turn from.' (p.68). Fisk apparently does not believe that the AV Bible is the verbally inspired word of God. Presumably he does not believe that God's hand was in this translation in preserving it from error.

Though the AV translators may have been largely "Calvinistic", they were a mixed company of Anglicans and Puritans who were godly men committed to producing a faithful and accurate English translation. They did not allow their doctrinal views to colour the translation. They did not blindly follow the Vulgate. Their work was based almost entirely on William Tyndale's translation. Tyndale has been described as the Father of the English Bible. In any case the chairman of the translating committee, Lancelot Andrewes was by no means a Calvinist. (See Waymarks No.24).

David Cloud comments, concerning Tyndale's background, "It is possible, then, that Tyndale's family, or at least some of his near relatives, were Anabaptists, though that is not certain. We know that Tyndale associated himself, at least through letters from the continent, with a body of independent Christians in London." Cloud then quotes historian John Christian, "It is certain he shared many views held by the Baptists. He always translated the word eclesia by the word congregation, and held to a local congregation of a church....made up of believers. Baptism was a plunging into the water. Baptism to avail must include repentance, faith and confession." (O Timothy; Vol.16, issue 12, 1999,p.4.

We have this account of John Fryth, Tyndale's brilliant and like-minded friend, "Fryth fled to the Continent in the autumn of 1526 and joined Tyndale for some time, before returning to England to minister in the separated churches. There were a number of congregations that were meeting in England in those days entirely independently of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and many of the pastors of these congregations were martyred for their faith. Fryth was one of these. Ibid. p.13.

Fisk goes on to say that Alford renders it “as many as were disposed to eternal life”, to which the Calvinists will reply, "Yes, and God disposed them to it.". Fisk quotes a number of unconverted scholars to defend his rejection of the Scripture as many as were ordained stating that it is not the usual word for "ordain" that is used in this verse. In fact there are ten Greek words that have been translated as "ordained" in the AV NT. The Greek word (tasso) used in Acts 13:48 is also "ordained" in Rom. 13:1 the powers that be are ordained of God. It is "appointed" in Mat.28:16, Acts 22:10, 22:23. He should have pointed out that it is not the word for "foreordained" that is used, because only God can foreordain. Men can make their ordinations and the Gentiles in this context had certainly done that. So although these Gentiles were indeed disposed to eternal life because they had accepted and believed the gospel, there is nothing wrong with the word ordain. We don't have to let the Reformists make us frightened of what we read in the word of God.

What the verse does NOT say is as many as were ordained to believe... . God never predestined, or ordained, or foreordained, or elected, any soul to believe or indeed to be saved. God's ordination is to eternal life, and this is granted to all who believe the gospel. Whosoever WILL may come. That free will is involved is seen in Acts13:46, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

Acts 16: 14
And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul.

The NASB has “ … and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.” But the Lord opens the heart of any who are willing to respond to His word. Having had her heart opened she still had to attend to Paul’s ministry, and she still had to voluntarily submit herself to it. We must not think her heart was opened against her free will.

Acts 17:22
Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

The Bible critics are sure that Paul would never have said anything so offensive. They think he was quite neutral in his speech and merely said, “I see that in every way you are very religious”. (NIV). Most modern versions read similarly.
When James wrote of the religious man he used the Greek word threeskos and then defined pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father using the word threeskia (James 1:26,27). Paul did not use these words. He warned the Athenians that they were disidaimonesteros, i.e. they were giving undue reverence to evil spirits.
Paul was not trying to channel their religious fervour in the right direction. He pointed out to them in as plain speech as possible that evil spirits were behind every one of their altars. Worship at these altars was therefore a superstition, an irrational reverence borne out of a fear and dread of the unknown (occult).

All the religions, sects, cults, and denominations of this world are superstitions and are idolatrous. As such they are an abomination to God and the Father. Those who tear at the word of God today are unconverted religionists and we are not surprised to find them recoiling at the words of the apostle.

Acts 19:37
For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess.

Critics claim “robbers of churches” to be wrongly translated. The Greek word is hierosulous and should read “robbers of temples”. But the Ephesians recognised only one temple, that of Diana. It is clear that the word has a broader meaning here and so the AV men used “church” in the sense allowed by the O E D.—“Applied to other (chiefly modern) religious societies and organisations”. An example of older usage is seen in Sir Thomas More ( In Heresyes, 1528: “Ye doo persecute them as the churche of the Paynims [i.e. pagans] did”
So we understand that Paul could not be charged with desecrating any religious buildings.
The defect is not in the translation but in the understanding of those who criticise it.

Acts 20:28
…the church of God, which he purchased with his own blood.

Bible believers take this to be a clear statement of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse is accurately translated from reliable manuscripts. Because the verse shows Christ to be God it has long been a source of contention to some. J Heading wrote, "the translation 'purchased with His own blood' can be paraphrased [my italics] more helpfully as 'purchased with the blood of His own Son' (Acts, p.254). He knew that it could not be translated thus. There is no authority whatever for the inclusion of 'Son' in the Greek text. So Heading paraphrased 'more helpfully'! This is an attempt to improve on the work of the Holy Spirit Who supplied and preserves all Scripture. Hort was the first to include 'Son' in his Greek text, though they dared not print it in the Westcott/Hort RV Bible. Darby's New Translation reads 'with the blood of His own' which is ambiguous and not good English. W Kelly confessed that "the expression as it stands in the Authorized and Revised versions is unexampled in Scripture [must every unique statement of Scripture be abandoned then?] and what is more,.... it is peculiarly embarrassing for the Christian scholar." (Exposition of the Acts of the Apostles,p.309). But who are these Christian scholars? the wine-bibbing, necromancing Westcott and Hort were two of them. If you know of a Christian scholar not marked by rationalism, I would like to know his name. Kelly went on to say that if the true text is as it appears in the Received Text, we must translate it as in the AV. Well that is exactly how it is. Only a few perverted manuscripts change it. It is indeed the true text.

Acts 20: 28 (a)
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers....

“...in the which..” (RV, ESV, etc.).
David Oliver, in Truth and Tidings (Nov. 07) wrote,

The Authorized Version is misleading in translating [this] verse,

It is assumed that the AV translators were unlettered clods. Such is the crass ignorance of those who make such an assumption. The Greek preposition en is translated “over” in the AV Bible at this verse. The translators were well aware of the wide use of en as does the Bible student who has learned to use his Greek lexicon. There are many words in the English language that can be used legitimately to translate en besides “in”. The choice depends on the context.
The object is “overseers”, one who oversees or superintends, therefore the most suitable English preposition is “over”.
This in no way diminishes the fact the overseer is first a brother among his brethren.

David Oliver presumably does not believe the Authorized Version is the Holy Bible. He thinks the ESV is “more accurate”.

AV VersesVindicated Rom. to Rev.

2010-06-12T02:26:00.001-07:00

AV Verses Vindicated (Collated from Waymarks issues 1-60)

Romans to Revelation

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 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.

These words, as they appear in the AV Bible have brought comfort to a myriad of believers. The peace spoken of is the present possession of every soul justified by faith, i.e. of every born again believer. But the RV would rob us of this peace, making it a thing to be striven for, even after conversion, by altering the reading to “therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God.” But our peace has been secured on the cross once and for all.

Metzger (whose feminized NRSV has now hit the market) would have us to believe that the 'error' came about and was perpetuated in the vast majority of manuscripts because scribes, copying by dictation, misheard a word. However the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus scribes managed to hear correctly.

Romans 5:11
.... we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Some commentators (Newell on Romans) like to tell us that the atonement is an Old Testament subject, not taught in the New Testament. Reconciliation replaces Atonement.
F E Stallan, in What the Bible Teaches says this about this verse,

The word rendered “atonement” in the AV is better rendered “reconciliation”. In v.10 the verb form (katalasso) is given; in this verse it is the noun (katallage). The work of atonement is the offering of Christ on the cross as a sacrifice [Stallan doesn’t agree with Newell – R. S.]. This could not be received by mankind. What has been received is the reconciliation, the change of state from being enemies to being “accepted in the beloved” (Eph.1:6). Reconciliation is the effect of atonement.

If the atonement is not a New Testament truth, then, as Stallan shows, we cannot be reconciled either. This raises the issue; why then is it necessary to tamper with the English translation? Some will tell us it is for the sake of consistency, because only one root Greek word is used throughout. The beauty of the English language is in its breadth. In a multitude of places there are many English words that can adequately translate one Greek word. The AV translators gave expression to this when Dr Smith wrote, “For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? [keep in mind that Dr Smith was writing about translation and not about inspiration – R. S.].Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? Use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?” Translating for King James; John Bois’s notes edited by Ward Allen.
We point out that this is not the same as that practiced by the modern versionists. The AV translators nevertheless used formal equivalence whereas the modern practice is to use dynamic equivalence.

In the verse under revue, you will note that at “atonement” in the AV Bible, a marginal alternative is given, i.e. “or, reconciliation”. This instructs us that the translators considered the choice of translation carefully and were all agreed that “atonement” was the better word for this particular verse, though they had translated the Greek word differently elsewhere. We can say that ALL the translators were in agreement, for in the case of different words being suggested, John Bois recorded them and gave the reasons why they should not be included in the body of the translation. He made NO notes on Romans 5:11, so we conclude that ALL were agreed that "“reconciliation" would have no more than a marginal reference.
We learn then, that in 1611AD “atonement” and “reconciliation” were almost synonymous but that “atonement” carried the fuller meaning in this instance.

The Romish Douay version of 1582AD was the first English bible to change from “atonement”. The word is found in Tyndale, Geneva, etc. I have copies of all these books mentioned and have checked it out for myself. I also have a facsimile 1611AD Bible. Rome is behind all modern versions. Would that our brethren who love to appear scholarly would check out the facts for themselves also.
Atonement in the 16th century meant at-one-ment (according to my etymological dictionary). The believer has received this being at-one-ment with God and thereby is reconciled to God. What joy we have in God! I believe in the New Testament teaching of atonement because I read it in my New Testament.
Stallan in his statement above, “this [atonement] could not be received by mankind” demonstrates the critical view that if words of Scripture conflict with one’s theology then the Scripture must be changed and not the theology.

Romans 6:3
so many of us as were baptized

Some have inferred from these verses that some believers were not baptized. As English is no longer taught we can understand the confusion of some today. They do not realise that a relative pronoun would be needed to produce this interpretation, and the verse would read "as many of us as were baptized". In this context "so many" means whosoever. Anybody at all who was baptized into Jesus Christ was thereby baptized into His death. The verse is not speaking of water-baptism, a view which supports the difficulty that some have with the verse, but with a spiritual experience. If it were water-baptism in view, then I didn't begin to walk in newness of life until some time after I was born again. I believe that Romans 6 gives us the doctrinal import of what happens at conversion, which is then publicly proclaimed in the act of water-baptism.

Scripture does not recognize unbaptized believers. The NT teaching demands total immersion upon confession of faith.

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The words 'who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit' are omitted from modern versions. We note what various commentators have to say about it.
• The words are probably a gloss introduced from v.4………Dean Alford.
• Chrysostom accepted this verse as part of the text………….Sadler. [ he stood very much alone in his view]
• The Egyptian and Ethiopic Versions, with Origen and Athanasius omit the phrase………… Sanday and Headlam
• These words are wanting in the foremost representations of every group of authorities (except, perhaps, those which belong to the region of Syria)……. Ellicot.
The group of commentators given above do not offer their own opinions. They were not dogmatic. They recorded what they thought they had discovered. We have long since learned how far off from the truth they were, concerning the RT.

Egypt was the home of apostasy and was Origen's stamping ground after he had been excommunicated. Syria was where the gospel was established. The Syriac Peshitta was probably the first faithful translation of the word of God. This gives us an insight into the background of Bible mutilation. We see a false bible emerging before the end of the second century AD.

But now consider another group of commentators. These were men who were among us in assembly fellowship:

• “The latter part of the verse is wrongly inserted. According to the most authoritative mss the right position of that clause is at the end of v.4”……… Vine.

• “[The words] are not part of the original text of v.1 (cf.RV RSV NEB) but were introduced under the influence of verse 4b where they properly belong”…FF Bruce

• “The latter half of the verse is considered to be an interpolation and should be omitted. It comes in at 4.4 which is its proper place”………FE Stallan.

• Darby omitted the phrase from his New Translation without even a footnote to explain its absence. He is guilty of taking from the word of God.
These men passed judgment on the word of God and were ready to alter it. They did not merely record what others had said.

So what is the evidence?

For inclusion
The majority of the cursive manuscripts, plus the Old Latin Version.

For exclusion
Aleph *, B C D* F G, and a few cursives.

This handful of excluding mss are the same popish mss that we keep coming up against. They form the basis of the modern versions, particularly the first two mss.

It is with deep regret and utter dismay that we find so many of our present leading Bible teachers following the apostate line and doing so with such dogmatism against all the evidence.

Romans 8: 28
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

James White has “We know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” This is the NASB version which White quotes in the book Debating Calvinism – five points, two view, which he co-authors with Dave White.

Romans 9: 11-12

(For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.

Some have suggested that the opening words the children are not in the original and should be omitted. The omission will make it easier to refute Calvinistic teaching. One writer (Chosen in Christ; James Crookes; J Ritchie Ltd. P.20) says “The words ‘the children’ are actually not in the original text, and their interpolation obscures Paul’s argument.”

The writer presumably does not understand why the AV Bible has words in italics. Words in italics indicate that the word or words are not present in Greek or Hebrew but are needed to make better sense in the English translation. If the words the children were to be omitted from the verse no change would be made to the meaning —“For being not yet born…..It was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger.” The omission therefore calls for an ellipsis as the reader might ask himself the question, “Who being not yet born?” and finds the answer in the context, Rebecca’s children, the twins Jacob and Esau.

The book Chosen in Christ was written to refute the claims of Calvinism. Calvinism is false of course in every respect, but the case is severely weakened if a writer thinks he must rubbish the Authorized Bible to prove it.

We add that the election of v.11 does not relate to salvation. To argue that because God in His sovereignty dealt with certain individuals in a special way, God therefore planned from eternity to elect certain other individuals to salvation is tenuous at the very least.

Romans 9: 29
And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha

Paul was quoting Isaiah 1: 9, Except the LORD of hosts had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom, and we should have been like unto Gomorrah.

