for Old Testament verses, click on "Older Posts" at bottom of this page
AV Verses Vindicated (Collated from Waymarks 1-71)
NEW TESTAMENT.
Matthew to Revelation
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 5: 22 added Dec '13
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a
cause shall be in danger of the judgment;
“But I say to you that everyone that is angry with
his brother will be liable to judgment:”
ESV
The words without
a cause are missing from most modern versions.
This is a very wicked omission, charging the Lord
with sin.We read at Mark 3: 5,and when
he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of
their hearts, he saith unto the man, stretch forth thy hand….
J N Darby wrote in his translation that light
anger would be sufficient for the judgment. Darby’s heaven will be a very
lonely place.
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.
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)
“But the gate that
leads to life is narrow and the road difficult, so few people find it. CEB
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”.
The CEB blames the
road and not the sinner for failure to enter.
Matthew 8: 2
There came a leper and worshipped him
“A man with a skin disease came and kneeled before him….” CEB
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,as does the CEB, 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 over; they 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 one of the
very few places 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 as 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.
This verse does
not refer to church organisation. It is where a few believers are assembled
together, then, and while they are assembled together, the Lord is with them,
in the midst.
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.
The CEB replaces
fornication with sexual unfaithfulness, thereby destroying the teaching of this
verse. Adultery is also sexual unfaithfulness but there is a difference between
fornication and adultery. Adultery pertains to married persons and fornication
pertains to unmarried persons. This reveals the Jewish character of this verse.
Married persons cannot commit fornication, and under Jewish law betrothal was
binding and could be annulled only because of fornication. Jewish betrothal is
not the same as our engagement of couples.
Matthew 20: 20
Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children, with her sons,
worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him.
“….Bowing before him, she asked a favor (sic) of him.” CEB
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.
“…you filter out an ant….” CEB
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 or filter”. The Pharisees would choke over things of little
consequence but would swallow the more serious things without demur. F F Bruce,
in his foreword to Vine’s dictionary, tells us he relied on the definitions of
Thayer, Moulton-Milligan, and Baur—all of them unbelieving rationalists. So
Vine falsely renders the word in question.
Strong suggests,
without authority, that diulizo is
formed from dia and hulizo (to filter).
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.
s 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.
“….not the heavenly angel and not the Son.” CEB
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
Matthew 25: 6
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
|
Bethany, 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 murmured
|
Judas murmured
|
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.
“….. he felt deep regret….” CEB
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 where we find metamellomai. (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
1: 41 new Jan '14
And Jesus,
moved with compassion, put forth his hand, and touched him
“Incensed, Jesus reached out his hand, touched
him,….” CEB
The CEB has a footnote for this verse which reads:
“Most critical editions of the Gk New Testament read filled with compassion.”
The CEB, in its pursuit of the blasphemous
alteration of Scripture, ignores the fact that the Received Text also reads compassion
The leper in this passage knelt in an attitude of
worship before the Lord. The evil producers of the CEB describe the Lord as
being enraged by the incident.
Mark
1: 43 new Jan '14
And he
straitly charged him, and forthwith sent him away
“Sternly, Jesus sent him away.” CEB
The healed man was sent away in order to show
himself, as a testimony, to the priests.
The Lord was not angry with him though he knew he
would not do as charged. This is clear from other usages of straitly charge (embrimaoma)I See Matthew 9: 30 where two
blind men received their sight in accordance with their faith. They were told
strictly not to make it known, but they did..
Also consider John 11: 33 and 38,concerning the
Lord; He groaned(embrimaomai) in the spirit. Again groaning(embrimaomai) in himself
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.
Luke 9: 55
….ye know not what manner of spirit ye
are of. added May '14
“,,,,ye know not of what spirit ye are.” JND
J N
Darby placed these words in italics because he didn’t really believe they should
be there.
They are missing without authority from almost all
modern versions
James
and John had failed to comprehend the purpose of the Son of man in coming into
the world, that it was to save and not to destroy. Read the context and see how
important it is that we know the Lord’s response to James and John.
There
are many today ready to destroy those who do not follow their brand of
religion. This is not confined to Muslims and Hindus. Calvin killed those who
disagreed with him.
Alleged
followers of Jesus may exhibit their own evil spirit if their sectarian views
are opposed.
