 Autumn 2000
No.22
22
“Let us walk by
the same rule”
Phil.3:16
|
Contents
Report of Open Air Preaching………………………...2
The Integrity of the
AV Bible…………………………4
John 1:18
1 Corinthians 7:22, 23
Luke 16:22, 23
1 Peter 2:9
AV
Churches…………………………………………...8
Critics on the
Run...……………………………………8
How to Defend the
King James Version…………….12
Wycliffe, Tyndale,
and the Vulgate………………….12
Correspondence……………………………………….14
“The Devil’s
Vision”………………………………….15
REPORT OF OPEN AIR PREACHING
May 17th LUTON TOWN
CENTRE. A J W woman interrogated me for half an hour. She used the usual
Russellite approach, wanting to know what I believed in and nodding her assent
at most of my comments. She seemed to think I didn’t know she was a Russellite.
I believe when we are challenged that we must give voice to the things
believed, so I spoke of my conversion and my faith in the Son of God, God
manifest in the flesh and Who is Himself the I Am, the Jehovah of the Old
Testament. He is the One Who paid the price of my sins on Calvary’s cross. I
tried to touch on most of the doctrines denied by the Russellites.
She asked if she might compare Scriptures with me and produced her
New World Translation. This book, I assured her, belonged to the pit and she
would not be able to use it to compare Scriptures with my Bible. I then
challenged her with being a Russellite. At which point another woman appeared
and the two went off together, convincing me that this had been no chance
meeting
June 15th
LEIGHTON BUZZARD, by the Cross. There were two
rough looking men sitting on the Cross steps when I arrived so I walked down
the High Street, hoping they would be gone when I returned. Alas, they had not
gone so I decided I had better get on with preaching. After a few minutes one
got up and came and stood next to me, trying to look at the Bible, which I was
holding. He had long straggly hair, tattoos on his face and arms and had a beer
can in his hand. I thought I was in for a class A confrontation!
His first words to me were, “my grandfather
used to preach in the open air, up in Shropshire.” Twenty minutes later we were
praying together. By then he had told me his sorry story¾a car accident, a motorbike accident, a divorce, prison, loss of
employment, drunkenness, drugs, psychiatric treatment …. Did God really care
for him? He was in tears and I admit that my eyes were filled with tears as
well. O yes! God cares. The cross tells us that God cares.
Satan cares too.
There was instant satanic interference. Curtis, the old road-sweeper, was
sitting there as well, and a man came up to speak to him, plainly thinking we
were all involved in the same discussion, and pushed between the two of us, interrupting
our conversation. However, this burdened young man moved round him to continue
speaking to me.
His name is
Simon. We prayed together. He took a tract. How easily I could have pronounced
him saved there and then! Then his mobile phone rang¾cursed instrument of the pit¾ and he left me.
July 3rd
LUTON T C.,
A group of Muslim youths surrounded me, firing questions from all sides.
They were generally polite but the ‘discussion’ was quite lively. The usual
nonsense had been put forward several times that the Bible had been changed.
Repeated invitations to cite one case of the Bible being changed went unheeded.
Then a young woman came up, placed herself by my side, and attempted to take
charge of the discussion. She was, she told us, a Christian, a member of the
Church of Latter-Day Saints, and yes, the Bible had been changed in lots of
places. This woman plainly needed a public rebuke, which she got.
Before she left
us she attempted to shake hands with the leading Muslim lad (but made no
attempt to shake hands with me) who looked at her with disdain. He wouldn’t
shake hands with a woman, he said, because Islam did not permit it. He turned
to a young Asian woman standing with them and said he wouldn’t shake hands with
her either, even though she was his sister. She smiled dutifully.
It was evident
once again that Muslims thrive on the lies put out by the Textual Critics, My
Bible has not been ‘changed’. Only the modern parodies of Scripture,
masquerading as ‘versions’ do this. They also believed the lie that the Lord
and His disciples spoke Aramaic, and that the Gospel writers did not know the
Lord personally. We certainly had a wide ranging discussion but the important
thing is that they also heard the Gospel preached.
July 4th
HITCHIN Mkt. Sq. The only response today was
from one man who had sat listening for some time. As he walked past me he
informed me that I had wrecked his lunch break. I was able to remind him that
if he didn’t repent and believe the gospel, then his whole eternity would be wrecked.