D Kaus, in his book Choosing a Bible, writes that Paul─

uses the Greek word that means “descendants” (sperma, “seed”) instead of “survivors”, thereby inadvertantly changing the sense of the passage.

Kaus is stating that it is not the AV that is wrongly translated here, rather that the apostle himself got it wrong. It was a careless slip on his part, no doubt because he didn’t understand Isaiah’s prophecy. How thankful we should be that this unconverted critic can now help us!
He also wants us to understand that the Bible is NOT verbally inspired. That God is NOT responsible for its authorship, unless perhaps the Holy Spirit inadvertantly supplied the wrong word.
Take warning — if you do not believe in the verbal (word for word) inspiration of Holy Scripture, and if you do not believe that God has supplied us with an inspired English Bible today, there is little likelihood that you are a believer on the way to heaven.
Neither Paul nor Isaiah were speaking of mere survivors. Joel 2: 32 is instructive; And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call.
Isaiah did not write of those who managed to survive the judgment of Sodom by chance. They were those who were called of God and responded to His call, and this is what Paul is writing about. God’s survivors are those who are saved, delivered, from going down to hell.

Romans 10:9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

The Good News [?] bible changes this to "if you confess that Jesus is Lord. And believe that God raised him from death, you will be saved". In this one verse the GNB makes five major changes, (ignoring the change of singular thou to plural you). The point of the passage is missed in its presentation of the double testimony, heart and mouth, internal and external evidence of the possession of salvation. The tense is changed from shalt confess; shalt believe, (aorist in the Greek) to present, thereby losing the impact of the imperative nature of the command to confess and believe. Then, the Lord was not raised from death. One might be brought back from death, but not raised from it. The Scripture tells us that the Lord was raised from the dead. A more serious change is the alteration of Scripture to read Jesus is Lord. This has given rise to the popular "Jesus is Lord" slogan that we see everywhere. It robs Christ of His deity. Every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. Phil.2:11. So in Rom.10:9, there is no verb (is). Rather, the confession is to the whole person of Christ, the Lord Jesus. The emphasis is not solely upon His Lordship but upon His full possession of deity and humanity

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.

Romans 15: 16
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God....

“....and do the work of a priest in the service of his good news” CEV.
“.... in the priestly service of the gospel of God.” ESV
“....I serve as a priest by spreading the Good News of God.” GW
“....serving as a priest of God’s good news.” HCSB

Commentators and modern versions of Scripture are almost universally agreed that Paul, according to this verse, acted as a priest. Yet there has never been discovered one single Greek manuscript containing this verse where mention is made of a priest. This is a case of Nicolaitan interference (see Rev. 2: 6 and make sure you understand what Nicolaitanism is all about).
hierourgounta (ministering) occurs here only in the New Testament. The emphasis is on the work and not the person. Parkhurst, in his Greek dictionary describes it as “being employed in the sacred business of preaching or administering the gospel”. He makes no mention of priests. Beware those who do.
The AV translators were familiar enough with the word priest and could have used it if it had been required, as they did from Matthew to Acts in regard to the Jewish system, and in Hebrews concerning Christ and the contrast with the Jew’s high priest. In Revelation all believers are described as priests.

Romans 16:24
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.

The enemies of the Received Text and the Authorized Version of the Holy Bible are convinced that here is a clear error. ‘the western authorities have it here instead of in xvi.20b’ said F F Bruce in his commentary on Romans. How careless of them! They are to be regarded as so stupid that they slipped the sentence in the second time only four verses down the page. They didn’t notice that they had already written the verse. Such is the contempt held by the mighty scholars for what happens to be the word of God.
W E Vine in his commentary on Romans is rather more crafty. He misses the verse out entirely and without comment.
F E Stallan in his commentary on Romans (What the Bible Teaches), wants his readers to know that
the RV, with most critical editors, rejects this verse as an interpolation. It is substantially the same as v.20 with the exception that the word “all” is included. If the verse is authentic it adds another note of encouragement for the Romans from Paul.

One must not think that Stallan was more willing to accept the AV reading than was Bruce and Vine. His words ‘if the verse is authentic’ means he did not trust his AV Bible, neither the RV, nor any other version. His words cast doubt on the word of God as do all the volumes in the What the Bible Teaches series. The support for the inclusion of v.24 is overwhelming. It is found in Tyndale’s Bible, also in the Great Bible, the Geneva, and the Bishops Bible. Stephens, Beza, and Elzevir kept it. It is found in many MSS and in the vast majority of cursive MSS. It is in the Old Latin, the Vulgate, the Syriac, the Harclean and is quoted by six of the so-called Early Fathers. We accept and believe what we find in our Bible. This we do as believers always have done down through the ages. From the evidence supplied, as with this verse under consideration, we are reassured that our acceptance is not due to prejudice or vain tradition, but because of faith in our God. It is faith in the God Who promised to preserve His word and so clearly has done. Verse 20 was an encouragement first to the saints at Rome, following a warning as to the division makers. Verse 24 concludes the whole epistle which is then followed by a doxology.

A word about them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned. Paul says mark them and avoid them. I learned as a young man in assembly fellowship that I could trust my Bible. Those who want to take my Bible from me and supplant it with another which is not a Bible, I mark and avoid. There are those among us who openly and publicly scorn the AV Bible. They are division makers. Mark them and avoid them.

1 Cor.1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.

Critics tell us it was never a cross but a stake. If no cross then Christ was not crucified. The Hebrews had no word for cross. That barbaric form of punishment being foreign to them. Thus Peter (Acts.5:30. 10:39) and Paul (Acts.13:29, Gal.3:13) preaching to the Jews and speaking of Christ on the tree had in mind the words of Deut.21:23, He that is hanged (on a tree) is accursed of God. The word for tree in the NT may also be translated stave, but it is never translated cross. The word used for cross is never translated any other way, i.e. never spoken of as a stave. The symbol of the cross was well enough known even in pre-Christian times.

1 Cor.1:21
It pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

"Not so", say the critics, "there is nothing wrong with our preaching! It is the message itself that must be defective." So they mutilate these verses to read, "The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing.... God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe". By this they ignore the context and the use of the Greek word logos. For ye are enriched by him in all utterance (logos) ....(v.5). The Corinthians were gifted in their preaching. But, Paul said that his preaching was not with wisdom of words (logos), i.e. not with clever speech lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. He would use the foolishness of preaching, simply declaring what God had done on sending His Son to die on the cross for our sins, rather than to rely on eloquence, rhetoric, intellectual debate etc. which might impress many and induce false professions of salvation. The modernists state that it is the cross of Christ which is foolishness in v.21, because that is what is being preached. That is no less than a foul and wicked blasphemy. So why do they have "your speaking" for logos in v.5? they cannot be consistent even in the same chapter.

1 Corinthians 3:1
And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

Vine in his commentary on this verse, pretending to quote the AV reading, omits the word “even”. He then tells us
the word rendered “carnal” is sarkinos (in the best texts).Here and in Rom.7:14 it signifies partaking of the nature of the flesh. In verse 3 the Apostle uses the word sarkikos, a severer term, signifying sensual, i.e. under the control of the fleshly nature instead of being governed by the Spirit of God.
We have no doubt that it is the sarkinos man who is confused as to the best texts. The word sarkinos occurs once only in Scripture; neither here, nor in Rom.7:14 where the word is again sarkikos, but at 2 Cor.3:3 (but in fleshy tables of the heart) where the contrast is with tables of stone. The suffix –inos, the Greek scholars tell me, tells what a thing is made of. So, sarkinos = made of flesh. It doesn’t speak of its nature, but of its constitution.
The conclusion is, if sarkinos is the correct word here, then these Corinthians know nothing of conversion. No radical change has taken place in their lives. This is all they are; just men of the flesh without the indwelling Spirit of God. Yet Paul calls them brethren, babes in Christ.
Westcott and Hort, the great 19th century mutilators of Scripture, knew nothing of conversion (read their biographies!), hence the alteration of scripture here.
The best texts, according to Vine, are the most mutilated, perverted, and popish. They are essentially the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.
The word sarkikos is the reading found in the Received Text. It is, according to the Hodges/Farstad Majority text, to be found in at least 85%-90% of manuscripts and is opposed only by the Alexandrian consensus of manuscripts. Greisbach’s 1805 Greek New Testament retains the word. Greisbach is sometimes referred to as the father of Textual Criticism and would have changed the word had he known then of an alternative reading. This raises other issues. Were parts of the word of God really lost until discovered later in the 19th century in a monastery waste bin?
The fact is, these Corinthians were more than mere men of flesh, they were indwelt by the Holy Spirit. They were saved men. But they were still sarkikos. An unconverted man cannot be described thus and this is why the scholars don’t like the word here.
These believers had had the power “connected” but they weren’t “switched on”. They were using their spiritual gifts for carnal motives. There was still envying, and strife, and divisions among them. Paul was therefore unable to speak to them as spiritual men, mature in the faith. He would have to address them as he would to babes in Christ. Paul didn’t say they WERE babes, rather he would have to speak to them as though they were.

1 Corinthians 4: 16 (See also 1Thess. 2: 14)
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers ( mimetes) of me.

“Therefore I urge you, imitate me.” NKJV and all other modern versions.

Monkeys and parrots can imitate. Only converted men and women can follow the apostle. So we note that mimetes is consistently translated “followers” in the AV Bible. (7 times).
Plato used mimetes to describe an imposter, a mere actor. The Spirit of God uses the word in an altogether different sense, hence the English translation follower.

1 Cor. 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: But God hath called us to peace.

W S Stevely, in an ambiguous letter to the editor of Believers’ Magazine, June 2001, by quoting Darby, appears to be promoting the view that 1 Corinthians 7:15 allows for divorce. Verse 39 puts the lie to this. The marriage bond remains until the death of one of the spouses. Bear in mind that divorce is not implied in verse 27. Being loosed from a wife happens when the wife dies.

The meaning of this verse is quite plain, that if an unsaved spouse is determined to leave his or her partner (presumably because the one has got saved since the marriage), the believer has no moral or legal or spiritual obligation to prevent the departure. Divorce is not mentioned.
The NIV weakens the statement by making nine changes in this one verse. It reads, “But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.”
The change from under bondage to bound changes the meaning and allows the verse to suggest a breaking of the marriage bond, for the word bound occurs at verses 27 and 39 in this chapter where a legal married bond is clearly indicated.
Darby in his New Translation also made the change to bound. But in his Synopsis he wrote,
If the unbeliever forsook the believer definitively, the latter (man or woman) was free — "let him depart." The brother was no longer bound to consider the one who had forsaken him as his wife.

Thus he adds his interpretation to the passage. Therefore we are led to understand that if an unbelieving spouse should leave the believing partner, he or she may regard himself, or herself, as unmarried and the inference is that such a one could then remarry.
J J Lias, in his commentary on this verse points out what was the Romish view.

The Roman Catholic divines, e.g. à Lapide and Ambrosiaster, as well as the Canon law, held that in the case of the heathen partner refusing to live with the other when he or she embraced Christianity, the Christian was justified in contracting a fresh marriage. —Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges; First Epistle to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 7:27,28
Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned.

A commentator informs us,
It is often asserted that the Bible never directly sanctions remarriage. This is not true. 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 (NKJV correctly) says: ‘Are you loosed (i.e. divorced) from a wife? Do not seek a wife’. But it then adds: ‘but even if you do marry, you have not sinned’. Evangelical Times; July 2000, p14.

My copy of the NKJV doesn’t mention being divorced. By placing (i.e. divorced) within the apostrophes one concludes that it is to be regarded as part of the text. The Evangelical Times writer’s desire to make adultery scriptural compels him to add his own interpretations to the text of Scripture.
And why is the NKJV correct here, the inference being that other versions are incorrect? In this instance it reads quite similar to the AV. So why the need to change?
Christ stated whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, commiteth adultery, and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery. Luke 16:18.
Some will say that this must be qualified by Mat.19:9, where fornication is given as the ground for divorce. Matthew must be understood in its Jewish setting, where we note the Lord’s words were in answer to Phariseeical tempting in front of the multitude. In Luke the words were addressed to the disciples, and they were not told of any let-out clauses for divorce. The Lord said to them quite plainly that the remarried person is a practicing adulterer. Full stop! We are quite sure this is how the disciples must have understood it
Legge’s article in the Evangelical Times is unsound. Not only can he not read the word of Scripture without adding to it, he completely misunderstands the teaching of the passage.
Divorce and remarriage are not discussed in 1 Cor. 7, neither anywhere else in the NT for that matter. The point being made is this. What is good for the present distress, i.e., the circumstances, persecutions and distresses of Christian life in the NT era? What state is it best for a man to be in? (v26). Paul had just been saying that one should stay put in one’s present calling, and now he applies this to marriage.
So our two verses (27 & 28) deal with two men; One has a wife, the other has not a wife. To the first he says do not seek to be free of her (divorce is NOT mentioned) because she isn’t saved and is threatening to leave him (v15).
To the other man who is not married (‘loosed’ does not imply that he once had a wife. It means he is free from marriage bonds), he says, under the present stresses, stay as you are, and thereby avoid all the problems that marriage will incur. Nevertheless, Paul says to this unmarried man, if you do marry you are not committing any sin.

1 Cor.9:27
But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.

We are told that this is a misleading translation because the basic meaning of a castaway refers to a shipwrecked mariner. That meaning was unknown before 1799 AD and our English Bible was produced in 1611 AD. A person "castaway" is totally rejected. ("Rubbished" in the modern jargon). So why describe the Holy Bible as misleading? "We didn't" insist the critics, "it is this particular version of the Bible that is misleading in so many places, and a version of the Bible which is not the true original". Then where is the real Bible? Now they tell me that it doesn't exist. It never did exist because the writings that were collected into one volume at the beginning of the second century AD were only copies of the original scattered manuscripts. The human race has never been in possession of a pure Holy Bible according to our modern critics. But if a Bible did exist at the beginning of church history then we may be sure that God would have had no difficulty in preserving it for 2000 years. We may be sure, however, that the words quoted at the head of this paragraph are words of Scripture, and are quoted from the Holy Bible. If anything is lost in translation, of the word of God, it would mean that almost the whole human race was cast away at Babel. God, Who according to the critics, spoke only Hebrew and Greek, put the human race out of touch there at Babel. He can therefore no longer communicate effectively with anyone who cannot speak His language. Yes, some of our brethren really do believe that. They have told me it is necessary to understand Greek an Hebrew to have a proper grasp of Scripture (which doesn't exist according to them). Well, let them know that MY God speaks English and has given me a Holy Bible which is no less inspired and no less accurate than anything ever written in Hebrew and Greek. This Bible is known as the Authorized Bible.
Vine in his dictionary explains castaway as meaning "rejected, i.e. disapproved, and so rejected from present testimony, with loss of future reward". In other words, if a person has nothing about him that speaks of Christ, and gives no evidence of Christian discipline in his life but just "claims" that he is in the race, he will get to heaven but have no reward when he gets there. Vine thinks that the passage refers to the Judgment Seat of Christ. But note that the castaway becomes such at the end of the race, not during it. It is then that he is rejected, when the race is over.