We
understand the spirit of those who seek to destroy the Bible by removing
significant words of Christ.
Mark 10: 21
…. And come, take up the cross, and follow me.
The NIV etc. 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: 9ff At
this point CEB has “Endings added later”……o
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 1: 3 added Oct'13
It seemed good to me also, having had perfect
understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus, ….
“….having followed all thing closely for some time
past, to write an orderly account for you,”
ESV
“….having traced the course of all things
accurately from the first,” RV
“….after having investigated all things carefully
from the beginning,
I have also decided to write a carefully ordered
account for you….” CEB
The common interpretation of this verse is shown in
the three modern versions quoted above and in the commentary on the gospel of
Luke in the Believer’s Bible Commentary, quoted
below:
As
to [Luke’s] method, he first traced the course of all things accurately from
the beginning, then he wrote them down in order. His task involved a
careful, scientific investigation of the course of events in our Savior's life.
Luke checked on the accuracy of his sources, eliminated all that was not
historically true and spiritually relevant, then compiled his materials in
order as we have them today. ̶ E-Sword.net
These quotes reveal a plain denial of the
inspiration of Scripure.
Norman Crawford, in his commentary on Luke’s
gospel, also denies any form of inspiration. He wrote,
Luke’s
desire to write was spiritual, so that with the result before us we can
confidently affirm that the Holy Spirit begat the desire and superintended all
that he wrote . .̶ What the
Bible Teaches/Luke; Vol.7; p.20
If the Holy Spirit merely superintended Luke’s
writing, his gospel cannot be God-breathed Scripture. The words originated with
Luke and the Holy Spirit pointed out mistakes.
But Luke claimed infallibility regarding his own
understanding. It was perfect, not lacking in any respect. There were no flaws
in it. This is remarkable because others, whose reliability is not questioned,
were eye-witnesses and Luke was not an eye-witness. He was aware of the many accounts recorded and
viewed them favourably but claimed his writing was superior to all these.
Luke’s understanding was from the very first. (anothen).
Luke’s infallible understanding was not traced out from the other accounts as
the rationalists insist. Luke never met
Mary or John the Baptist as far as we know but his understanding was superior
to theirs. If their understanding was
first, then Luke’s is from theVERY first.
Anothen is translated “again” in John 3:3 and may like to
tell us this means “born from above”.
InMatt.27: 51 the veil was rent from the top (anothen) to the bottom. That is, from above to below.
In John 3: 31 we read, he that cometh from above(anothen) is above all. And Luke says, “that’s where I got my Gospel;
from above. It came direct from heaven.
Luke states that his gospel account is impeccable
because it is God-breathed Scripture.
After all, ALL scripture is given by inspiration
and if this does not apply to Luke’s writing, it is not Scripture and we do not
have a Holy Bible.
Luke did not NEED the other records. He did not
draw on Matthew and Mark etc, as the Bible Critics like to tell us.
From the very
first is an accurate translation. The
word of God is settled in heaven. Therefore Luke’s Gospel and all the word of
God is from eternity and existed before the worlds were made.
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.
“….and on earth peace among those whom he favors (sic).” CEB
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 4: 4
And Jesus answered
him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by
every word of God.
The
underlined words are omitted from almost ALL modern versions; NIV, ESV, etc.
Manuscript
evidence for the retention of these words is massive. Satan does not care how a
man lives as long as it is not by every word of God.
This
verse is proof that every word of God remains available, else Christ would
never have made this statement.
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
“….suppose your child or an ox fell into a ditch….” CEB
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,
“….while being tormented in the place of the dead…” CEB
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: 8 added Feb '14
And when Herod saw Jesus,…..he hoped to
have seen some miracle done by him
“….hoping to see some sign done by him,” ESV
The Greek word semeion
is frequently translated as “sign”
in the Authorized Bible.
We are reminded in Mat. 16: 4 a wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, But when
we come to Luke 23: 8 we learn that Herod hoped to see a miracle done by the
Lord.
Both “sign” and “miracle” are accurate translations of semeion. Both words have been in the
English language since the 12th Cent. AD
Miracle has always meant “an event caused by supernatural
means” – Dictionary.com and superbly
translates semeion.