July 18th
HITCHIN Mkt. Sq. The presence of a young man
who had accompanied me from Luton gave me much encouragement today. It was a
good gospel meeting with a dozen or so folk listening throughout. There was
opportunity to give a more constructed message. Usually, with a passing
audience, I preach a ‘lateral’ gospel. I.e. no development of a theme, no
anecdotes, no series of points. Instead, I use a number of gospel texts,
repeating them frequently, and making only one or two comments on them. I use my
A2 flip board now so up to ten TBS texts can be displayed while I am preaching.
I fix it to the handle of my walking stick.
July 21st
LUTON T C.
The Animal Rights folk were occupying my stand with their stall when I
arrived. I stood there anyway, facing them across the footpath. They didn’t
seem to mind my presence until I began to preach on the text, without the shedding of blood is no
remission. When I pointed out that God killed one of the animals which He had created in order to make a
covering for that first couple, they began shouting me down. This drew a crowd¾inevitably¾and gave
me a larger audience. Eventually I heard one of them muttering to another, “the
others only stay five minutes. This one stays all afternoon!” “We’ll give him
just two more minutes.” Nothing happened after two minutes so I went on
preaching. It did mean that these folk heard a full gospel message, so do pray
for them.
The meeting with
Simon reminded me of a similar young man I had dealings with while in the RAF.
We were returning
from a NATO exercise in Libya to our base in Scotland when our pilot was taken
ill so we had three days enforced stay in Malta. I decided to do some
sightseeing and went out of the base to catch the bus into Valletta. To my
horror another NCO of our squadron, corporal J, was waiting there whose company
I would never have voluntarily sought. He was an evil living man, almost always
drunk when off duty. I felt that as a believer I should be sociable to towards
him on this occasion and we travelled together into town. He invited me to join
him for a drink, which I declined so he came with me to a café where we both
had a lemonade. He left after half an hour or so and I felt guilty that I
hadn’t witnessed to him on the journey or in the café. But the following day he
sought me out and told me he wanted to talk to me. He told me he had been
impressed that I should be willing to talk to the likes of him and then he
poured out his sad story that had resulted in his wife walking out on him. He
asked that I should write to her and persuade her to give him another chance. I
replied that I would have to tell her that he was still a foul-mouthed drunken
whoremonger. His only hope was to turn to the Lord and be saved. He was very
angry at this and said he might have known I would just give him religion. So
he left me and we never spoke to each other again.
I left the
squadron but two months later I received a letter from another believer, a
member of that same squadron, who knew nothing of my dealings with J. He asked
me if I remembered J and wrote how
surprised they had been when he walked into their gospel meeting (in Nicosia)
and got saved that same night.
¾¥¾
THE INTEGRITY OF THE AV BIBLE
John 1:18
No
man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of
the Father, he hath declared him.
Wycliffe, having only the Latin Vulgate
for his translation in 1380, wrote, ‘no man sai euer God, no but the oon
bigetun sone, that is in the bosum of the fadir, he hath teld out’. The Vulgate
reads, ‘Deum nemo vidit unquam, unigentius filius, qui est in sinus patris,
ipse enarravit’. Oon bigetun sone = unigentius filius = the only begotten Son.
These are all
formally equivalent translations of the Greek verse as it appears in the
Received Text. Tyndale’s reading is identical to the AV excepting that he has a
full-stop after time, and not a semi-colon.
The weight of
evidence for the RT reading is massive. In which case one might wonder why the
NASV reads, ‘No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in
the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him’. J Moorman writes.
This is the classic Gnostic perversion with its doctrine of
‘intermediary gods.’ It is the trademark of corruption in the early Egyptian
manuscripts which unfortunately spread to some others.¾ Early Manuscripts and the
Authorized Version.
E F Hills draws
our attention to the source of this error in his book Believing Bible Study,
Burgon (1896) long ago traced these corruptions of the sacred text
to their source, namely Valentinus. Burgon pointed out that the first time John
1:18 is quoted by any of the ancients a reference is made to the doctrines of
Valentinus. …. What could be more probable than Dean Burgon’s suggestion that
Valentinus fabricated this reading by changing the only begotten Son to the
only begotten God.? His motive for doing so would be his apparent desire to
distinguish between the Son and the Word
(Logos).
Valentinus may
have been the perpetrator of the Egyptian Papyrus 75 which has this reading.