No Scripture teaches the rejection of a person at the Judgment Seat (don't confuse this with the Great White Throne judgment). But this verse does teach the rejection of a person. So what Paul is saying is that he practiced what he preached. It is possible for some to preach the Christian life to others but not to live it themselves which would be hypocritical. Such persons would be without eternal life. We fear that there are now those among us who preach the gospel or a form of it while they themselves are not saved. Be warned says the Apostle, there was a mixed multitude in the wilderness and all but two of them perished there in the wilderness. God was not pleased with them. So let us be Bible believers, and accept the solemn admonitions of Scripture. The person who does not accept the rigours of the Christian life, though making a profession of it, is a reprobate. All true believers are winners. All who love His appearing receive the crown of righteousness. There is no question of their being saved throughout the race only to be lost at the end of it. The believer heeds the admonitions of Scripture while the reprobate ignores them.

1 Corinthians 10: 1
Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant....

Preachers like their audience to believe they are scholarly. To attain this they look up a few cross references in Darby or Vine etc.
We have an example in 1 Cor. 10: 1. The preacher reads the verse then says “If you have a good translation it will read ‘for’, and not ‘moreover’.” Therefore a good translation will be Darby’s or the RV or the ASV not forgetting the popish Douay/ Rheims version. A bad, bad translation will be the AV of course.

The Greek word translated ‘moreover’ in the AV is de. It is a conjunction, found in the Greek Received Text 2534 times and can also be translated but, and, also, now, then, when, for, etc. (Yes, the AV translators were well aware that de may be translated ‘for’. See Acts 17: 21. you may find another example if you search hard enough.).

Our preacher never learned Greek. I haven’t either (more is the pity) What the preacher really wants you to know is if the Brethren didn’t produce it, it isn’t any good. All hail, Vine, Wigram, Newberry, Tregelles etc. These are the men who swallowed the Textual Criticism lie. As one has written elsewhere, most preachers do not know the difference between a gerund and a gerbil.
Reading ‘for’ does not improve the meaning of the verse one little bit. de lets the reader know that
Paul’s comment in v.1 builds on what has gone immediately before.

1 Cor.11:24
Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.

The word 'broken' is omitted in the RV, but has the support of the majority of the Byzantine mss. and lectionary copies. It is also in the Peshitto and Harcleian Syriac and is quoted in the writings of some of the early fathers. The Codex Siniaticus is one of the few mss, omitting the word, but even this has been altered by a corrector to include it.

In this there is " no contradiction and no departure from the Passover symbolism. The bones of the Passover Lamb were not to be broken. The bones of the Lord Jesus Christ were not broken. The body of the Passover Lamb was certainly broken, when its blood was shed, and when it was skinned before roasting. It is equally true to say of the Lord that, while no bone was broken, His body was broken when the crown of thorns broke the flesh of His brow, when the scourging broke the flesh of His body, when the nails broke the flesh of His hands and His feet, and when the spear broke the flesh of His side. There was thus a literal fulfilment of the Passover symbolism in that His bones were not broken; and a fulfilment of Isaiah 53 - He was wounded for our transgressions." Quoted from TBS. Leaflet No.65.

1.Corinthians 13
charity

The battle still rages as to whether agape is better translated 'love' rather than 'charity' as in the AV Bible at 1 Cor.13. It is a futile battle. The translators knew what they were doing in 1611 and the matter was settled by Dean Burgon more than 100 years ago when Westcott and Hort first meddled with the word. I quote from Revision Revised by Dean Burgon :-

"agape -a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on 'that most excellent gift, the gift of Charity', and the general substitution of 'Love' in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that 'Love' is not an equivalent term? Can they be required to be told that, because of S. Paul's exquisite and life-like portrait of 'CHARITY', and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word 'Charity' connotes many ideas to which the word 'Love' is an entire stranger? that 'Love', on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in 'Charity' find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,¾and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word 'charity' has established itself in the phraseology of the Church,-ancient, mediaeval, modern,-as well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of 'household words'? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the 13th chapter of S. Paul's 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the nine-fold recurrence of the name of 'that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY'?"

1 Cor.14:2
He that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God. (See also vv. 4,13,14,19,27)

Some like to tell that the word unknown, being in italics, should not be there. We should read “he who speaks in a tongue…”. (NKJV etc). “Tongue” is synonymous with “language” i.e., human language. Therefore those who do not speak in a tongue are babies, madmen, or Pentecostalists ¾they are not using human language. The NKJV reading is seen to be meaningless.
The inclusion of unknown in the AV Bible gives sense to the translation and relates to he who speaks in a language not known to any present. The word is not needed in vv. 5, 18, where we have the plural tongues indicating a multiplicity of languages.

1 Cor. 15: 55
O grave, where is thy victory

A writer (H Barnes; Believers Magazine; Oct.2002, p.302) tells us,
The word “grave” in the New Testament is usually a translation of the Greek word hades, the unseen world, the present residence of departed souls. It is thus
“being with Christ” for believers (Phil 1.23), or else being in torment in hell for unbelievers (Lk. 16.28).

This is regurgitated Scofieldism, namely the old fable of hades having two compartments, one for believers and the other for unbelievers.
“Grave” is the translation of hades only ONCE in the whole of Scripture. It is found in 1 Cor. 15: 55, O grave, where is thy victory? There is no victory for the grave where the believer is concerned. But for the unbeliever the grave declares that his soul is in hell. The usual word translated “grave” in the New Testament is mnemeion as found in John 11: 17 …he had lain in the grave four days already. Mneema is translated “graves” in Rev. 11:9.
No believer goes down into hades. Ps. 9: 17 tells us The wicked shall be turned into hell ( sheol). That is, those who go down into hell are without exception, wicked. Amos spoke of Sheol as being beneath, and heaven as being above (9: 3). David spoke of the ungodly as like sheep, they are laid in the grave (sheol), but that was not his expectation. But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave, for he shall receive me. (Ps. 49: 14). The power of the grave (hell) is to hold its prey in torments for eternity. David expected God to receive his soul at death, and not sheol.
Sheol in the Old Testament equates precisely with hades in the New Testament. This will assure us that Christ did not descend into hell.
Attempts to tone down the awfulness of hell must be viewed with the deepest suspicion. The suggestion that believers go down into hades (which is hell) is a heretical distortion of the truth.

2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God.

This verse has been handled deceitfully by many, and that is what this corrupting means. The Word may be corrupted orally or it may be corrupted in its written form. Modern versionists, who realize that this verse condemns them, change it to read "unlike so many we do not peddle the word of God." Do they not indeed? Modern versions are all about Big Money for the publishers.
What Paul was referring to was that some were adulterating the word of God for base gain. There were words and passages which these ungodly men found unpalatable. Things which were a savour of death unto death. Unpopular doctrines which if taught would reduce their popularity and standing. Things concerning the deity of Christ and His perfect humanity. Things concerning judgment to come which mere professors of salvation and not possessors of salvation would not like to hear.
The sentence has been accurately and faithfully translated in our Authorized Bible.

2 Corinthians 3:12,13
Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech: And not as Moses....

Some, who dislike great plainness of speech, think that the "hope" just gave Paul courage in his preaching. Seeing that he is contrasting his preaching to that of Moses, this interpretation implies that Moses was cowardly. The contrast, however, is between what is open and what was hidden. The moral fibre of the Lord's servants has nothing to do with the subject. The AV translators were well aware that the word "boldness" might have been used instead of "plainness". This is why they placed that alternative in the margin. But modern students fail to grasp that boldness has several meanings such as courage, well-marked, clear, etc. If we put it into bold print it becomes plain enough. We are not using courageous print! So let the context decide it. Preachers who like to change the words of Scripture confuse the teaching of Scripture by their actions. Let us all continue to use great plainness of speech in our preaching.

2 Corinthians 4: 4
....the light of the glorious gospel of Christ,
&
1 Timothy 1: 11
According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God,

These two verses read in the NIV as “The light of the gospel of the glory of Christ”, and (keeping close to the AV) “the glorious gospel of the blessed God”. Darby, much earlier, altered the AV readings to “the radiancy of the glad tidings of the glory of the Christ”, and “according to the glad tidings of the glory of the blessed God”. Other modern versions have similar readings. Thus we find the NKJB changes the reading to “the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ”, but like the NIV, does not change the reading in 1 Timothy.
Similar constructions are found in Romans 8: 21, the glorious liberty of the children of God. Darby isn’t happy with liberty being glorious. so he changed the reading to “the liberty of the glory of the children of God”. He believed the glory belonged to the children of God. So he wrote in his footnote to this verse,

‘Glorious liberty’ as in the A.V. does not give the sense. The creature has no part in the liberty of grace; but it will have in that which glory gives.

This seems to be just one more of Darby’s gobble-de-gook statements. He has glory having liberty instead of liberty being glorious.

Tyndale had no doubt that the sense and construction of the sentence demanded “glorious gospel” and he was well aware that Wycliffe (Translating from Jerome’s Vulgate ) “the gospel of the glory”. The AV men, translating in committee, agreed with Tyndale and this is the Bible our God has given to the English speaking believers.
Every time a reading is questioned, the faithfulness of God is impugned.

2 Corinthians 4: 16
....but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

“Though our outer nature is wasting away, our inner nature is being renewed day by day.” (RSV, ESV)

Changing “man” to “nature” changes the meaning of the verse. The Greek word commonly translated “nature” is phusis but it is not used in this verse. We are partakers of the divine nature (phusis) 2 Peter 1: 14). We see therefore that nature is not the subject here.
Conservative commentators are generally agreed that the outward man refers to our mortal bodies but the inward is the immaterial being which responds to the continual refreshing work of the Holy Spirit.

Reference to an outer nature seems to be linking it to the old man which is crucified with Christ. and cannot merely “waste away”.

Galatians 3:24
The law was our schoolmaster to bring us to Christ.

Naughty pupils do not like schoolmasters so out goes the word from modern versions. The Greek word for schoolmaster is paidagogos which gives us the English word pedagogue, which in our modern Oxford dictionary is defined as "schoolmaster"! We are told that the pedagogos was a slave responsible for the moral and physical well-being of the child and would lead him to and from school. J Hunter thought that "a strict governess" to be a suitable translation, thus introducing a sex change. (What the Bible Teaches; 1983 Vol?, p.54). Commentators deny the sense of teaching in the word, preferring to rely on "classical" usages of the word, or on the presumed practices of the Roman slave trade. Why not allow the Holy Spirit to interpret according to the context? Vine tells us that where paidagogos is translated "instructors", 1 Cor.4:15, it should read "pastors". But surely even pastors teach when caring for the flock.

Believing Bible study must begin with what we find written on the sacred page. We are not free to form our own opinions and then to look for the version that best expresses them. If we do not understand a word, phrase, or passage, then we wait on the Lord until the Holy Spirit illumines the page. We do not adjust the text. that is what modern versionism is all about. The law was a schoolmaster, teaching the Israelite that he had a special relationship with God, separate from the ungodly nations surrounding him; that approach to God was on ceremonial grounds and the law taught him (if he would only listen) that he was a sinner. It was "till the seed should come", so bringing him to Christ.

Galatians 4: 4
God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law.

A few modern versions have “born of a woman, born under law”. Although there are 8000 changes made in the Greek manuscripts, this verse stands firm in all. Every known Greek manuscript has ginomai (=made). The change to “born” must be seen for what it is ─a direct attack on the virgin birth.
Whoever heard of a mortal man who was not born of a woman? This verse tells us of One who was made without the assistance of man.
The AV translators were well aware of the difference between made and born. We have only to go down to v.29 and we read he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit. The Greek word for born is here gennao which emphasises the vital distinction made in v.4.
Where natural birth is concerned we read of John the Baptist in Mtt.11:11, Among them that are born (gennetos) of women there has not risen a greater.
We note that not even Darby had “born” in Gal.4: 4. He wrote “come of a woman”. We also note that the Douay Version retains “made”.