All miracles done by the Lord are signs of the presence
of deity; proofs of God manifest in the flesh,. Not all signs are miracles.
Herod, though a thoroughly evil man, nevertheless knew that Jesus was possessed of
deity. Our attention is drawn to this fact by the use of the word miracle at
this point.
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
McClure 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: 5
And
the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.
“….the darkness has not understood it.” (and in a footnote; ‘or, has not overcome it’) NIV
The first and last usages in the N.T. of katalambano are and wheresover he taketh him, he teareth him…(Mark 9: 18), and But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that
that day should overtake you as a thief.
(1 Thess. 5: 4)
The NIV would have us feeling sorry for
“darkness” and its evil powers. It has simply failed to perceive what light is
about. We must educate darkness.
Those who have come out of darkness and have
been translated into the kingdom of His dear Son know that darkness is vicious
and is determined to seize and hold on to its prey.
For
we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places. (Eph.
6: 12)
The NIV is itself a cruel agent of darkness.
There is no lack of understanding, as their footnote reveals. Its aim is to
take hold of the light of God’s word and to tear it to pieces.
The men behind the Authorized Version were
well aware of the breadth of meaning in katalambano.
NB Peter opened his mouth, and said,
Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons. (Acts 10:
34).
The translators comprehended it well.
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.
“….God the only Son, who is at the Father’s side….” CEB
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.
The CEB perversion
maintains the Gnostic heresy of intermediary gods.
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 2; 10
….Every man at the
beginning doth set forth good wine (oinos); and when men have well drunk, then that
which is worse,.…
“….Everyone
brings out the choice wine first and then the cheaper wine after the guests
have had too much to drink…” NIV
It
has been shown by various scholars and commentators that oinos/wine is a generic word and can mean either fermented or
unfermented wine. Naturally fermenting wine is usually sour and undrinkable.
The ancient people knew how to preserve natural unfermented wine.
It
is false to suggest, as does the NIV and other modern versions that Jewish
wedding feasts were drunken orgies.
It
is evil to suggest that the Lord changed water into intoxicating liquor.
See
Ancient wine and the Bible. D R
Brumbelow; Free Church Press.
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 CEB also
denies the omnipresence of the Lord.
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.
“….we believe, and know that you are God’s holy one.” CEB
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.
“….I’m not going to this one because my time hasn’t yet come.” CEB
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
9: 4
I
must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: added Nov.13
“As long as it is day, we
must do the works of him that sent me.”
NIV
“We must do the works of him
who sent me while it is day.”
ESV
The overwhelming majority of
Greek Manuscript evidence supports the
AV reading. Even the Vaticanus agrees with the Received Text and the AV.
The corrupted text was
introduced by Westcott and Hort, taken from the Sinaiticus and one or two other
perverted texts.
The change denies the uniqueness
of Christ as the Sent One. It renders the sending of the blind man to wash in
the pool of Siloam (which is by interpretation Sent) as superfluous. Note this
miracle is recorded only three verses after the statement in verse four,
showing clearly that Christ is the Sent One. The blind man understood this.
The blind Bible mutilators
remain blind.
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….
“Jesus and his disciples were sharing the evening meal.” CEB
"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 for
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
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.
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.
“ ….He planned to charge him publicly after the Passover.” CEB
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,- JND 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.
“….Everyone who was appointed for eternal life believed.” CEB
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
nevertheless 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”.
Romans 1: 16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of
Christ:….
“for I am not ashamed of the gospel:”
RV, NRSV, ESV, CEB 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.
“Being therefore justified by faith, let
us have peace with God.” RV
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.
“….through
whom we now have a restored relationship with God” CEB
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 realize 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 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.
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 (logos) of the cross is to them that perish foolishness.
“For the word
of the cross….” RV JND
The preaching
of the cross was obviously anathema to Westcott and Hort, Darby, and others.
Acts 10: 36
acts as a commentary on this verse: The word (logos) which God sent
unto the children of Israel, Preaching peace by Jesus Christ (he is Lord of
all).
The word of
the cross is transmitted through preaching.
Note also
Titus 1: 3, But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching.
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 Corinthians 5: 5
To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the
flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
“….that his spirit may be saved in the
day of the Lord.” ESV, CEB
Almost all modern versions omit Jesus; here and in many other verses.