This P75 was not used by Jerome as far as Jn.1:18 is concerned when he revised
the Old Latin Bible in 382 AD. It is Jerome’s revision that became known as the
Latin Vulgate. If Wycliffe knew of P75, he chose not to use it either. Tyndale
and the AV translators knew about this alternative and rejected it. The NASV
chose to use it.
There are no
grounds for omitting the word begotten. It speaks of the intimate relationship
that ever existed and continues to exist between the Eternal Father and the
Eternal Son, the One ever in the bosom of the Father. Wycliffe kept ‘begotten’
and so did Westcott and Hort.
Hills points out that those who insist that
begotten should always be omitted
need to consider John 1:14, which they would be compelled to translate as ‘we
have beheld his glory, glory as of an only from the Father’. That is
nonsensical so they add the word Son
without any authority whatsoever.
1 Corinthians
7:27,28
Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to
be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry
thou hast not sinned.
A commentator
informs us,
It is often asserted that the Bible never directly sanctions
remarriage. This is not true. 1 Corinthians 7:27,28 (NKJV correctly) says: ‘Are
you loosed (i.e. divorced) from a wife? Do not seek a wife’. But it then adds:
‘but even if you do marry, you have not sinned’. Evangelical Times; July 2000, p14.
My copy of the
NKJV doesn’t mention being divorced. By placing (i.e. divorced) within the
apostrophes one concludes that it is to be regarded as part of the text. The Evangelical Times writer’s desire to
make adultery scriptural compels him to add his own interpretations to the text
of Scripture.
And why is the
NKJV correct here, the inference being that other versions are incorrect? In
this instance it reads quite similar to the AV. So why the need to change?
Christ stated whosoever putteth away his wife, and
marrieth another, commiteth adultery,
and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth
adultery. Luke 16:18.
Some will say
that this must be qualified by Mat.19:9, where fornication is given as the
ground for divorce. Matthew must be understood in its Jewish setting, where we
note the Lord’s words were in answer to Phariseeical tempting in front of the
multitude. In Luke the words were addressed to the disciples, and they were not
told of any let-out clauses for divorce. The Lord said to them quite plainly
that the remarried person is a practicing adulterer. Full stop! We are quite
sure this is how the disciples must have understood it
Legge’s article
in the Evangelical Times is unsound.
Not only can he not read the word of Scripture without adding to it, he
completely misunderstands the teaching of the passage.
Divorce and
remarriage are not discussed in 1 Cor. 7, neither anywhere else in the NT for
that matter. The point being made is this. What is good for the present
distress, i.e., the circumstances, persecutions and distresses of Christian
life in the NT era? What state is it best for a man to be in? (v26). Paul had just been saying that one should
stay put in one’s present calling, and now he applies this to marriage.
So our two
verses (27 & 28) deal with two men; One has a wife, the other has not a
wife. To the first he says do not seek to be free of her (divorce is NOT
mentioned) because she isn’t saved and is threatening to leave him (v15).
To the other man
who is not married (‘loosed’ does not imply that he once had a wife. It means
he is free from marriage bonds), he says, under the present stresses, stay as
you are, and thereby avoid all the problems that marriage will incur.
Nevertheless, Paul says to this unmarried man, if you do marry you are not
committing any sin.
Luke 16:22,23
The rich man also died, and was buried;
And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments,
The average man
in the street knows what is meant by hell. He knows it is a place beyond the
grave for the godless and the profane and that is why it is an expletive
commonly upon his lips. Satan has done his best to take the sting out of it.
Religionists and
modern versionists have helped to this end. We find an early amendment in the
1879 edition of Wycliffe’s New Testament. Wycliffe wrote ‘ and the riche man
was deed also, and was biried in helle. And he reseide hise i3en,
whanne he was in turmentis’, but in the glossary at the end of the book we find
this interpretation given:
helle, s, grave,
Lk.xvi.23.
It will require
a fantastic faith to believe that this rich man’s rotting corpse was placed in
the (physical) grave and then all of a sudden it opened its eyes, being in
torments, and cried out ‘ I am tormented in this flame’! Hell is not the grave. The rich man’s body
was buried in a grave, but his soul was buried in hell.