If ginomai may be translated born then a blasphemy would be introduced at Galatians 3: 13, Christ.... being made (ginomai) a curse. (Born a curse)

This verse alone is sufficient to demolish the “foetal implant” theory, popularised by Henry Morris and others. Morris has written:-
Since "by Him [that is by Christ, the Word of God] were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth" (Colossians 1:16), He must have created the very body in which He would dwell when He "was made flesh." This body , however, could not be a body produced by the normal process of human reproduction, for it must be a body unmarred either by inherent sin spiritually or by inherited genetic defects physically or mentally..... Thus the body of the second Adam must be formed directly by God and placed in a virgin's womb. .... Then, "when He cometh into the world, He saith, . . . a body hast thou prepared me" (Hebrews 10:5).
Morris believes that the physical body of Christ was fashioned in heaven and miraculously transplanted in the womb of Mary. Therefore the real humanity of Christ is removed.
We end with a quote from Gill’s commentary:

"made", not created as Adam was; nor begotten by man, as men in common are; nor is he said to be born, though he truly was, but "made"; which word the Holy Ghost chooses, to express the mighty power of God, in his mysterious incarnation, wonderful conception, and birth. ─Gill

Galatians 4:10,11
Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain

A bible critic tells us, 'To contend for the AV no error' position seems to some to be untenable, unnecessary, and only plays into the hands of those who accuse us of AV-olatry, or naivity in these matters'. It is apparently naïve to believe that when I read Easter in Acts 12:4. it actually means Easter. (see my notes above on Acts 12:4). This is the only example that the writer can produce¾a verse that we dealt with in Wavmarks No.8. The AV Translators must have been naïve as well, even though they marked in the margin, 'Gk. as Mk.l4.l.&c.' i.e. the Greek word means Passover. But v.3 shows that the Passover had gone and the days of unleavened bread were in progress. Plainly the Greek word pascha was being used for Easter (there being no other suitable word available) as well as for Passover. Hislop in his book The Two Baby!ons points out that in the third or fourth centuries AD the festival now called Easter was then known as Pasch.
We suspect that the reason for the modern objection to the word Easter in Acts is because of Herod's association with it and our modernist friends do not like the idea that their Easter is essentially the Babylonish festival of Astarte christianised. The Jews celebrated the Passover. Herod celebrated Easter. Those who celebrate so called Christian festivals need to take note of Paul's words to the Galatians. Words that should have kept us away from any millennial celebrations as well!
It is not a matter of naïvety to believe the AV Bible is without error. Here is the age old inference that if one dares to disagree with those who like to appear learned then that proves one to be a simpleton. That is the line taken by most Bible critics. What else can the 'AV no error' critic come up with? He joins all the Bible critics in his attitude, only he is more dangerous for he pretends to be a friend of the AV whilst he attacks it. Let us know what these alleged errors are and we shall patiently seek to show that the error is in the mind of the beholder only. But those who hold to error are not usually willing to be taught, so we shall seek rather to. encourage the believer.
It seems that the reason why we are expected to deny the perfection of the AV is that men could not produce a perfect Bible. They are but human. We wonder why it is that God gave His inspired word to frail men in the first place if He were not competent to preserve it in later translations. We are told that only the original Hebrew and Greek have claim to inspiration and preservation. So the editor of Bible League Quarterly, who insists in error in the AV does not believe the AV to be the inspired word of God at all. Babel becomes a serious error on God's part for at Babel God confounded the language of all the earth and then found Himself unable to communicate fully with any except Hebrew/Greek speaking people. This is actually what our crafty scholars want us to believe. If the modem ploughboy wants to understand the word of God he must go back to the scholar-priest, who can then explain away the precious truths of God by means of modem parodies of Scripture that bear little relation to the original Hebrew and Greek.

The linguist will tell us that no language can be translated into another without some loss. Such people reckon without God. With God all things are possible. I am satisfied that there was divine overruling when the AV was produced, so it does not even matter if the translators themselves did not expect to produce a perfect work. We look back and we see that they did.

We are also told that the AV is imperfect because we do not have the original manuscripts. This is even more an unreasonable view . Because the master copy is lost it does not follow at all that extant copies of that master have to be imperfect. We take the same believing approach, that our God is faithful and nothing of His word has been lost. Not even when the master copy was made 2000 sears ago and multitudes of copies stand in between. God did not hand over the transmission of Scripture to apostate and ignorant monks in their dismal cells. Godly believers made their own copies carefully and reverently, knowing that they were handling the word of God.
A few minutes after I was saved I bought my first Bible. It was an AV Bible, there not being much else available in 1955, and no other choices on that bookstall. I did not consider that it might be less than 100% the word of God in the English language. It never entered my head that there might be blemishes in it. I believed it to be supernaturally provided in its content because I knew the original had come that way. When men began to tell me there were faults in my Bible I was upset but resolved that if I found any I would just have to accept them. I began that study many years ago and have found no error yet.
The view that the AV is perfect is not for me solely a matter of faith but borne out of years of research. There is a reasonable explanation for every alleged blemish. The view has not led me into some extremist position as some would like to assert. I do not believe that the AV translators were in any way themselves inspired. I do believe that their work was ordained of and overseen by God.
I do believe therefore that the AV and not the original Hebrew/Greek Scriptures are the final appeal, if for no other reason than that these latter Scriptures have long since been lost. Even if they still existed in pristine condition, they would not be my final court of appeal for another very simple reason - 1 understand neither Hebrew nor Greek. They might be useful to the scholar in verifying that his English Bible is indeed the word of God but we must not lose sight of this fact that our English Bible is no less the inspired word of God than that which first came by means of prophet's or apostle's pen. I don't need a cleric to tell me what is Bible and what is blemish. Mine is no novel view.
It is thought by some that ascribing perfection to a translation is a recent view. We can show that it isn't.

John Urquhart wrote in 1895, 'The Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of England, in a united protest addressed to Bishop Colenso, in 1863, said “All our hopes for eternity, the very foundation of our faith, our nearest and dearest consolations, are taken from us, if one line of that Sacred Book be declared unfaithful or untrustworthy.”
“If any further confirmation is needed that this has long been the customary view of the Bible, it will be found in the confessions of those who attack the doctrine of Verbal Inspiration. They speak of it as 'the ordinary view.' When they attack it, and endeavour to show that it is overthrown by the alleged existence of errors in the Bible, they are perfectly aware that they are saying or writing what will offend the vast majority of Christian people….the Bible is, from beginning to end, the faultless Word of the faultless God.” -The Inspiration and Accuracy of the Holy Scriptures.
The Bishops made their statement before the RV was thrust upon them. How fickle men are, but the common view of the time is established, it might be argued that Urquhart was writing against the Higher Critic and was not referring to the textual changes made by the Lower Critics that were ushered in with the RV. But error is error and if the Bible needs textual amendments it could hardly be spoken of as faultless.

About 100 years ago(?) Gaussen wrote, 'The question has been put, is the Bible inspired, even in its language? We have affirmed that it is. In other words,….the question has been put, Have the men of God given us the Scriptures exempt from error, great or small, positive or negative? We have affirmed that they have.'- The Plenary Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures.
Gaussen was not referrng to the Hebrew/Greek Scriptures, but to the English Bible. The men of God were the translators. Gaussen made that plain earlier in his book when he wrote, 'if [the writer of the autograph] has made a mistake, his blunder is for ever irreparable; it must last longer than heaven and earth, it has blemished the eternal book remedilessly. and nobody on earth can correct it;-it is quite otherwise with translators. These on the contrary have always the divine text at hand, so as to be corrected and re-corrected, according to the eternal type, until they have become the exact counterpart of it. The inspired word leaves us not; we need not to go in search of it to the third heaven; it is still upon the earth, just as God first dictated it to us.'

Where is this exact counterpart if it is not the AV? Certainly not in any modem version. The view that the Scriptures are imperfect in all but their original form is not a novel view. This doctrine was first set forth in the Garden of Eden when Satan said to Eve, 'hath God said?' implying that Eve hadn't got the message quite right.
The insinuations that some alleged supporters of the AV are making against the AV are detrimental to the faith. If it is imperfect, as they say, then those imperfections cannot be the inspired words of God. The ordinary believer, not being a scholar, cannot tell what is an imperfection and what is not, so he must be suspicious of the whole. We note the words of Jack Moorman, "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin". If I cannot by faith take the Bible in my hand and say this is the preserved word of God, then it is sin, if we do not approach the study of how we got our Bible from the standpoint of faith, then it is sin, if I cannot believe what God says about the preservation of His Word, then I cannot believe what He says about its inspiration either - all is sin.'
-Forever Settled: a survey of the Documents and History of the Bible.

Galatians 5: 19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

We are not surprised that adultery is missing from modern versions, from the RV onwards. Jeremiah tells us, They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. (Jer. 5: 8). This sin remains common practice throughout Christendom.
The NIV reads, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious” which is very vague for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
moicheia (adultery) is found in the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is also quoted by three of the “Fathers”.

Ephesians 1:18
The eyes of your understanding being enlightened.

Modern versions change this to " the eyes of your heart." We are not surprised to learn that they used the depraved Greek Texts, Aleph, A, B, D as the authority for this change. The AV reading is taken from the Received Text which supplies the Greek word dianoia (dianoya) =mind or understanding.
J. Moorman (quoting from Vincent's Word Studies) points out that, ' "the eyes of the heart" occurs nowhere else in Scripture, neither does it set well with Scriptural truth, and probably comes from the heathen philosophers. Plato spoke about the "eyes of the soul"; and Ovid, speaking of Pythagoras said: "with his mind he approached the gods, though far removed from heaven, and what nature denied to human sight, he drew forth with the eyes of his heart."' -When the KJV Departs from the Majority Text.

What a pity that our "scholars" seem to prefer the works of heathen philosophers to what the Spirit of God has supplied. A. Leckie, once esteemed among us, wrote " the weight of authority favours 'heart' and not 'understanding'. What the Bible Teaches; Vol.? In this he was totally mistaken. The weight of authority lies with the Received Text. Leckie followed Darby's translation. Today hardly any Bible Teacher among the "brethren" follows the AV 100%.

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

Ephesians 4:22
That ye put off concerning the former conversation the old man,

It is thought by some that this is a mistranslation and the verse ought to be translated “ye have put off….” The reason for this misunderstanding is because we read in Col.3:9, seeing that ye have put off the old man…. This appears to be a contradiction in the minds of those who have not considered the passages carefully.
They argue, how can there be an injunction to "put off the old man" if the saints have already done so?

Beloved, just read the context of Eph 4. Paul is writing concerning what the Ephesian saints have already learned. If they have learned of Christ, and heard him, and have been taught by Him, then they learned this, and they learned it from the beginning, that the old man is to be put off. It is to be done at conversion. It is what all true believers do when they come to know Christ. So the Ephesians had been taught "Put off the old man!" That is what Paul is reminding them of in this passage. There is no place for "old man" characteristics in the life of the believer. He has discarded the old man and has put on the new man.

Paul reminds the Colossian saints that they (all of them) have put off the old man. He is not telling them that if they haven't done it then it is about time they did do it. The new man cannot be put on until the old man is discarded. The person not adorned in the new man is unconverted and hell-bound.

So where have our translators gone astray? They understood the Scriptures even if our modern preachers don't. The AV translation is grammatically as well as doctrinally correct. JND's translation “ye have heard him…and been instructed…. (namely) your having put off….the old man” changes the meaning of the passage. It would suggest that they had been taught that they had put off the old man. They didn't know they had put off the old man until they had been instructed that they had.

This kind of Scripture mutilation allows for the catechisms of Christendom that tell people that they are what they are not. I have a certificate that tells me that as an infant I became a child of God because I had some water sprinkled on my face. I didn't know anything about it until my mother told me many years later. Darby himself rejected the Scripture's teaching on the baptism of believer

Phil.2:5,6,7
Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.

This statement has been a veritable battleground from the beginning. Mistranslation and misapplication has led to the KENOSIS THEORY, in which the Lord is alleged to have emptied Himself of His glory in His incarnation and subjected Himself to human limitations, ceasing to be omniscient. The subject has been fully dealt with by competent believing scholars so my comments here need be only brief.

First, we note how the passage has been falsified in the NIV.- “Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.”

Nature and form are not the same. I might have the same nature as my mother but my form is not identical. The AV Bible speaks of an existing equality in the Godhead which was not surrendered in incarnation. The form of God is manifested in the form of a servant. The Scripture does not suggest that Christ relinquished the form of God.
The NIV does suggest that Christ released His grasp on His divine attributes (nature) and became NOTHING, displaying the attributes of a servant, without becoming in very being (form) a servant.

Following modern versions, we see, will lead us into very serious¾and blasphemous¾error. Many years ago, at the end of the breaking of bread meeting, a man rose to give ministry in which he told us that the Lord, while on earth was in essence less than God. We could not continue in fellowship with such a man of course. And now we read in The Bible League Quarterly, Jan-Mar. 2000, p.147, "as to His essential nature, He always was and never has ceased to be equal with God. But where would any of us be now, if He had demanded to remain on equality with God in position and role, instead of humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant and obediently submitting to God as His Head?" - Prof. David Gooding.

Gooding tells us that the head of Christ is God, 1 Cor. 11:3 expresses inequality. He tells us that in not demanding to remain on equality something had to be surrendered. That in subjecting Himself to the authority of the Father in His incarnation, He took up an inferior role and position.

Christ was on earth what He was in heaven. There was no loss of deity in any respect in His coming to earth There was gain, in that He came to possess a human nature¾one that could not be tarnished by sin- and was seen in the likeness of sinful flesh. Being of no reputation did not produce inequality in the Godhead.

The continuing equality of the Son of God is expressed in the words of Col.1:19, For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell. Also we note Col.2:9, For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. Whatever the quality or attribute pertaining to the Godhead, it was found in Christ.

Philippians 3:16
Nevertheless, whereto we have already attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.

The words “...rule, let us mind the same thing” (kanoni, to auto fronein), were wrested from the Greek N T by Greisbach in 1805. This error was very quickly exposed by Fred. Nolan in 1815. He wrote, “the following [list of omitted texts] may be restored to the sacred text on the testimony of the annexed authorities: ...Phil.3:16 Byz. Syr. 1 .It. 3. Arab.
These authorities are the earliest versions (=translations) of the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Old Latin, and Arabic. Believers dispersed throughout Europe, Byzantium, North Africa had a Bible with an identical text though in their own language. They kept to the same rule (canon); they were all of the same mind. What they had attained to, they kept. If ignorant men ask where the Bible was to be found prior to 1611, they have the answer here. It was in the hands of believers throughout the inhabited world. It was a Bible with which our English AV Bible is in full agreement, ours being based on the Received Text, referred to by some as the Byzantine text.
Whereto we have already attained is the Apostles’ Doctrine. We do not need the creeds of men while we have a reliable Bible. Men such as Origen, Augustine, Greisbach, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, were never happy with the Apostles’ Doctrine. They did not wish to walk by the same rule. So they simply cut it out. Thus we read in the NIV etc. “Only let us live up to what we have already attained”. No common rule and no united mind. Unwary readers of modern versions will be unaware that they are reading seriously mutilated perversions of Scripture. The critics do not usually indicate what they have done.
Walking by the same rule must mean having a common definitive Bible. The proliferation of versions is a denial of this verse of Scripture and demands its removal. We have a God given standard Bible in the English tongue, in full agreement with the Bible of the first generation of Christians, which is known as the Authorized Version. It has a proven pedigree.