The Day of the Lord commences subsequent
to the Rapture. It is first a period of judgment and then continues through the
Millennium.
The day of the Lord Jesus involves His
coming into the air at the Rapture.
Thus we see that the Bible is altered
here by the critics because they reject its prophetic teaching as well as the
person of Christ
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.
1
Corinthians 7: 1
It
is good for a man not to touch a woman
“It
is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman” ESV
“….not
to have sex with a woman.” CEB. (This is
gutter language – R.S.)
“A
man does well not to marry” GNB
E Parmenter writes,
The
apostle states a general principle in verses 1& 2 [1 Cor. 7].... the word
“good” indicates what is expedient or advantageous. The meaning of the word
“touch” is to “cohabit with” cf Prov. 6.29 [ So he that goeth in to his
neighbour's wife, whosoever toucheth her shall not be innocent] — Assembly
Testimony; May/June 1991
Parmenter
thus teaches that not to fornicate or to commit adultery is merely a matter of
expediency; the advantages of not doing so outweigh the disadvantages. However,
apparently it doesn't matter as long as the pair do not live together.
However,
my Bible teaches that such conduct is gross sin.
We read in 1 Cor. 6: 9 Know ye not that the
unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God?....neither fornicators....nor
adulterers....
Clearly
cohabiting, i.e. practising adultery, is not the subject of ch 7. Such people
are excluded from the kingdom of God.
The
GNB is nearer the truth than the ESV in its translation. However, it is not so
plain and accurate as the Authorized Bible.
Because
of the persecutions then prevalent it was better to remain single and thus face
the afflictions of the day than to have the added responsibility that marriage
brings. But this would put a great strain on young men and women contemplating
marriage. Better to marry than to burn. In this Paul was not advocating
marriage as a way of avoiding fornication.
The
suggestion that “touch” in v.1 means to “cohabit with” is mischievous to say
the least.
Parmenter
goes on to show his low regard for Scripture by informing his readers that
benevolence should be omitted from verse 3. The couple need only give to each
other their conjugal rights, (ESV). This again is an abuse of Scripture. Paul
refers to the obligation of kindness and good will. (With good will doing
service, as to the Lord. Eph. 6: 7)
1 Cor. 7:15
But if the unbelieving depart, let him
depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage douloo) 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 wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth.
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. Being “under bondage” is to be enslaved.
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 Darby 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 deo) 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.
“Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to
be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” NKJV
“If you are married don’t get a
divorce.If you are divorced don’t try to
find a spouse.But if you do marry, you haven’t sinned. And if someone who
hasn’t been married gets married, they haven’t sinned.” (my underline-RS) CEB
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 -RS] 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.
The Common English Bible takes error
further and condones remarriage for the divorced.
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 (adokimos) .
“….that I myself won’t be
disqualified.” CEB
We are told that this is a misleading
translation because the basic meaning of a castaway refers to a shipwrecked
mariner. This 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 hardly 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 Corinthians 10: 17
For we being many,
are one bread (artos)
“….are one loaf, JND NIV etc.
It is constitution being considered in
this verse, and not shape, therefore the word loaf is incorrect.
Darby’s alteration has led to the
practice by some to give thanks for the loaf. This error reflects on Darby’s
teaching on Ecclesiology, which is defective in many parts.
Do some Brethren hold a Breaking of Loaf
meeting?
Giving thanks for the loaf introduces
mysticism into the practice. God is thanked for something not actually present.
Many small assemblies use a bread roll. It is nonsense to call it a loaf.
It follows that the sacrifice of Christ
on the cross would have been merely mystical.
Loaf is mentioned once only in the N.T.
of the Authorized Bible
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
etc, 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 11: 26
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do
shew the Lord’s death till he come
“….ye proclaim the Lord’s death….” RV
“….ye announce the death of the
Lord….” JND
S Walvatne states,
The AV
translation, “ye do show,” is not accurate, for the Supper isn’t a
presentation, but a proclamation. We announce the Lord’s death till He come. — Assembly Testimony; March/April 2012;
p.44
We shall pass by Walvatne’s misquote of
the AV Bible (it is shew; not show). It is more regrettable when men with a
limited grasp of the English language sit in judgment on our English Bible.