Some have taught
that hell (Greek hades, Hebrew sheol) was the place to which all
departed spirits went until Christ came. So says J N Darby,
‘Hades’ like ‘Sheol’ ….is a very vague expression used in general to
designate the temporary state of departed spirits, the unseen or invisible
world of spirits, upon which, till the coming of Christ, darkness and obscurity
rested, as may be seen in the Old Testament. It is applied to Christ, who went
into paradise, and to the rich man in
Luke 16, who found himself in torment. New
Translation; fn to Mt.11:23.
Darby therefore
would not translate hades but left
the word in its anglicized form. Likewise the RV.
Psalm 9:17 tells
us, The wicked shall be turned into
hell, and all the nations that forget God. This verse is sufficient to
assure us that believers do not and never did get put into hell, otherwise the
verse is meaningless. David anticipated heaven, for he wrote But God shall redeem my soul from the power
of the grave [sheol], for he shall
receive me. Ps.49:15. Jacob
thought he might go down into sheol at death (Gen.37:35), but this doesn’t mean
that he did. The teaching that Christ descended into hell at His death is
heretical.
‘Grave’ in the O
T translates five different Hebrew words, the commonest for the physical grave
being keh’-ver,and for hell it is sheol. The context usually reveals
whether ‘grave’ stands for the burying place of the body, or the place where
the soul is buried. The grave in the N T is always the burying place of the
body.
Gehenna is
translated hell in the N T but is not
synonymous with hades as the words of the Lord show. Mt.5:29 reads, the whole body should be cast into hell,
and Mt.10:28 reads fear him which is
able to destroy both soul and body in hell. The body is placed in an
earthly grave while the soul is consigned to hell (hades). Thus Gehenna is a picture of the Lake of Fire, Rev.20:14 into
which, in that awful coming day, death (the body) and hell (the soul) shall be
cast.
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.
¾¥¾
AV CHURCHES
The Evangelical Times gave a list of ‘Holiday Churches’ in their June
issue, in which churches were invited to state their preferred Bible version.
Surveying this list I discovered the following:
Out of 440
churches, 177 listed AV (40.2%)
149 ‘’
NIV (33.7%)
111 ‘’
NKJV (25.2%)
2
‘’ NASB ( 0.4%)
1 ‘’
Rev. Auth. ( 0.2%)
We might draw a number of conclusions from this, bearing in mind
that no ‘Brethren’ assemblies, so-called, were listed. Many of these are still
strongly AV based despite the influence of their ‘Ministering Brethren’.
Perhaps the survey shows that 60% of Evangelical Christendom has now
apostatized. However, among the 40.2% holding to the AV, a large number are
Reformed. Keeping to the AV Bible doesn’t necessarily mean a fellowship or an
individual is sound in doctrine. Rejecting the AV certainly indicates
unsoundness. It is rank apostasy.
¾¥¾
CRITICS ON THE RUN
D Wallace, a textual critic, wrote in The Text of the New Testament in
Contemporary Research; Eerdmans; 1995,
For the first
two-thirds of the twentieth century, NT critics could speak with one accord:
the TR had finally been laid to rest. ….
The situation today is disturbingly different. Gone is the era when
KJV/TR advocates could be found only in the backwaters of anti-intellectual
American fundamentalism. A small but growing number of students of the NT in
North America and to a lesser degree, in Europe…. Are embracing a view left for
dead over a century ago ¾that the
original text is to be found in a majority of MSS. …proponents of a minority
view are trying to reopen an issue once thought to be settled.
We are reminded
in this of how the Jews from Antioch and Iconium persuaded the people to stone
Paul and they drew him out of the city,
supposing he had been dead. Acts 14:19.
How the Jews must have rejoiced. No longer would they have to suffer
this little Jew with his gospel which cut right through man’s pride. Howbeit, as the disciples stood round about
him, he rose up and came into the city. v.20. O what an awful shock for
those God-hating Jews! They thought they had put an end to the apostle. It is
Paul who reminds us, it is written, I
will destroy the wisdom of the wise. 1 Cor.1:19.
What a shock too
for those critics who had laboured for so long to destroy the AV Bible only to
discover that it is still very much alive, and hadn’t died at all. It must be
understood that this is the purpose behind textual criticism, to destroy the
written testimony of God. The struggle to arrive at the original text is merely
a subterfuge. The critics confess that this goal will never be reached.
However, the “original text” is ever with us, and we have it in the AV
Bible.