Phillipians 3: 20
For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Conversation” is translated from politeuma, which word occurs only here in the N. T. In most modern versions it is translated “citizenship” but this is not the true meaning of the word.
In Phil. 1: 27 politeuomai is used, again translated “conversation” in the AV Bible. It speaks of the behaviour of one living in accord with the gospel of Christ. Our conduct, our behaviour, is not therefore in the manner of earth-dwellers, but our behaviour is what belongs in heaven. As it is in heaven, so let it be on earth.
The word citizenship is insufficient here. There are many who hold full UK citizenship, but their behaviour is unacceptable to UK society. Theirs is not conversation; theirs is malversation which means misbehaviour or corruption.

Phil. 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body,

The word vile has lost its primary meaning of being of small account, and now refers to things disgusting. It is language itself that has become debased. We do not rely on modern dictionaries for definitions of Bible words, nor are we compelled to turn to Greek lexicons. Scripture is its own interpreter. We learn what is meant by vile when we read Luke 1: 48, For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden. We read of the discreet definition of the humanity of Christ in Acts 8: 33, In his humiliation his judgment was taken away. So we do not need to change the word in our Bible. We understand it, even though the word humiliation has come to mean something shameful; injurious to self respect. In the seventeenth century humiliation meant the abasement of pride. The only other place this word is used is in James 1: 10. But the rich in that he is made low.
Of course, we do not despise Greek lexicons. The Greek word used in the above four verses is tapeinosis.

Colossians 1: 14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins.

The NIV reads “In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins”. Blood is omitted on the grounds that Westcott and Hort’s Greek Text omits it.
Wycliffe, in 1380 AD omitted the blood. He wrote “in whom we han a3enbiyng and remyssioun of synnes”. He had only Jerome’s Latin Vulgate to work on, so he didn’t know it should be included. Yet the Latin Vulgate of Sixti V. and Clementis VIII has “in quo habemus redemptionem per sanguinem ejus, remissionem peccatorum”.(In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins).
Tyndale has blood in Col.1: 14. There can be no remission of sins without the shedding of blood.

Colossians 2: 9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the godhead ( theotes) bodily.

“For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily.” NRSV, ESV

Godhead is mentioned three times in the AV Bible, theios in Acts 17: 29, theiotes (derived from theios) in Romans 1:20 and theotes in Colossians 2: 9. It is missing from modern versions.
The Godhead is a term applying solely the Triune God and all that consists in the Godhead is found equally and completely in the person of Christ Jesus the Lord
The word deity does not appear in the AV Bible. It is a loose term for “divine being” or “supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force” —Webster’s Revised unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

The undiscerning might think that little meaning is lost in the two modern versions quoted but they are false. The god of Modern Versionism is not the True and Living God of the Holy Bible.

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 Thessalonians 2: 14 (See also 1 Cor. 4: 16)
For ye, brethren, became followers ( mimetes) of the churches of God....

All modern versions translate mimetes as imitators. Those who merely imitate the churches of God might be regarded as cults or sects. They are obviously not the genuine article. Those who follow have in mind the example and testimony of the one they seek to follow.

1 Thes. 4: 14
For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

W E Vine tells us
―the margin, “through” is correct; the preposition dia is not elsewhere translated ‘in’, and cannot bear that meaning. Moreover, while the phrase “in Christ” is frequently used by the Apostle to express the intimacy of the relation between the believer and the Risen Lord, believers are never said to be ‘in Jesus’, see notes on 1:1.

What a pity that Vine didn’t think of looking in Newberry’s Bible. He would have been saved from this miserable faux pas.
The other verses where dia is translated ‘in’ are:-

Matt. 26: 61 This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and to build it in (dia) three days. (Newberry missed this one.)
1 Tim. 2: 15 Notwithstanding she shall be saved in (dia) childbearing.
Heb. 7: 9 Levi also, who receiveth tithes, payed tithes in(dia) Abraham.
Heb. 13: 12 suffer the word of exhortation: for I have written a letter unto you in (dia) few words.
2 Peter 3: 5 by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in(dia)the water:

Vine’s statement is therefore false on three counts. The preposition dia IS elsewhere translated ‘in’. It CAN bear that meaning, as the verses above show us, and believers ARE said to be ‘in Jesus’ as 1 Thes. 4: 14 accurately and faithfully assures us.
Shall I believe Vine or shall I believe my Bible? This really is the issue that has to be faced. Our brethren are awed by scholarship. It has been placed on the highest pedestal of idolatry. But in the case before us we see that scholarship had gone into hiding. Vine was a great scholar but here he was relying on his own intellect and simply had not done his homework.

As far as them that sleep in Jesus is concerned, our critics immediately fly at us with the question “well then, what does it mean if it does not mean ‘through Jesus’.” The question tells us a little more about our critics. They have their theology and the Bible must fit round it.
Our first answer is we accept the written word of God whether we understand it or not. If the words do not make sense to us we have to confess that it is due to a lack of sense on our part and not due to a lack in the word of God.

The statement If we believe that Jesus died and rose again brings the Man before us. His humanity is in view. It is not here that Christ died and rose again. This truth is expressed in 1 Cor. 15. In 1 Thess. It is the Man Jesus who died and rose again.
Believers who die before the Rapture are now said to be asleep (this does not imply a state of limbo) and those who sleep are sleeping IN Jesus. They must therefore be brought with Him in that day for it is Jesus Who died and rose and is coming again.
When we get to v16 it is the Lord Who is spoken of and so we read of the dead in Christ.

The moral is DON’T TRUST THE SCHOLARS. READ YOUR OWN BIBLE.

1 Thes. 5: 22
Abstain from all appearance of evil.

Modern versions read, “abstain from every form of evil”. While we should certainly do this, it is not what the Scripture says here. There are several Greek words translated “form” in the AV Bible and eidos (appearance) is not one of them. It is not merely abstaining from all different types of evil. It is that which has the external show or semblance of evil that must be avoided.

2 Thes.2:2.
….the day of Christ is at hand.

. Modern versions change this to "the day of the Lord" being come. This appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord, but the manuscript evidence for the change is very poor. The vast majority of all manuscripts support "day of Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts (i.e. found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord" *. So let us believe what the Bible says and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ. The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read "day of Christ".

The Day of the Lord had been expounded in the first epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 & 2v.16) and that it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means that), then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified Scripture. (N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in Scripture that men would from the beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit." But that is what every modern version is about.
*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.
For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith.

1 Timothy 1: 11 see 2 Cor.4: 4

1 Timothy 1:17
Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

A writer tells us that "The word 'wise' is best omitted from the text since Paul is emphasising that God is the only God." We infer from that statement that Timothy might have thought there were other Gods but needed to be reassured that there was only one wise one. So the word 'wise' must be excised from Scripture and Paul was very unwise to have put it in his letter. We have scholars today who are a cut above the apostles¾which seems to be the reasoning of some of our brethren today.
“But wait a moment” cry the critics, “Paul couldn't have written 'wise', because he had already done that at the end of Romans and you could hardly have him repeating himself. Some stupid copyist must have thought it nice to include it at this point.” So, we read elsewhere, "MSS support is weak for 'wise' and RV and JND omit it." What the Bible Teaches; Vol.? John Ritchie.

I counted 14 listed mss, plus a handful of cursives that support the omission (Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version; J.Moorman). But there are 15 listed mss plus THOUSANDS of cursives that include 'wise'. So the vast majority is pitted against the two wise gods RV and JND, (which remain unread and unknown by the vast majority of believers).

Further, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzen both quote 'the only wise God'. No, they didn't themselves put it in; G. of Nyssa was quoting it in refuting the error of Eunomius.
The statement 'MSS [it should be MS] support is weak ', is seen then as a lie. It is a lie perpetuated by a reliance on the false gods of textual criticism.

1 Timothy 2: 12
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Some are telling us that this verse could be translated from the Greek to read “But I suffer not a wife to teach nor to usurp authority over her husband.”
A correspondent (seeking to promote a book Recovering Biblical Ministry by Women) writes to give assurance that this is the correct translation. He knows because “as a Classics graduate, [he] can vouch for the accuracy of the exposition of the key passages from the Greek New Testament.” The verse here in question is one such passage.
How does my correspondent’s erudition compare to that of John Spenser? This man was chosen Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford in 1579. He had been elected Greek lecturer at this college at the age of nineteen. McClure wrote “of his eminent scholarship there can be no doubt. (The Translators Revived) .
It was Spenser and his team who translated gunē in this verse as “a woman”. He thereby was in agreement with Tyndale, Cranmer, and Geneva, Even the Rheims translation has “woman”
Modern Versions such as the RV, NIV, ESV all have “woman” as do the more “way out” versions, God’s Word, the Message. I haven’t found a version reading “wife”.

We need hardly point out that the AV translators were well aware that gunē may be also translated “wife”.
The context decides whether “woman” or “wife” is required. Therefore one does not require the help of Dr Modern Apostate Scholar in fixing the reading. Confidence and faith in the God given English Bible is all that is needed for an understanding.
“her husband” is an interpretation and not a translation. There is no possessive pronoun “her” in the Greek Text.
We must beware those who consider themselves to be cleverer than the Book.

1 Timothy 3: 1
This is a true saying, if a man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

W E Vine assures us “there is no mention of an office in the original….Literally the phrase is ‘seeketh overseership’”. But this IS the office —overseership. “Office of a bishop” represents just one Greek word; episkopee. It is twice translated “visitation” (Luke 19: 44, 1 Peter 2: 12), and once “bishopric”.
This phrase is the stumbling block of the Brethren, who are fearful of anything connected with eccliasticism. It is one of the reasons why our leading brethren reject the Authorized Version of Holy Scripture.
Their rejection is based on two misunderstandings,
1.The AV translators had to preserve all eccliastical terms. They did not do so in Acts 20:28, the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers. The translators went for accuracy.
2. The word “office” is taken to mean rank or position. But the primary meaning of the word is anything done for another; service. (Webster) which is what we have in this verse.
The NIV reads, “if anyone sets his heart on being an overseer”. This is a mistranslation, shifting the emphasis from the work to the person. The AV reading does not do this.

1 Timothy 3:16
God was manifest in the flesh.

All believers ought to be aware that "He who was manifest in the flesh" is a spurious reading. Yet we find this being presented as "perhaps better" in a Christian magazine freely circulated among us. One dislikes being for ever critical but when our brethren set themselves up as critics of the text they must not complain at some return. The traditional reading is not peculiar to the AV Bible. It is found in Tyndale's translation, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishop's Bible. "God" is also found in the major European Bibles of Diotati (Italian), Osterwald (French), Valera (Spanish), Luther (German), Almeida (Portuguese), and many others. The vast majority of existing Greek mss. have the word for God. The ancient versions likewise, e.g. Old Latin, Latin Vulgate, Gothic, and more besides. Several of the Fathers refer to God manifest in the flesh. A few mss. have the equivalent of "who" or "which". The Codex Alexandricus, held in the British Museum, appears to have been altered at this verse but the scholars who were able to examine it were in agreement that the original text read THEOS, agreeing with the Received Text, God was manifest in the flesh. (See TBS leaflet No.103).

Why do we read then in Present Truth, N0.90, p.93, "Microscopic examination of the earliest texts were universally in favour of the [who] reading". (my italics). It appears that the proven God-breathed words God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the spirit upset the theology of some. The writer goes on to ask "How do we understand God justified in spirit?" (sic). To believe that the actual text of Scripture depends on our understanding of it is rationalism. Has one never read John 1:32-34? I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.... and I saw, and bear record that this is the Son of God. Not the title Christ, nor the Lamb of God, but that which speaks of His full and absolute Godhood, The Son of God, is used by John, by which he gave public testimony to this fact, that God was now manifest in the flesh, justified as such by the visitation of the Holy Spirit.

Our writer goes on, "why is there little evidence of this Scripture [God was....] being used in the controversies of the early centuries.... Surely this Scripture would have been an end to all argument". To which the answer may be given,- why do not the modern counterparts of the old heretics, the Unitarians, RC's, JW's slink away when confronted with the truth? Because they reject the truth out of hand, and will not listen to it, preferring their Unitarian NIV bibles etc.
One other thing our writer cannot understand is "God received up in glory". Christ yes, he says, but God no. He hastens to assure us that he does not doubt the divinity of Christ, but we are beginning to wonder. The old lie is that Christ ceased to be possessed of deity at the cross. But, But He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God, Mark 16:19. Who is this that Mark speaks of? Christ, certainly, but we have further titles of deity given - The LORD said unto my Lord (Adon=Sovereign God), sit thou at my right hand. Psalm 110:1. How can He be God manifested in the flesh during His life here, and God in exaltation at the right hand of the Father, but not God during His ascension?

1 Timothy 6: 10
For the love of money is the root of all evil.

The ESV makes it indefinite and plural: “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evils”. The NKJV (which we are assured merely updates the language of the AV) changes the meaning also by reading, “For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil”. Darby also wasn’t able to see evil as a single entity, for he made it read, “For the love of money is [the] root of every evil”. He bracketed “the” because he thought there were other roots (of evil). His footnote reads “There is no article in the Greek. It is not that there is no other root, but the love of money is characterised by being such”. If there are other roots of evil, the Scripture doesn’t tell us of them.
Evil is the generic term for all that is not good ( see Ecc.12:14, Rom.7:19, 9: 11). There are not different kinds of evils.

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.

2 Timothy 2: 15
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

This verse is quoted in Counsel, No.33, vol. 6 (Nov-Dec 2003), where it is given as “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handing [sic] the Word of truth”. This reading is attributed to the R V.
The first thing we notice is that this verse is not found thus in the R.V.
The R.V. reading is “ Give diligence to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth.”
The N.I. V. has “Do your best to present yourself.....who correctly handles the word of truth.”
The T.E.V. has “Do your best to win full approval...one who correctly teaches the message of God’s truth”.
But God does not ask us to do our best. Our best can never be good enough for God. We are commanded to study and liberal neo-evangelicals do not like to. The standard set in 2 Tim. 2: 15 is what God expects the believer to attain to. My best may leave me very short of it. Study is a good word and adequately translates spoudazo, being the application of the mind to the subject in hand.

2 Timothy 2:21
If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour.

Peter Caws wrote,
Darby was preoccupied with purity of doctrine as a legal matter, and was obsessed with the idea of separation. So much so, that he actually invented and introduced into his translation of the Scriptures a gloss on 2 Timothy 2:21 that is not required by the Greek. The words ‘in separating himself from them’, appears in brackets but have been accorded the status of the inspired Word.¾ Belief and morals among the Taylorites; Evangelical Times; Oct.2000.