The meaning of the word shew is
demonstrated in our marriage ceremony,
If any
man can shew any just cause why they may not lawfully be joined together, let
him now speak or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.— The Book of Prayer.
Shewing is here fulfilled in speaking;
telling forth.
We see that ‘shew’ in this verse brings
out a fuller meaning than ‘proclaim’.
‘Announce’ implies a statement of
something not previously known, akin to the popish priest announcing the bodily
presence of Christ in the wafer.
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? revised Dec. '13
“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death is
your sting?” NIV
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.
This is why hades (hell) was expunged from the text
very early in church history.
Those
who deny hades a place in the text will need to explain the association of death
and the grave in Hosea 13: 14.
Even
the Septuagint retains hades . Alford, a critic of the Received Text, preserving hades, wrote: “TRIUMPHANT
EXCLAMATION of the Apostle realizing in his mind that glorious time: expressed
nearly in the terms of the prophetic announcement of Hosea.
2 Corinthians 2:17
For we are not as many, which corrupt
the word of God.
“….who hustle*
the word of God to make a profit.” CEB
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.
*hustle
is an ambiguous word. It can mean ‘aggressive in financial matters’. It is also
a slang term.
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 1: 15
But when it pleased God (o theos), who separated me from my mother’s womb….
“But when he who had set me apart before
I was born….” ESV
The Westcott/Hort Greek Text has o
theos bracketed.
The Net.Bible suggests that scribes
would have no reason for omitting the words. The shorter reading, it is claimed
by the critcs) is usually the correct one.
However, Net.Bible admits there is
strong manuscript evidence for keeping o theos.
Galatians 3:24
The law was our schoolmaster to bring us
to Christ.
“ the Law
became our custodian until Christ.” CEB
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.
“God sent his Son, born through a
woman, ad born under the Law.” CEB
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. ─John
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 produce; a 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. This 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 is 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 may 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”.
Galatians 6: 4
But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have
rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.
“….then they can take pride in
themselves lone…..” NIV
Pride is condemned in the Scriptures.
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: 9
….the fellowship (koinonia) of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in
God….
“….the dispensation of the mystery (oikonomia) which from all ages hath been
hid in God….” RV
The Textual Critics inform us that “the
oldest manuscripts read ‘economy’ or ‘dispensation’”. We remind our readers
that the oldest manuscripts exist today only because they were rejected by the
early Bible believers.
Koinomia is found in the Greek Texts of Stephenus,
Beza, and Elzevir. Because we do not know the sources of these authorities,
does not mean they are wrong.
Tindale was satisfied as to the
genuineness of “fellowship” as were the translators of the Great, Geneva, and
Bishops Bibles. There are other manuscripts also in agreement.
The mystery is that revealed in the New
Testament; Christ and the church. Eph. 5: 32. In this a fellowship exists — a
oneness, a likemindedness, a sharing between its members. The natural man does
not want this. He must administrate the Church according to his own whims and
so he mocks the Bible believers as King James Onlyists, and changes the text in
this verse.
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. CEB
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: 19
Who being past feeling have given themselves over unto
lasciviousness, to work all uncleanness with greediness.
“They have become callous, and have
given themselves up to sensuality, greedy to practice every kind of
impurity.” ESV
Seeing that the word callous existed in
the 14th century, we ask why the AV translators did not use it. The
reason is they knew it did not properly translate apalgeo. (found here only in GNT) Paul was teaching that the
unconverted Gentiles were unable to feel the pain of their actions upon
themselves.
Callousness is a hardened attitude to
the needs of others. Thus the ESV is a false translation.
Sensuality is far too bland a word to
use here. Lasciviousness involves sexual impurity, lechery, lewdness.
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
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
“Light produces fruit….” CEB
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).
Philippians 1: 11
Being filled with the fruits (karpon, N-GPM) of righteousness. (καρπών)
“being filled with the fruits of
righteousness”. RV
“being filled with the fruit of
righteousness” ESV
“being complete as regards the fruit of
righteousness. JND
The majority of manuscripts has the
plural, fruits. Righteousness produces more than one fruit..
The context makes plain that fruit is
singular in 1: 22 and 4: 17
Philippians 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.