We are seeing an
awakening to the true Scripture and we are thankful for it. There are now many
good books available defending the AV and the TR. The books by E Hills and Otis Fuller should
be on every Bible believer’s bookshelf together with Burgon’s classic Revision Revised.
Wallace goes on,
The Majority text movement…. began immediately after the
epoch-making publication of Westcott and Hort’s The New Testament in the Original Greek and concomitantly the RV of
the NT (1881).
The AV Bible is
not based solely on the Majority Text. Neither is it solely based on the TR.
There are verses in the AV Bible that are neither in the Majority Text nor the
Textus Receptus. Believers need to understand this. Jack Moorman has dealt
adequately with this seeming problem in his books Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version and When the KJV Departs from the “Majority”
Text. In these he supplies the ms evidence for each reading peculiar to the
AV.
What complaint do the critics have
against Burgon? They allege that he wrote with a vitriolic pen but they never
give examples. He spoke the truth. I have read his book very carefully and I
believe he spoke the truth in love. But here is their main complaint,
The bedrock of Burgon’s text-critical views was a belief in
verbal-plenary inspiration and the doctrine he inferred from it, providential
preservation. On this foundation he constructed four arguments (which remain
the main arguments of the Majority text theory to this day): (1) a theological
a priori that God has preserved the text¾and that such a preserved text has been accessible to the church in
every age; (2) an assumption that heretics have, on a large scale, corrupted
the text; (3) an argument from statistical probability related to the corollary
of accessibility (viz., that the majority is more likely to contain the
original wording); and (4) a
pronouncement that all early Byzantine MSS must have worn out. (ibid)
The person who demurs at Burgon’s first
point can hardly be saved. It is therefore at this first and most critical
point that we separate ourselves from the critics. Textual critics have shown
themselves notoriously hostile to the doctrines of verbal plenary inspiration
and the preservation of Scripture. It is not possible to maintain these
doctrines and to accept modern versions at the same time. Burgon’s other three
points have been well enough established by other writers.
It is also false
to suggest that Burgon was the first to stand against the critics. D Cloud in
his book For Love of the Bible writes
of the following men who stood for the AV/TR.: H J Todd MA published A Vindication of Our Authorized Translation in 1819, J W Whittaker MA published a
defense of the AV in 1820. Then follow fifteen biographies of other 19th
Century AV scholars. One other who deserves mention is Fred Nolan who in 1815
published his Inquiry into the Integrity
of the Received Text. This book shows the corruption of the Alexandrian
Text and demonstrates the verbal integrity of the Received Text. Nolan deals in
depth with 1 John 5:7; 1 Tim.3:16, and Acts 20:28.
Wallace next criticizes E Hills as the
man who ‘nearly seven decades’ later takes up the cause of the traditional
text. He has this to say about him,
He argued even more strongly that did Burgon from providential
preservation, for in his view the TR and not the Byzantine MSS per se was the
closest text to the autographs. His dogmatic convictions about providential
preservation led him to conclude that Erasmus was divinely guided when he
introduced Latin Vulgate readings into his Greek text! (ibid p301.)
If divine guidance is denied to Erasmus
then it must be denied to every translator. For why should any other translator
receive it and not Erasmus? Critics will be quite happy with this of course.
Their intellectual powers will not need the interference of the Holy Spirit.
If we believe it
is God’s Book, divinely given, then we are confident that God will oversee its
preservation from its origin and throughout the remainder of time, for the
benefit of His people.
Having dismissed
Hills, Wallace also dismisses the TR, believing that the Hodges / Farstad
Majority Text of 1982 is the only serious opponent of the ‘Critical’ Text. Any still holding to the TR/AV will be
regarded as anti-intellectual fundamentalists.
Wallace claims
that,
The Majority Text revealed concretely that the Byzantine text-type
had been poorly represented by the TR. (ibid. p302).
As though these are three different
texts, or ‘text-types’. The Authorized Version is essentially the Majority text
but there are some very significant differences. The Majority text
excludes passages such as Acts 8:36,37
and 1 John 5:7. See again J Moorman’s book.
Wallace concedes that while both Majority
and TR advocates may hold to verbal inspiration and preservation, the Majority
defenders do not notice
that to grant to
preservation the same doctrinal status as verbal inspiration is to deny their
own claims for the Majority text and to affirm the TR.(ibid. p306.)