Darby’s verse reads, ‘If therefore one shall have purified himself from these, [in separating himself from them], he shall be a vessel to honour.’
The introduction to JND’s translation tells us that ‘square brackets in the text (as in the verse quoted) indicate (a) words added to complete the sense in English similar to those shown in italics in the Authorized Version; or (b) words as to which there are variations in the original manuscripts.’
There are no variations relating to the statement in this verse, so (a) applies. But Darby has done more than give the sense. As Caws rightly points out, the words have been added to the page of Scripture, and not supplied as a footnote so therefore they have been accorded the status of the inspired Word.
The phrase, if a man therefore purge himself from these carries the sense of the Greek fully. In the context Paul is calling for a complete separation not only from evil things but from evil men. Darby was right, doctrinally, in his addition, but very wrong to place it upon the page of what he would have to be Scripture. He is wrong also to change the verb from ‘purge’ to ‘purified’, which weakens the sense of the statement. Darby also changes the tense without warrant.
Separation is a vital doctrine of Scripture but Darby set the pattern which would lead Exclusive Brethrenism into the cult it is today. It is a cult more deadly than Russellism, though not as wide spread.

2 Timothy 3:15
And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

Timothy did not have access to the original manuscripts. He had to rely on copies. But, says the Apostle, they are nevertheless Holy Scriptures. Then he went on immediately to say that ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. That is, the copies (of copies of copies....) handed down to Timothy were THE SCRIPTURES and were therefore HOLY. One imperfection would make them unholy. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump. Or does one think it possible to live a holy life as long as one's sins are neither too great nor too many?

Knowing the Holy Scriptures was Timothy's safeguard against evil men and remains the 20th Century believer's defence in these perilous times. “No, not perilous” says Darby, “just difficult”. So Darby removes the Holy Scriptures and gives Timothy sacred letters instead. The NASV would prefer Timothy to know the sacred writings. All revisionists hate the idea of believers being in possession of the Holy Scriptures. “Sacred” is a Romish word and does not translate any Greek word found in the NT, and “writings” may be produced by anybody.
It is commonly acknowledged that we are in the last days. Therefore we expect the Holy Scriptures to come under their fiercest attack. Satan, the Master Revisionist, is determined to destroy the faith of many. He does so by weakening the believer's confidence in a God given, Spirit preserved, 100% perfect (howls of mirth from the mockers) Holy Bible. Satan uses men of repute in his evil work; chief men among the brethren. Preparations for our perilous times were accelerated at the end of the 19th Century by Westcott and Hort. Satan's work has been flourishing in the last half of the20th Century. In 1940 Vine's Expository Dictionary was published. One does not wish to decry the many helps now available for the study of Scripture, and the motives of men such as Vine are not in question in their desire to encourage a true knowledge of the Word. But it has not happened. Believers hardly read the Bible now, let alone study it. The reason is plain enough for this neglect. They are repeatedly being told that the Bible is defective in thousands of places.

We read the foreword to Vine's Dictionary and find this:- "But the fact remains that they who are entirely dependent upon a Version must miss very much of the glory and richness of these (NT) Writings." What an ignorant lie! It is a hellish lie. We do not hesitate to call it that. Note that the New Testament is reduced to mere writings and that no version can be Scripture. Satan has used Vine to cause believers to think that they cannot understand the Bible without his dictionary. Vine was himself dependent upon these apostate scholars, as the foreword goes on to tell us, “These works [of Grimm-Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur] provide the lexical skeleton. Mr Vine's work clothes that skeleton with the flesh and sinews of living exposition.... doing for the non-specialist what is being done for the specialist by Kittel's Theological Dictionary to the NT.”

Thayer was a Unitarian. Kittel was a Nazi war criminal. None of these was a believer. I am not making a judgment. One can check these things out for oneself.
The fact that modern versionists do not understand the Scriptures, the reason being because they are not saved, is apparent from their mutilation of this verse.

Outside Brook Street Chapel, Tottenham, there stands a poster displaying these words, 'The Holy Scriptures are able to give you wisdom that leads to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.' (Good News bible).

Now, these words may be true when directed to the unconverted, but they are not true in the context of 2 Timothy and they are not Scripture. They represent a false interpretation of the passage. The modern versionist will be well aware that the epistle is directed first to Timothy. The singular thou addresses this verse to him. The implication therefore is that Timothy had not yet attained to salvation, i.e. was not saved at the time of Paul's writing to him. The evangelical doctrine of salvation is not held by modern versionists and textual critics. They do not believe that it is possible to know that one can be saved and assured of heaven here on this earth. This is the teaching of the good news bible. Some good news indeed! Timothy had been grounded in the Scriptures (our Old Testament) from a child. When he heard the gospel of Christ proclaimed he found it to be fully in accord with what he had already learned and so he believed it. From that moment he was a saved man in possession of full salvation. But it wasn't only that the Scriptures were able to make him wise unto salvation. They continued to maintain the same ability, now through the application of faith, to make him wise unto the salvation which he presently enjoyed. That is, his exercise of faith enabled him to apply the Scriptures in gaining the wisdom necessary to take full advantage of his salvation.

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable....

The word "inspiration" is the translation of the Greek word theopnustos (from Theos=God; pneo= to blow), thus a translation "God-breathed" might seem reasonable. But the translators knew that to be inadequate, for some have taken that to mean "out-breathed". If the Scriptures were merely breathed out by God then they might well have been dissipated into the atmosphere for any to catch hold of them. But we are to understand that they were breathed IN. They were breathed into the men, that is, given by means of first breathing into the men who were to record each word of God, jot by jot, and tittle by tittle, so that all believers might know God's word.

So the word INspiration is used, which does not mean OUTspiration. It is derived from the Latin spiritus (=breathing). We are familiar with "aspire" (lit. to breathe towards), "conspire" (lit. to blow together), "expire" (lit. to breathe out or die).

Modern translations give "God-breathed" because they reject the doctrine of verbal inspiration whereby God imparted His words directly and personally syllable by syllable, word by word, jot by jot, to men of His own choosing, who then wrote them down entirely without error. Beware: IN does not mean OUT!
Of course, the GIVING of Scripture was a unique act of God. It did not need to be repeated. We do not believe, as some falsely charge us, that the AV was a separately inspired Book. But we can say as we read the Bible that we are reading the inspired word of God, because inspiration is not lost in translation. God's word is not confined to a particular language, as some are teaching today. Those holding that view must believe in an incompetent god, who having once spoken then finds himself powerless to have his words passed on faithfully to succeeding generations of differing tongues.
I believe in the doctrine of verbal inspiration of Scripture. I believe in the permanent preservation of that same Scripture. We have it in the Authorized Bible.

Titus 2:13
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ.

Modem versions change the reading to (a).... The blessed hope, and appearing (b) of the glory of (c) our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.' Three unnecessary changes are made on the grounds of making a more accurate translation.

Our AV translators believed that (a) ten, should be treated as a demonstrative adjective, and should be translated as 'that' and not 'the'. This is quite proper and the RV does the same in a number of places -thus we have, 'This testimony is true' in 1:13. Why not be consistent and put "The testimony is true"~ The RV change has been followed slavishly ever since by the modem versionists. This is probably because they are not looking for that blessed hope spoken of in this verse. There is an emphasis on that blessed hope that unconverted men do not want.

Then, (b), 'of the glory' seriously weakens the manifestation of Christ Himself. We know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him: for shall see him as he is. So said John, 1 Jn.3:2. Believers are waiting to see Him. Of course, they will see His glory but above all they want to gaze upon the person of their Lord and Saviour. What a glorious appearing that will be! The Thessalonian believers were commended for the manner in which they had turned from idols... and to wait for His Son from heaven. 1 Thes.1:9,10. They were not waiting for a show of glory. They were waiting for the Son of God to descend from heaven into the air to receive His own to Himself for ever more. That is plainly the next great event in God's calendar, for still we wait and we are not told of anything that needs to be fulfilled in the meanwhile. A glorious appearing indeed!

(c) is an attack on the deity of Christ though we appreciate that those making the change think that the deity of Christ is more emphasized by the RV.
\'ine says concerning this phrase. 'the RV is almost certainly right in giving the rendering which applies both titles to the Lord Jesus.' Note, he says ALMOST. i.e. he does not know for sure, scholar that he was. That is what scholars do, by the way. They change things round by guess-work knowing that the poor untutored ploughboy will accept their words as gospel truth.
We notice in any case that the scholars cannot agree among themselves as to what the correct reading should be. (The AV scholars were all agreed of course;. Alford thought the RV to be wrong. The Rt. Hon. and Rt. Rev. Lord A C Hervey, DD. thought the RV to be wrong.
(There's a mouthful that ought to impress!) He tells us, in the Pulpit Commentary on Titus, that Huther [sic] held to the AV reading. Good for him, whoever he was.

Some one will write to me to tell me that these only held to the AV reading because they thought that 'the great God and our Saviour' were two separate subjects, and that the AV makes this plain. It does not.
Our Saviour Jesus Christ is the great God. God was manifest in the flesh. He remains ever a Man. That Man Who will shortly appear is the great God and not only that, He is our Saviour Jesus Christ.
Now, I know that there are very many clever brethren who will say, yes, but...' To them I say that if we do not have a definitive Bible, accurate in its entirety, then we have nothing at all. If men can chop and change the Bible according to their whim, and if they can 'flood the market' with version after version. and expect us to go along with them then we shall all end up in cloud-cuckoo land, blown about by every wind of doctrine.

Hebrews 1:3
…when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

The Rheims version has "making purgation of sins", omitting by himself adapting Scripture to justify their blasphemous doctrine of purgatory. The NIV has "After he had provided purification for sins", so following the Romish tradition promulgated by W & H in the RV. We have heard this and other false Romish readings quoted publicly, making us think that perhaps there are Jesuit fifth-columnists operating among us. There are certain men crept in unawares, says Jude. We must not be deluded into thinking that in these days they have disappeared.
The AV reading is as usual well attested in ancient manuscripts. There are no reliable grounds for changing it.

Hebrews 1:5
For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

The NIV changes this verse to read “For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son; today I have become your Father.” This is a rank denial of the eternal Sonship of Christ.
Flannigan says in his commentary concerning this verse as found in Psalm 2 (What the Bible Teaches)

He who is the Son eternally has been begotten into manhood to be recognised in humanity for what He has ever been in deity, the Son of God

This implies that Christ was not the only begotten Son from eternity. “Only begotten” speaks of the intimate relationship existing between Father and Son. To deny this is to deny the Son and brings the denier under the condemnation of John 3:18, …he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.
In this verse “begotten” is missing from modern versions, openly showing the critics to be condemned unbelievers.

Hebrews 2: 9
But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
In this verse J N Darby introduces two errors, the first being blasphemous, where he has “Jesus, made some little inferior to angels”. It is useless arguing that the word “inferior” carries with it the sense of being lower than. The word also means of poorer quality; mediocre; less important than and is therefore a most unacceptable word to translate elattoo The reference is to the incarnation of Christ and nothing in this made Him inferior in the common meaning of the word.
The second error is also without foundation. Every man is changed to “every thing”. Darby admits in a footnote to this verse that the Greek can be translated “for every one”, so why does he make the change? Wycliffe had “for alle men”. Tyndale had “for all men” , Cranmer and the Geneva Bible the same. Even the Rheims Version has “for al” with the clear implication that it is for men. The NIV also has “for everyone”.
The context demands only one interpretation; the value of Christ’s death for the whole human race and with special benefit to the “many sons” being led to glory. This verse, given by the Holy Spirit, condemns the Calvinist’s view of a limited atonement which is why they mutilate the word of God as we have it in our Authorized Bible.

Hebrews 9:27
And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment...

The NIV reading "....man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment...." is a false reading riddled with error.
Destiny and appointment are not the same. Being destined suggests fatalism, and it shuts God out. But God has made the appointment so none can break it. It is not "man" i.e. the whole of mankind, that is subject to this for many will not see death when they are caught up to meet Christ in the air. It is not merely to face judgment as though some might at the end escape punishment as some among us erroneously teach. It is the judgment at the Great White Throne where every ungodly man and woman from guilty Cain on will be exposed and then cast into the lake of fire.

Hebrews 10:23
Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering;

Critics insist that the reading should be “the profession of our hope”, and that the translators of the AV Bible made an awful blunder here which has been perpetuated ever since. D Kutilek, in the book One Bible Only? Makes this statement:

Henry Alford (1810-1871), noted English New Testament scholar and a member of the English Revised Version translation committee, mentions in passing, the belief of some people whom he knew that the KJV was infallible. In his comments on Hebrews 10:23, he remarks,
‘ We have an extraordinary example of the persistence of a blunder through the centuries. The word “faith”, given here by the A.V., instead of hope ....was a mere mistake, hope being the original, without any variety of reading, and hope being accordingly the rendering of all the English versions previously to 1611. And yet this is the version which some would have us regard as infallible, and receive as the written word of God.

The words quoted by Kutilek are allegedly from The New Testament for English Readers, vol.4 (reprint, Grand Rapids; Baker, 1983). These words are not found in Alford’s Greek New Testament.

We can be sure that for whatever the reason elpis was translated as faith and not “hope” as in every other instance, it was not a blunder. It was considered by a panel of translators that faith would be the better word in this verse. Faith and hope are intimately linked of course. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (Heb.11:1)
Our profession is evidence that we are believers, i.e. we have faith. Hope cannot be witnessed, it is all to do with the future. Faith, we think, is the better word in Hebrews 10:23. Because it is there it is the correct word.

Hebrews 11: 3
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

A few modern versions change worlds to ages. This is not due to ms differences but to interpretation. Certainly the Greek word is aion, which literally means age but this does not make sense in this context. Ages cannot be seen. Material things are in view This is a verse that speaks clearly of Creation. The use of katartizo (framed) implies this.

Hebrews 11: 23
By faith Moses, when he was born, was hid three months of his parents, because they saw he was a proper (asteios) child; and they were not afraid of the king’s commandment.

“....they saw he was a beautiful child” CEV and other modern versions inc. NKJV and JND.
Asteios occurs in only one other place; Acts 7: 20, and reads exceeding fair. This also refers to Moses.