“Only let’s live in a way that is
consistent with whatever level we have reached.” CEB
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.
Philippians 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: 2
Set your affections phroneo) on things
above,
“have your mind on the things that
are above” JND
“keep your minds fixed on things
there,” GNB
Our AV translators were well aware that phroneo
can be translated mind (as well as several other English words). They knew
also that if one’s desires and longings were not centred in heaven, the mind
would never be set there.
The affections of the modern critics
appear to be very much earth and self-centred.
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
The coming is present tense. There is a
particular wrath to be applied in the future, in the period of Tribulation, but
God’s wrath against all unrighteousness is currently being revealed in the
disasters and disorders that fall upon men.(Romans 1: 18).
Children of disobedience is found in all mss except P46, B,
D*. Despite this Robertson’s Word Pictures states that “many old MSS do not
have ‘upon the sons of disobedience”.
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 Thessalonians 4: 6
That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter:
“That
no man transgress, and wrong his brother in the matter” RV
“none
of you should sin against his brother by doing that” NIrV
“That
no one of you should take advantage of and defraud his brother in this
matter. Wm. McDonald
Verses
3,4,5 in 1 Thessalonians give a strong and specific warning against
fornication. (This is copulation, male with female, one or both outside of
marriage)
Modern
versions associating this with a wronged brother turn it into male sodomizing
another male by force. They do so by denying the Bible teaching on fornication,
and by replacing “any” in v.6 with
“this”, or “that”, or “the”. It is not necessary always for the definite article
to be translated; the context decides it. The translators of the AV,
understanding the meaning of the passage, left ho untranslated, but inserted any
in order to make sense. .
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: 1
Now we beseech you brethren by(uper; genitive) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ….
“Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus
Christ” ESV
Paul is NOT writing about the Coming.
This was well understood by the Thessalonian believers. The ESV and many modern versions of Scripture teach
that the coming of the Lord would introduce the Day of the Lord.
Paul is teaching that by reason of,
because of, the next great event; the coming into the air of the Lord for His
own, the saints need not be disturbed by the false teaching some were putting
out.
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 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.
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 (gnosis)falsely so called.
“….turning away from the profane
babblings and oppositions of the knowledge
(antithesis)) which is falsely so called.” RV
Modern versions shy away from science.
They prefer to call it “falsely called knowledge” ( JND, NRSV etc) 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.
It was, however, Origen who altered the
Greek from gnosis to antithesis as seen in the Septuagint and adopted in the
Westcott/Hort Greek text.
It is interesting to note that gnosis
is translated “knowledge” 28 times in the AV Bible and only once as
“science”. Those who regard this as a slip do not believe we have a God-given
Bible.
They do not believe such a Bible exists
or could exist.
The word gnosis originally meant
revealed knowledge of various spiritual truths. True science does not oppose
spiritual truth and therefore does not contradict any statement of Scripture.
“Gnosticism is a religious movement
characterized by belief in gnosis,
through which the spiritual element in man could be released from its bondage
in matte: regarded as a heresy by the Christian Church” — World English
Dictionary
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.
“ If therefore one shall have purified
himself from these, in separating himself from them, he shall be a
vessel to honour…. JND
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. —Belief and morals among the
Taylorites; Evangelical Times; Oct.2000.
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 1: 2
In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie (apseudes), promised before the world began;
“….a God who never lies….” ESV
“….God, who does not lie….” GNB, CEB
I never steal. I do not steal.
But this does not mean I lack the ability to steal. The character of God is
questioned in many modern versions.
The word never (in Greek, oudepote,) relates to
time. Cannot relates to nature.
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: 2
….by his Son….
“….in his Son….” RV
“….in the person of the Son….” JND
“….through his Son….” GNB
“….by his Son….” NIV
“…..through a Son.” CEB
Adam Clarke, in his commentary, wrote,
By his Son. It is very remarkable that the pronoun autou,
his, is not found in the text; nor is it found in any MS. or version. We should
not therefore supply the pronoun as our translators have done; but simply read en
uiw, BY A SON, or IN A SON….
We would not place too much
reliance on Clarke’s works, seeing that he considered Christ to have a fallen
nature.