But
Wallace will have the Majority defenders winning the day against the TR
advocates, because they, the Majority
defenders will not make the same fideistic
leap that the TR people make. Their fideism,
he writes
is stripped
naked at the bar of logic and empiricism…. A theological a priori has no place
in textual criticism. (ibid. p306, 309)
There Wallace spells it out again for us.
The heart of the battle lies between faith in God and human wisdom; between
saved men and women who know their God and unconverted scholars. This is why there are two bibles, the
Authorized, and the rest (whether based on the Westcott-Hort-Nestle-UBS text or
on the Hodges-Farstad Majority text.)
Only those who hold solidly to the AV
Bible can hold to Verbal Inspiration and the Preservation of Scripture. The
textual critic declares himself to be an unbeliever and we are to have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness (Eph.5:9, Rom.13:12).
Thirty years ago Eldon Ladd, a leading
American Textual Critic, proclaiming himself to be an Evangelical, sought to
bring to an end ‘the bitter fundamentalist-modernist controversy which raged in
the early twenties’ a consequence of
which ‘has been the strongly negative attitude toward biblical criticism
assumed by some of the successors to the fundamentalists of the 1920’s. Such
people, according to Professor Ladd, insist that the critical method is
basically hostile to the evangelical faith, and they have continued to oppose
it’.
The essays in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research , and in
particular, Wallace’s essay, show why fundamentalists (i.e. saved Bible
believers) will continue to oppose modern textual criticism.
Ladd failed in his mission. His book The New Testament and Criticism did not
impress Bible believers. One statement, given in his introduction and repeated
on the back cover shows why he failed. It is this,
The central
thesis of his book is that the ‘Bible is the Word of God given in the words of
men in history,’ and as such its historical origins must be reconstructed as
far as possible.
The child of God believes the Bible is
the word of God given in the words of God, set down by chosen men and directed
by the Holy Spirit so that every sentence, every phrase, every word, every
syllable, and every jot and tittle recorded is that which God required to be
recorded, without error, without human addition and without human subtraction.
Christ said, my words shall not pass away, Mat.24:35. The words of men do. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not
to wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is
according to godliness; he is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions
and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings,
perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth,
supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself. 1 Tim.6:3-5.
The Bible is not comprised of the words
of men. It is the critic who causes strifes of words and the injunction in this
context is from such withdraw thyself.
¾¥¾
HOW
TO DEFEND THE KING JAMES VERSION ¾ MAKE ASSAILANTS PROVE THEIR POINT. E F
Hills; Believing Bible Study
Once the present writer [E F Hills]
received a letter from a young man who was taking graduate work at a
university. “Dear Sir,” he said, “I am about to give a talk to the young people
of my church on the King James Version. Please send me a list of all the errors
in the King James Version so that I can tell the young people exactly how
trustworthy the King James Version is.” Although I admired the young man’s
zeal, I was unable to comply with his request for two reasons. In the first
place, such a list would immediately be subject to challenge. Naturalistic
critics, for example, would deem it far too short. In the second place and more
important, this is not the way to do battle for the King James Version. When we
defend the King James Version [AV], we do not place it on a level with other
English bible versions and then try to find out which version has the fewest
mistakes. This would be too subjective. We must start out rather with the
objective fact that the King James Version is preeminently the English Bible
translation on which God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of His
approval. Hence the King James Version must be regarded as correct unless it
can be conclusively shown to be otherwise. Those that assail it must be
required to prove their point. By demonstrating that they cannot do so we
defend our historic English Bible.
¾¥¾
WYCLIFFE,
TYNDALE, and the VULGATE
By Benjamin Wilkinson. Taken from ‘Which Bible’ edited by David
Fuller.
Wycliffe, that great hero of God, is
universally called “The morning star of the Reformation.” He did what he could
and God greatly blessed. Wycliffe’s translation of the Bible into English was
two hundred years before the birth of Luther. It was taken from [Jerome’s]
Vulgate and, like its model, contained many errors. Therefore the Reformation
lingered. [When it came it did not go far enough- R S]. Wycliffe himself,
nominally a Catholic to the last, had hoped that the needed reform would come
within the Catholic Church. Darkness still enshrouded Western Europe and though
bright stars shone out brilliantly for a while, only to disappear again into
the night, the Reformation still lingered. Then appeared the translation into
English of Tyndale from the pure Greek text of Erasmus.