Moses may well have been a beautiful baby but his parents saw beyond this and they did so through the exercise of faith. They knew and understood that God had a specific purpose for their son in the years ahead. What they saw (understood) therefore was that Moses was a proper child.
In modern terms we define proper as “fit for purpose”. This is the meaning of asteios. Our bible critics, not moved by faith, miss this entirely. Moses would be the man raised up of God to lead the people of God.
The words exceeding fair in Acts mean exactly the same as in Hebrews. Fair may be translated “proper under the rules” as in “it was a fair fight”.
Moses’ exceeding fairness was the desirability that God saw in him.
Moses ‘ mother had recognized God’s interest in her son when she saw him that he was a goodly child. Ex. 2: 2.
His goodliness was Godward.

Hebrews 11: 35
Women received their dead raised to life again.

“Women received their dead by a resurrection”. RV
“Women received their dead by resurrection” NRSV (This compounds the error of the RV).
“ Women received their dead again by resurrection.” Darby
“Women received back their dead by resurrection”. ESV

We see that modern versions make Christ to be a liar. The Lord spoke of but two resurrections; the resurrection of life, and the resurrection of judgment. The AV translators were well aware of this so resurrection isn’t mentioned until the end of the verse, the raising here being of an altogether different nature.
In any case the preposition ek (out of) used concerning dead raised to life again, is not found concerning the better resurrection. The reason for this is plain enough. Many taking part in the first and better resurrection will not have tasted death.
Those dead received back by their women did not have changed bodies It was no true resurrection. They lived to die again.
The word “better” does not imply being of the same kind but superior. Compare Matt. 6: 26 Behold the fowls of the air….Are ye not much better than they? Also, Matt. 12: 12, etc.

Hebrews 12: 16,17
Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.
For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sort it carefully with tears.

ASV “....he found no place for a change of mind in his father”.
CEV “....even though he begged his father and cried.”
GW “....even though he begged and cried for the blessing, he couldn’t do anything to change what had happened.”

Those opposed to genuine heart repentance make a travesty of this verse. The Scripture teaches us here that Esau lived and died an unrepentant fornicator and profane person. He made a great show with his crocodile tears and hoped there might be some way out of his mess but he was never truly sorry for his deeds. He wished to repent on his own terms as many do today.
There are many who show a degree of remorse. They wish they could change things and they make a form of believing. They’ll do anything but change their mind about their sin. They will even give it up BUT in their heart they relish what they have done so they have not repented.
Esau was such a man. Suggesting it was his father who needed to change his mind is an opinion not found in the text and it mocks God.

Hebrews 12: 1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set before us...

“....and the sin that clings so closely...” NRSV, ESV
“....and the sin which so easily ensnares us...” NKJV
“....and the sin which so easily entangles us....” JND
“....and of the sin which holds us so tightly....” CEV

The sin is sin in general and not here a particular addictive sin as some teach. Such teaching is dangerous and rather than helping to overcome a particular sin, instead stimulates it. The impression is that we all have a particular sin that we cannot shake off so we must just run on and do our best. The sin, albeit unwillingly, is condoned.
Beset and surround are synonyms. All around us are those who overcame. They ran the race and they wear the victor’s crown. We can therefore do the same. Sin cannot actually get hold of us and drag us out of the race (unless we allow it).
It cannot cling to us , it cannot entangle us. It may beset us. That is, as we run, it tries to close in on us and surround us so hindering our running. But we lay it aside at the beginning of the race and run on. The believer IS an overcomer.

Hebrews 13:4
Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge.

We hear this statement, "The AV wrongly reads...." and we might think that we are being given the benefit of scholarly information. More often it is modernistic misinformation. An example lies before me; I quote, "Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but fornicators (not 'whoremongers' as the AV wrongly reads)...."
John Spencer helped translate the book of Hebrews for the 1611 AV Bible. At 19 years of age he lectured in Greek at Oxford. Another translator was John Bois. By the age of six he could read and write Hebrew. Most of the translators were fluent in a number of languages besides Hebrew and Greek. I would like to know what are the linguistic abilities of our modern critics.

As for the AV rendering of 'pornos' translated 'whoremonger' in Heb.13:4, I look in my Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, 1805 edition, and read:- "pornos: an impure or unclean person of whatever kind". Reliable English dictionaries tell us that 'whoremonger' is in current usage, (i.e. not an archaic word) meaning an immoral person. The AV therefore rightly reads.

James 4: 4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses

Maybe some adulterous copyist was convicted by this phrase, so “adulterers” is removed. There can be no other reason for the omission. Men are always ready to blame the woman for their own sins. The classic example is found in John 7: 53 – 8: 11. concerning “the woman taken in adultery”. Those scribes and Pharisees were careful not to arraign the guilty man.
The perpetrators of the NIV went further. They added a footnote: “the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not have 7: 53 – 8: 11” . A lie of course.

“Adulterers” is found in the majority of manuscripts. It is missing from Aleph* A B.

James 5: 16
Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.

Here is a case of wilful alteration of the word of God, at an early stage. We find the Greek word paraptoma removed from six papyri/uncial manuscripts and some—but not many—cursives. This Spirit given word was replaced with hamartia. Alterations in the ancient manuscripts are frequently explained away as “slips” or even “glosses”. Sometimes, we are told, the manuscript has been “corrected” by scholars who realized that the original writer, whether Paul, Peter, James, John. Luke, Matthew, Mark, etc had simply got it wrong.
It is hardly a slip here. It is not something to be excused as careless copying. The two words are very dissimilar. They do not look alike. This is a wilful change, which affects doctrine and practice, and is plainly popish. Paraptoma appears in the majority of cursives as well as K L 049. It is also extant in 056 and 0142.
So the modern versions , as in the NIV read “confess your sins to each other” and the Confessional is immediately justified. It is a matter of concern that our leading bible teachers are ready to use the NIV publicly. The Gospel Hall Confessional Box is not so very far away.
We confess our faults to one another. We do it as they occur and harmonious fellowship continues with answered prayer. The man who confesses his sins to others will soon have the gathering as corrupt as he is. Some of our brethren take delight in giving their testimony in which they appear to gloat over past immorality and wickedness.

1 Peter 2: 2
As new born babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

“Like new born babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV)
The ASV is worse than the NIV. It reads, “As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.”
J N Darby also carries this blunder, “...that ye may grow up to salvation”.
The Contemporary English Version (CEV) emphasises this error with, “....pure spiritual milk that will help you grow and be saved. The CEV with the other modern versions has Peter writing to unsaved believers, who can eventually
get saved as long as they keep on drinking their milk. They don’t mean Bible study either, because the words of the word are omitted from them all.
This is a salvation by works alteration; an early addition to the text. All who are genuinely saved will recognize this to be a false reading. The majority of cursive manuscripts omit “unto salvation”.

1 Peter 2:9
Ye are…. A peculiar people…

Peculiar, according to the Oxford Dictionary has the primary meaning of ‘belonging exclusively to, particular, special’. Its secondary meaning is ‘strange or odd’. The expression ‘peculiar people’, says the Ox. Dict., applies to (1) The Jews, (2) God’s elect.
The Greek word translated ‘peculiar’ is peripoyeesis. Eph.1:14 translates this Greek word as ‘purchased possession’, where the word peculiar would make a clumsy reading. Such is the beauty and range of the English language that the translators had a choice of words at their disposal when translating the Greek.
Wycliffe used the phrase ‘3e ben ….a puple of purchasing’ in 1 Peter, because he had never heard of the word peculiar. It wasn’t coined until the 15th C., though it stems from the old word, pecu meaning ‘herd’.
The word ‘peculiar’ carries such precision and accuracy that we are well pleased with it in our AV Bible. It is a pity therefore, that we find on our Calendar daily reading for 9th June these sentiments;

The word “peculiar” that the KJV uses in this passage does not really convey the meaning of the term it translates (although there certainly are some peculiar saints! [these words mock God’s elect-R S] ). There are a number of ideas conveyed in this phrase. One translation puts it: “a people for God’s own possession” while another says, “a people out of the ordinary.”
One of the problems seems to be that our modern commentators not only do not understand Scripture, they do not understand the English language either.
Scripture was not given to “convey ideas”. Scripture is the express word of God. The calendar quotes given above do not convey the word of God.

1 Peter 2: 2
As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

The ESV, being based on the perverted RSV, reads “Like new born babes, long for the pure spiritual milk, that by it you may grow up to salvation.”
So the ESV teaches that salvation occurs over a period of time and it is based on self effort. Salvation is a free gift and one neither grows up to it nor can one work for it.
The ESV spiritual milk we note has nothing to do with the Word. The ESV is the perversion of Scripture now being promoted by the North American Gospel Hallers; people who once regarded themselves as conservative fundamentalists.

1John 2:2
And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for our’s only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

This verse is an acute embarrassment to the Calvinists who believe that God has predestinated the greater part of the human race to be damned for eternity, and it serves them right, miserable sinners that they are! But the verse is crystal clear and there are no problems with so-called variant readings.

So the Calvinists make a great play on the italicised words, the sins of... They are not in the text, they tell us. Of course not! That is why the translators put them in, to fill in the ellipsis. An ellipsis is a word or words left out because they are fully understood and the sentence makes sense without them. Thus if the words the sins of are omitted it makes absolutely no difference to the meaning of the sentence. But this is a Calvinistic red-herring. They make a fuss about these words to distract from the preceding words and not for our’s only.

But first, what is propitiation? It is this; Christ in His sacrificial death is the appeasement of a holy and righteous God in His anger against sin. His precious shed blood has satisfied the justice of our God. It is for our, yes, OUR sins. For we believers. But wait; not for ours only. A propitiation for others, besides those of us who are born again? Does John mean the OT saints? Or does he mean the tribulation saints? Who is he referring to? “The whole world”, says the Holy Spirit, through John. Every man and every woman is included.
The word ‘ours’ speaks of our sins, laid upon Him. And not for ours only but for the sins of the whole world. This does not imply that the unrepentant sinner cannot be punished for his sins for if he does not come to the "mercy seat" he will not receive a pardon.

The OT offerer, presenting his sacrifice of the herd for a burnt offering, was required to put his hand upon the head of the burnt offering; and it shall be accepted for him to make atonement for him. Lev.1:4. It was a voluntary offering, and by placing his hand on the beast the offerer's sins were imputed to the animal.
Our gospel today is whosoever will may come. None has been predestinated to damnation. The sacrifice is made and the sinner may go free. So we read in Romans 3:24, Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus; Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood.
There is the propitiation - Christ Himself. Faith in His blood brings the repentant sinner into the good of it.

1 John 3:1
Behold,what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God. Also, But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God. John.1:12

Some are telling us that John never spoke of believers as being the sons of God. The above two verses show that he did, using two different words, uios and teknon. However, they say that the Greek word uios (son) is a title that John reserved solely for the Son of God. However, we note that the word is used in 1:42, 4:5,12,46,47,50,53, 9:19,20, 12:36, and 17:12 without reference to the Lord. The word uios may be equally translated child, Acts 13:10; children, John 4:12 etc. It is in his first two epistles that John reserves the title for the Son of God.

So we find in modern versions the phrase "sons of God" being changed to "children of God". The difference, we are told, is that as children we are introduced into the family of God, and as sons we enjoy the dignity, heirship, and the spiritual blessing of being able to use the title Father in addressing God. All of which we do not dispute. But this does not give licence to alter the word of God. The AV reading is found in the Geneva Bible and other early translations. The AV translators saw no need for any change though they carefully considered the phrase.
This is really another case of altering the Bible to fit one's theology. So I do believe that when I received Christ, and believed on His name as the Scripture instructed me, I then became one of the sons of God. That is what my Bible says. That is what has been held to for centuries, and I don't believe there is any need to change it now.

Why not also change Rom.8:14,19 to read children of God? Why do modern versions not make the change here? The same Greek words are involved. The reason is a theological interpretation is being made, rather than a formal translation.

The NASB reads “See how great a love the father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called the children of God; and such we are.”
James R White tells us the words “and such we are” are missing from the AV Bible because , I quote,

The King James was based upon a small number of manuscripts representing the later form of the text, the standard Greek of the twelfth through the fifteenth centuries. Earlier manuscripts contain the phrase “and such we are.” So why do the later manuscripts not contain it? Because of the kind of visual error you and I have also made many times. — Scripture Alone; Bethany House; 2004; p.141.

White persists in this lie. The words are missing from the majority of manuscripts. White’s “earlier” manuscripts are five in number, all Alexandrian in character are; Alpha A B C P. Yet strangely, he informs his readers there “are only two readings for this phrase, and one of them is original”. What he means by original he cares not tell. Does he mean there is a manuscript in existence which has been proven to be in the handwriting of Paul himself?
These earlier manuscripts have been preserved simply because the early churches regarded them as spurious and threw them out. Otherwise they would have been worn out very quickly.

1 John 3: 4
sin is the transgression of the law.

Those opposing Calvinism have problems with this verse. They think the AV reading supports Calvinism by its reference to the law and that the true reading should be “sin is lawlessness”. D Dunlap in his book, Limiting Omnipotence, p.211, quotes J N Darby; “ ‘sin is the transgression of the law’ This is really, I must say, a wicked subjection of the Word to theology; the word anomia is never used for ‘transgesion of the law’ anywhere else in the English translation of the Holy Scriptures…I call it wicked because by it a human system denies what the Word of God carefully insists on.
It is assumed that the AV translators were all Calvinists and wickedly perverted the word of God to support their error.
But D H Sorenson points out that

The forty seven men appointed to be translators of the King James Version were renowned not only as scholars but as men of God as well. Some were thorough going Anglicans [none like them today-R.S.], some were Calvinists, some were Puritans, and one may have been an Arminian in his theology. But they were fervent Bible believers and stood squarely upon the cardinal, orthodox doctrines of New Testament Christianity. – Touch not the Unclean Thing-The text Issue and Separation.

Any who have read The Translators to the Reader and Translating for King James will appreciate the integrity of these men and their faithfulness to the text. Not all of them were Calvinists Darby’s words are a smear.
Darby’s theology was weak in in a number of areas. He denied the baptism of believers by immersion for a start. He also thought himself qualified to write his own bible. So maybe his theology which is popular with the Brethren today is shaky on this ground also. He failed to grasp John’s line of teaching.
Had not the translators written until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Rom. 5: 13 ? They were well aware that sin existed before the giving of the law. They knew sin could not therefore be imputed. But when the law came it put a name to sin and any sin henceforth would have to be a transgression of that law.
Even within the context of 1 John 3 the translators knew that sin existed before the law . They wrote in v. 8 The devil sinneth from the beginning.