Some preachers are telling us that “his”
being in italics, should be omitted. This reduces the phrase to gibberish. The
English language demands a pronoun, which our translators have supplied. The preachers will hasten to tell us that the
omission adds quality to “Son” by emphasising His nature. Why have not the
producers of our modern versions noted this necessity for omission? In fact,
Greek is a highly reflexive language and therefore pronouns are frequently not
needed.
There are at least twenty instances
where a pronoun has been inserted in the Hebrew epistle. They are easily
identified in the Authorized Version, being placed in italics, that the reader
might understand the sense of the passage.
Sometimes, in a modern version where the
italic pronoun has been removed, the meaning of the passage is changed. See
Heb. 12: 2, The author and finisher of our faith (the body
of doctrine we share) in AV Bible becomes in modern versions (personal) “faith”
(the author and finisher of faith)— over which therefore we have no exercise.
If Christ is the author and finisher of faith, then the believer cannot effect
it.
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 2: 17
Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a
merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation (hilaskomai) for the sins of the people.
“….to make propitiation for the sins of
the people.” RV JND
“….to wipe away the sins of the
people.” CEB
The Greek verb hilaskomai is found here and at Luke 18: 13 only, in the N T. where
it is The Greek verb hilaskomai is
found here and at Luke 18: 13 only, in the N T. where it is translated
‘merciful’.
The English word ‘reconciliation’ in the
AV Bible translates katallage at 2
Cor.5: 18,19, hilaskomai at Hebrews
2: 17.
The word ‘propitiation’ translates hilasterion at Romans 3: 25; and hilasmos at 1 John 2: 2, 4: 10.
Propitiation is Godward and means God is
appeased. Reconciliation is manward and means that a friendly relationship has
been established. Heb.2: 17 speaks of
Christ’s relationship towards His people as our high priest.
Hebrews 6: 2
Of the doctrine of baptisms (baptismos)
“of
the doctrine of washings” JND
“instruction
about cleansing rites” NIV
“and
of instruction about washings” ESV
The
writer to the Hebrew Christians is establishing the importance of not having to
return to teaching again the first principles of the faith. The first steps are
repentance toward God, faith in Christ, followed by water baptism. The once and
for all baptism of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost is also a basic
teaching.
Cleansing
rites and washings have nothing to do with the Christian faith. They belong to
Judaism.
The
Judaizers, warned about by Paul in his epistles, were having a devastating
effect on many Jewish converts Thus we see that J N Darby, himself opposed to
Christian baptism, continued in the work of the Jadaizers, along with the
producers of the modern perversions and parodies of Scripture.
The
AV translators were well aware of the alternative translation of baptismos as is revealed in Hebrews 9:
10, which
stood , only in meats and drinks, and divers washings (baptismos), and carnal ordinances, imposed on
them, until the time of reformation.
Washings,
etc. ceased at Pentecost and therefore could not constitute first principles.
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.
Titus 3:
10 new Jan'14
A man that
as an heretick (aihretikos)after the first and second admonition reject.
“a man that is heretical after a first and second admonition
refuse.” RV
Aihretikos
occurs here only in the New Testament.
The RV changes the translation from a noun to an adjective.
A refusal is not so strong as a rejection.
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 1: 21
And receive with meekness the engrafted word ( emphutos), which is able to save your souls.
“and receive with meekness the implanted
word….” RV
The words engrafted and implanted are
not entirely synonymous. Engrafted is a horticultural term, whilst implanted
has more to do with biology.
Emphutos is used only here
in Scripture and is a derivative of phuo,
found only three times in Scripture; Luke 8: 6, 8, relating to seed springing
up and in Hebrews 12 13, which speaks of a root of bitterness springing up.
An engraftment is for propagation so
that the properties of one be transmitted to the other.
An implant may be false, as in a false
tooth being implanted and its properties are not intended to be transmitted to
the other.
Engrafted may be taken to be the correct
translation of emphutos and
insinuations that this is an incorrect rendering are misleading and detract
from a proper understanding of the passage.
There is no point looking into a
distorted mirror! (v. 23)
James 4: 4
Ye adulterers and adulteresses
“You unfaithful people!” CEB
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.