Speaking of Tyndale, Demaus says:
“He was of course aware of the existence
of Wycliffe’s Version; but this, as a bald translation from the Vulgate into
obsolete English, could not be of any assistance (even if he had possessed a
copy) to one who was endeavouring, ‘simply and faithfully, so far forth as God
had given him the gift of knowledge and understanding’ to render the New
Testament from its original Greek into
‘proper English.’”
Again: For, as became an accomplished
Greek scholar, Tyndale was resolved to translate the New Testament from the
original language, and not as Wycliffe had done, from the Latin Vulgate; and
the only edition of the Greek text which had yet appeared, the only one at
least likely to be in Tyndale’s possession, was that issued by Erasmus at
Basle.
The Reformers Obliged to
Reject Jerome’s Vulgate
The Reformation did not make great
progress until after the Received Text had been restored to the world. The
Reformers were not satisfied with the Latin Vulgate. The papal leaders did not
comprehend the vast departure from the truth they had created when they had
rejected the lead of the pure teachings of the Scriptures. The spurious books
of the Vulgate opened the door for the mysterious and the dark doctrines which
had confused the thinking of the ancients. The corrupt readings of the genuine
books decreased the confidence of people in inspiration and increased the power
of the priests. All were left in a labyrinth of darkness from which there was
no escape. According to Brooke, Cartwright, the famous puritan scholar, described
the Vulgate as follows:
“As to the Version adopted by the
Rhemists [Cartwright’s word for the Jesuits], Mr Cartwright observed that all
the soap and nitre they could collect would be insufficient to cleanse the
Vulgate from the filth of blood in which it was originally conceived and had
since collected in passing so long through the hands of unlearned monks, from
which the Greek copies had altogether escaped.”
More than this, the Vulgate was the chief
weapon relied upon to combat and destroy the Bible of the Waldenses.
¾¥¾
CORRESPONDENCE
(by email) 7/18/00
Dear
friend,
I
feel I need to point to the fact that what you share on your site is very much
the fruit of a very traditional, conservative and old fashioned view of
christianity. Praise God that Jesus is alive today in the 21st
century as he has always been and as such His word is still alive today,
whether in “high” english or “common” english.
By
the way why once again discuss about translations? Or have you forgotten that
Jesus did not speak english but aramaic or, to put it in modern terms, “common
english”?
In
love to all
Alex.
Dear Alex,
Thank you for your email and for looking
at my website. You say that what I share is the fruit of a very traditional,
conservative and old fashioned view of Christianity. What I share, is the fruit
of my own labours and research. It is not the result of a biased view, for I had to change my mind many years
ago when I realized the NIV that I had bought was not what it claimed to be. It
is not a bigoted view because I have the works of most of the leading Textual
Critics on my bookshelves and I have read them before publishing my own
conclusions.
What is wrong with tradition? Paul warns
to separate from every brother that
walketh disorderly and not after the tradition which he received of us.2
Thes.3:6 If you will not have tradition under any circumstance, then on the
authority of the word of God, I bid you farewell. Tradition based on Scripture is essential for the child
of God. If you are speaking of the traditions of men (Col.2 :7) then we must
beware them. Modern versionism is the tradition of men. It is based on an
apostate scholarship which men highly esteem. The Bible which I believe in is
the one “handed down” through the centuries, which has a proven pedigree, which
no modern bible has.
The child of God, following his Lord and
Master will be conservative, because his Lord and Master is Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today,
and for ever. Heb.13:8. His unchangeability is true conservatism. Jude
urges us to contend earnestly for the
faith which was once delivered unto the saints. V.3. The faith¾ its practices and precepts¾ have
been delivered once and for all. They are valid today without the need for any
updating. Those determined on change are the liberalists. They are marked by a
carelessness of attitude in worship, being casual in dress and in language.
They are ‘into’ Contemporary Christian(?) Music with its devilish beat. They do
not live lives separate from the world. They love the world with its theatres
and football and television. And being worldlings they use the worldlings
modern versions. They simply do not like the straight paths. Yes, I do indeed
seek to maintain the old conservative values. That’s because I have been converted.