1 John 4: 1-3
Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: 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.

Modern versions such as NIV,ESV etc attempt to dodge the charge of being antichrist by omitting “Christ come in the flesh”. They pretend that they acknowledge Jesus and this is enough. What do they acknowledge? It may be no more than believing a man lived 2000 years ago named Jesus and he lived a good life. They think if they remain silent about the Anointed One foretold in the Prophets to be born of a virgin in the City of David, named Jesus, demonstrated to be God manifest in the flesh then they are not false spirits. The very omission of the phrase declares the producers of these blasphemous versions to be antichrist.
Silence on this vital issue will show the nature of the spirit to be that of antichrist. Thus the platform man denying 1 Tim. 3: 16, God was manifest in the flesh lets his audience know he has come in the spirit of antichrist.
John is teaching us that Jesus did not become the Christ subsequent to His birth at Bethlehem. He is the One Who came out from God, the eternal Son, the Lord from heaven. The men behind the various parodies of Scripture do not believe this.

1 John 4:9
In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

This is a seriously mutilated verse in most modern versions. The NASB has “in us” instead of toward us. Dr Ruckman points out that

the subject of what God manifested is “God sending His only begotten Son into the world.” How this was done IN us is past finding out unless He sent His Son IN us when His Son was born at Bethlehem. The context of 1 John 4:9 is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (v.10). God did not send HIS Son INTO anybody then, nor was God’s love manifest IN anybody by the death of His Son, until that person accepted that Son as his own blood atonement for sin.

The NIV and NRSV, perhaps realising the folly of the NASB have “among us” instead of toward us. But again, He was not “among us” at Bethlehem. He came to his own and His own received Him not. These changes are a denial of the need for individual conversion.
At least the JW New World Translation is more reliable here, “By this the love of God was made manifest in our case, because God sent forth his only-begotten Son into the world that we might gain life through him.” Even “only-begotten” is retained in this otherwise pernicious mockery of the Scriptures.
We point out again that those who deny the only-begottenness of the Son can hardly be saved, according to Christ’s own words in John 3: 16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him (that is, believeth in the only begotten Son) should not perish but have everlasting life.
The denial of Christ’s being the only begotten of the Father is a full fronted attack on the person of Christ.

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

This statement of testimony to the Holy Trinity is so well attested that there is little need to say much here. Its defence is well set out in the works of J Moorman (When the KJV departs from the “Majority” Text; Ch.6) and M Maynard (A History of the Debate over 1 John 5:7,8). Also see the TBS pamphlet on this verse. A number of other defences have been published.
We believe the attack on this verse to be satanic. We find that many believers accept the views of the critics without examining the evidence in favour of the verse. The critics are often contemptuous of those who hold to the AV Bible, as the internet article on this verse by D B Wallace Phd. shows —
Unfortunately, for many, the Comma and other similar passages have become such emotional baggage that is dragged around whenever the Bible is read that a knee-jerk reaction and ad hominem argumentation becomes the first and only way that they can process this issue. Sadly, neither empirical evidence nor reason can dissuade them from their views. The irony is that their very clinging to tradition at all costs (namely, of an outmoded translation which, though a literary monument in its day, is now like a Model T on the Autobahn) emulates Roman Catholicism in its regard for tradition. If the King James translators knew that this would be the result nearly four hundred years after the completion of their work, they’d be writhing in their graves.

Our observation is that Bible believers accept what is in their Bible without any reaction. The furore is caused by those who have an axe to grind, or a penknife to sharpen. Wallace shows that his rage is against believers more than the Book. Believers do not cling to tradition. They examine the evidence that is above all, a Bible that has stood the test of time and has been mightily blessed of God. As far as Wallace’s Model T is concerned, most of his modern contraptions have blown up along the way: Where is the RV now, or the RSV, the NEB, or 50+ other modern versions whose names cannot be remembered? The AV is a living Bible and in very good health.
The critic boasts that no Greek manuscript can be found with 1 John 5:7 before 1215AD. But it is found in the Old Latin Bible which was the Bible of the church from 157AD, and read for 1000 years throughout Europe. The Celts in this country read it, and the Waldensians on the continent read it and were severely persecuted by Rome. The Old Latin Bible was not the bible of Rome.
At least one “early Father”, Cyprian (d.258) quoted the verse. It has been shown that removal of the verse causes havoc to the grammar of the remaining words as the “ends” are brought together.
The critics will pass off as facts the rumours and theories invented by themselves. (They have done this with the theory of evolution and its offspring the Gap Theory). It is stated as a fact that Erasmus—the critics always refer to him as a Roman Catholic humanist, even though his work was opposed by Rome—anxious to include 1 John 5:7 in his Greek NT, got a friend to produce a Greek manuscript for him, in time for his third edition. This ms is known as codex 61. Only our critic is not too sure of the inventor’s name. Was it Froy...or maybe Roy?
It is assumed that Erasmus, great scholar that he was, would not be able to detect a forgery. Stephanus would have to be deceived as well, plus the Elzevir brothers and Tyndale, and all the scholars translating the AV Bible.
Apart from this, Dr. John Cereghin in his internet article, “In Defense of Erasmus” shows that the Greek codex B, containing the verse, was known in 1520AD. Erasmus could hardly not have known of its existence. There are now some twenty mss found with this verse in them.
The people who want 1John 5:7 omitted are not necessarily Unitarians but they do include liberal scholars and JW’s whose parody of the Scriptures is based on the Westcott/Hort text. The Mohammedans have also expressed delight at the removal of this verse.
W Kelly wrote of this verse,
Let me however shew that any Christian who does not know one Greek word ought to be satisfied that [the Johannine Comma] is spurious. Such a one needs neither men of learning nor even the fruit of their researches to decide the question for himself. The Word of God itself is amply sufficient and perfectly conclusive.
First, what is the meaning of bearing witness “in heaven”? When you weigh the thought is it not (I will not say unscriptural only, but) rather folly? How could there be such a need or fact as to “bear witness in heaven”? Exposition of the Epistles of John; T Weston; p368.
So rationalism must rule! If Kelly doesn’t agree with the statement, it shouldn’t be there. If the words are there, as the evidence now declares, then the folly is with the Holy Spirit for placing them there. Such is the seriousness of tampering with the word of God.
Kelly continues,
The natural denizens in heaven are angels who never needed witness borne to them....The fallen angels are irreparably lost....The spirits of saints gone to be with Christ, what possible witness can they require? It is on earth that witness is needed...because men are steeped in darkness and lack the truth.
But the witness is primarily for believers (v11) and believers have access to heaven. More than this, they are made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. (Eph.5:6). Believers are right there where the record is made. Therefore believers have this record of a double trinity; in heaven and in earth.

Here is a clear testimony to the trinity of the Godhead seen first in heaven; the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. The title “the Word” speaks of Christ, the One with God and being God from the beginning Who, while dwelling among us, gave full expression to the Father. These three not merely agree with each other, as some have suggested, but are one. There is unity in the trinity.
There is a corresponding trinity bearing witness on earth; The Spirit, and the water, and the blood. Commentators tell us that the water speaks of the baptism of Christ and the blood speaks of the cross, marking the beginning and end of the Lord’s public ministry. This might be confirmed by the words of verse 6, This is he that came by water and blood.
But we may understand the water symbol in another way: being born again is of water and of the Spirit (John 3:5). Water in the New Testament speaks of the Word of God, That he might sanctify and cleanse it (the church) with the washing of water by the word. (Eph.5:6).
Sanctification is through the application of the Scriptures, the Word. Expiation of sin is through the application of the blood, the Holy Spirit also testifying. Christ is the Word in heaven, and He is the Word applied to the believing soul on earth.
If there were no three in one in heaven there could be no three in one on earth. John is careful to tell us that the witness on earth is in accord with a witness in heaven.

Revelation 1: 5
Unto him that loved us, and washed (louo) us from our sins in his own blood.

“….and loosed us from our sins by his blood” RV
“…..and freed us from our sins by his blood.” NRSV

Louo is found six times in the Received Text. It is consistently translated “washed” in the Authorized Bible and would make little sense translated otherwise in the first five references. (John 13: 10, Acts 9: 37, 16: 33, Hebrews 10: 22, 2 Peter 2: 22)
Modern versions rely on the critical text of Westcott and Hort, and so sins may be loosed but NOT washed in the blood of Christ. The regenerate soul knows what it is to be cleansed from all filthiness.

Revelation 1: 12 (see also Exodus 25: 31)
....I saw seven golden candlesticks

It is useful to note what John didn’t see. He did not see lamps. He did not see candles. He saw candlesticks. His attention was drawn to the seven sticks designed to support a light producing object.
It is Christ who shows light unto the people, and to the Gentiles. (Acts 26: 23) through His golden candlesticks.
Our AV translators knew when to use “candle” or “candlestick”, and when to use “lamp” . They never used “lampstand”. They consistently translated luchnos as candle or lamp as required, and luchnia as candlestick.
Therefore note the falsity of Darby’s translation, “I saw seven golden lamps”. Another mischievous rendering is found in The Message, “I saw a gold menorah with seven branches.”
Wick candles were in use in the first century AD throughout the Roman Empire. There is no reference to oil being used in Rev. 1: 12, either in fact or by implication.
The use of the word candlestick in the O.T. is in order also.
The Old English word candel is from the Latin candela and means a light or torch. It only later came to refer to a wax candle and is not limited to this meaning. If we are to update every word in the AV Bible we end up with such atrocities as The Message, NKJV, etc.

Revelation 2:9
I know thy works...

Some of our brethren are teaching, concerning the saints at Smyrna, that the Lord did not know their works because, being under persecution, they had none. Thus the phrase must be omitted from Scripture. On what authority? On the authority of "most ancient translations" one preacher informs us. And they are...? He doesn't know, so we must supply him with his own ammunition against Holy Scripture. The mss that omit the phrase are 1. Alexandrinus, 2. Ephraemi, 3. St Petersburg, 4. #19, 5. #47, 6. Latin Vulgate, 7. Coptic Version, 8. AEthiopic Version, 9. Andreas (6th C.) 10. Primas (6th C.) 11. Bede, The Vaticanus omits the whole of Revelation.
There they are, all eleven of the so-called authorities. All of them seriously depraved (i.e. multitudes of errors in them) and only nos. 6,7,8, were translations anyway. The rest are Greek mss. And against those eleven the vast majority of mss, including remarkably, the perverted sister of Vaticanus, the Sinaiticus. So why do our own brethren serve up such nonsense? Because they blindly or wilfully follow the apostate critics of Scripture. Those earlier apostates who seized upon the omitting mss to produce their own Greek NT's were Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles (who joined the "Brethren" for a while before he totally apostatized). Then followed Alford and Westcott & Hort.
Of course those saints at Smyrna had works. James assures us that faith without works is dead. One has told us "It is hardly conceivable that an assembly under such pressure would have much opportunity for Christian works, and so rightly those translations that omit this phrase would be correct". But if there were no works why ever were they being persecuted? Church history tells us that tribulation and persecution have always fanned faith and works. Standing for their truth is a work of God. The Lord had no criticisms to make of the church in Smyrna. It is a pity that our brethren have to.
So in the light of Rev. 22:19, And if any man shall take away from the words of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life... Those who omit I know thy works show themselves to be unconverted. God knew, when He first gave Scripture through the Spirit's inbreathing into His servants, that Satan would attack it. What a tragedy when Satan uses our own brethren to further his lies.

Revelation 5: 10
And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.

Modern versions change “us” and “we” to “them” and “they”.
There is no sound authority for these changes. The Received Text is well substantiated. The context of Ch. 5 gives no indication of who “they” might be. “Us and we refer to the 24 elders representing the church before the throne.” – J Moorman.
Some have thought the AV reading implies that the church will be dwelling upon the earth during the millennium. There is no evidence that the AV translators thought this when they wrote “on” for epi. The view that we shall live for ever on the earth is a Russellite error.
The sphere of the reign of the church is indeed on the earth but the preposition epi has a wide meaning and can also be translated “over”, “upon”, “towards” etc. J Heading points out that the case of the following noun determines the meaning of the preposition (-From now to Eternity). Here, earth is genitive, so epi is “on” though sometimes “in the presence of” and hence “over”.

Revelation 20: 11,12
And I saw a great white throne....and I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God....

The majority of modern versions omit God from this passage. They refer either to “the One” or to “standing before the throne”. Ungodly men fear the prospect of giving account to God so He is removed, and the deity of Christ is denied. He said All authority is given unto me to execute judgment. He is to be the Judge on the great white throne.
Jack Moorman supplies the manuscript evidence for “God” (see When the KJV departs from the Majority text. p.108)

historical, theological, and contextual evidence against it. Instead, the fact that the Servant will "sprinkle" many nations completes the beautiful picture of the Messiah as both sin-bearing sacrifice and sin-purging maker of the atonement!

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 text 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.

Revelation 22:14
Blessed are they that do his commandments.

This is changed to 'Blessed are they that wash their robes' in the RV and JND with virtually no textual authority. This rendering is used to support the Romish doctrine of the mass. The AV is not teaching salvation by works here but speaks of the blessedness of those already saved and living a life of obedience to Christ. Compare verses 12:17, 14:12 in Revelation. Also If ye love me, keep my commandments, Jn.14:15. Believers do keep His commandments. They know full well that they are not earning their salvation by their obedience, but demonstrating that they are already saved. The authority for the AV reading of this verse is found in the majority of mss, plus the Old Latin, Syriac, and Coptic versions etc. It is even found in the Vatican manuscript!

We note that those who hold to the "washing" version are very presumptuous in that they think that they are capable of washing themselves. They ignore the present continuous tense of the verb. They will have to keep on washing, and never know whether they have washed themselves enough to merit salvation.
Prof. David Gooding writes, "And finally, in cases like this we can always consult the judgment of godly scholars. J.N.Darby, for instance, had no doubt about the matter. His translation reads 'Blessed are they that wash their robes...' and with him the vast majority of modern scholars would agree." The Word. Issue 41. They would, wouldn't they? Gooding implies that any scholars disagreeing with him cannot be godly.

End