1 John 1: 7, 9
But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have
fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us
from all sin
….and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
About these verses, note the present tense. Cleansing is for daily
application. It is for believers only. Only believers can walk in the light. It
is the person being cleansed, not his sin.
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 2: 23
….. (but) he that acknowledgeth the
Son hath the Father also
“
There were six basic reasons or guidelines followed by the AV translators in
the use of italic type. Five were to smoothen in various ways the interchange
from Hebrew and Greek into English. In the sixth, the translators are
expressing that while they felt the passage was part of Scripture, yet their
current sources were inconclusive. In fact, there is only one clear
occurrence of this use of italic type in the entire King James Bible -- 1 John
2:23 (See F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible,
Cambridge Press, 1884, pp. 61ff, p. 254).”
Quoted from Conies, Brass and Easter:
J Moorman
At 1 John 2:23 the King James
translators followed the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible in adding the
clause, he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also, and in
placing the clause in italics, thus indicating that it was not found in the
majority of the Greek manuscripts or in the earlier editions of the Textus
Receptus. Beza included it, however, in his later editions, and it is found in
the Latin Vulgate and in Aleph and B. Hence modern versions have
removed the italics and given the clause full status. The Bishops' Bible and
the King James Version join this clause to the preceding by the word but, taken
from Wyclif. With customary scrupulosity the King James translators enclosed
this but in brackets, thus indicating that it was not properly speaking
part of the text but merely a help in translation. — The King James Bible
Defended.: E H Hills
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.
Jude 1
….to them that are sanctified (hagiazo) by God the Father….
“….loved by God the Father….CEB
Hagiazois is well
supported by the Greek manuscripts and is found in the majority of the
cursives.
The use of agapao in modern translations indicates a deliberate doctrinal
alteration.
The Nestle-Aland Greek Text makes 32
alterations (in 25 verses) to the Received text of
Jude’s Epistle.
Jude 4
....denying the only Lord (despotes) God, and our Lord (kurios) Jesus Christ,….
“…..and deny our only master and Lord,
Jesus Christ….” RV JND CEB etc.
By omitting God, the deity of Christ is
rejected. The Critical Text behind the RV was engineered by Unitarian
influence. All modern versions follow this serious error.
This verse teaches us, “the only
potentate, almighty, God, who is our Lord, Jesus Christ…”
Jude 22
And of some have compassion, making a difference (diakrino)
“and on some have mercy, who are in
doubt,” RV
“show mercy to those who have
doubts.” GW
“show mercy to those who have
doubts.” GW
Diakrino is translated as
doubt in several places (e.g. Matt. 21: 21). It cannot be translated We note
the subject in this context is “ye, beloved” (v. 20).
These beloved receive a series of
instructions;
1. building up yourselves, 2. praying in
the Holy Ghost, 3. keep yourselves, 4. looking for the
mercy, 5. have compassion, making a difference, 6.
others save with fear.
If diakrino
is to be doubt, then the beloved are making some doubt.
Doubters are not believers. But some
believers may be misled by the sensual apostates of v.21. The beloved therefore
will need to exercise discernment.
(compare 1 Cor. 11: 29)
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...
“I know your hardship….” CEB
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 8: 13
And beheld, and heard
an angel flying through the midst of heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe,
woe….
“….I heard an eagle, flying in
mid-heaven, saying with a loud voice, Woe, woe, woe…. JND
John wrote in Revelation 14: 6, and I saw another angel fly in the midst of
heaven, having the everlasting gospel….
Only one angel flying in the midst of
heaven has been previously mentioned: that of 8: 13. So is this really another
eagle?
JND doesn’t think so.
Why would there be consistently
angel-messengers throughout the Revelation and then suddenly, in 8: 13, a
talking bird?
The received text is correct.
Revelation 16: 5
….Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art,
and wast, and shalt be…..
“Righteous art thou, which art and which
wast, thou Holy One….” RV
“Just are you, O Holy One, who is and
who was….” ESV
O Lord
is omitted, and also and shalt be in modern versions. “Thou Holy
One” is inserted in modern versions.
This is a favourite battle ground for the
critics as there appears to be little manuscript evidence for the AV reading.
However, Beza found Greek manuscript evidence and the AV translators plainly
considered this to be the true reading.
We believe these men to be led of God in
producing for us one definitive English Bible.
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