You may call me ‘old-fashioned’ if you
will. What I believe and practice is not out of date. We are careful about our
language in prayer to God. Our womenfolk cover their heads in the gatherings of
the Lord’s people and they remain silent. Our godly young women do not parade
themselves trousered, bob-haired, mouths painted, and jewelry hanging from
their ears. They are not seen on the beach near-naked either.
I
believe it is faith in God that you describe as old-fashioned. Perhaps you hold
to things new-fangled? They are the things produced by an apostate Christendom.
I don’t know anything about “high”
English. I do know that the translators of the NIV went down to the New York
ghettoes to gather their common (rather, gutter) English.
I do know that my AV Bible is written in
plain English, a large number of its words being of one syllable.
You say that your Jesus is alive today in
the 21st century. I don’t recognize him. He bears no relationship to
the Christ of glory in Whom I have trusted these past 45 years. I find my
Saviour outside the camp and still despised and hated by the world.
Lastly, you ask ‘why once again discuss
about translations?’ While wicked men are foisting their money making
perversions and parodies of Scripture on an apostate Christendom we raise our
voice against them and encourage believers to maintain their confidence in the
pure word of God. The Lord spoke Hebrew. There is no evidence that He or the
apostles spoke in Aramaic. That is an old wives tale on a par with Darwinism
and the gap theory.
¾¥¾
THE DEVIL’S VISION
The devil once said to his
demons below,
Our work is progressing
entirely too slow,
The holiness people stand in
our way,
Since they don’t believe in
the show or the play,
They teach that the carnival,
circus and dance,
The tavern and honkey-tonk
with game of chance,
Drinking and smoking these
things are all wrong,
That Christians don’t mix
with the ungodly throng.
They’re quick to condemn
everything that we do,
To cause unbelievers to be
not a few.
They claim that these things
are al of the devil,
That Christian folk live on a
much higher level.
Now fellows, their theology
while perfectly true,
Is blocking the work we are
trying to do.
We’ll have to get busy and
figure a plan,
That will change their
standards as fast as we can,.
Now I have a vision of what
we can do,
Harken¾I’ll tell this deception to
you.
Then find me a wise but
degenerate man,
Whom I can use to work out
this plan,
There’s nothing so real as
the thing you can see,
The eyes and the mind and the
heart will agree.
So what can be better than an
object to view,
I say it will work and
convince not a few.
The home is the place for the
sinful device,
The people deceived will
think it quite nice.
The world will possess it,
most Christians can’t tell,
That it’s all of the devil
and was plotted in hell.
We’ll sell them with pictures
of the latest news,
And while they’re still
looking we’ll advertise booze.
At the soul damning cigarette
also they’ll look,
Until they forget what God
says in His Book.
At first it will shock them,
they’ll seem in a daze,
But soon they’ll be hardened
and continue to gaze.
We’ll give them some gospel
that is not too strong
And a few sacred songs to
string them along.
They’ll take in the ads with
the latest fashions,
And soon watch the shows that
stir evil passions.
Murder and love-making scenes
they’ll behold,
Until in their souls they’ll
be bitterly cold.
The “old family altar” which
once held such charm,
Will soon lose its place
without much alarm.
Praying in secret will also
be lost,
As they look at the screen
without counting the cost,
The compromise preachers who
don’t take their stand,
Will embrace this new vision
and think it is grand.
They’ll fool the people and cause them to sin,
By seeking this evil and
taking it in.
Influence is great and this
you can see,
Just look at my fall and
you’ll have to agree.
It won’t take too long my
demons to tell,
That the vision of Satan will
populate hell.
Divorce will increase, sex
crimes will abound,
Much innocent blood will be
spilled on the ground.
The home will be damned in
short order I say,
When this vision of mine
comes in to stay.
Get busy, my cohorts, and put
this thing out,
We’ll see if the church will
continue to shout.
The holiness people who stand
in our way
Will soon hush their crying
against show and play,
We’ll cover the earth with
this devil’s vision,
Though we’ll camouflage it
with the name “Television”.
The people will think they’re
getting a treat,
Till the antichrist comes and
takes over his seat.
He’ll then rule the world
while the viewers behold
The face of the Beast to whom
they were sold.
We’ll win through deception,
this cannot fail,
Though some holy preachers
against it will rail.
By John C.
Woodward
Waymarks is a tract published quarterly and is usually
sent out unsolicited. Its purpose is to encourage open-air preaching and also
to establish the confidence of the Lord’s people in the Authorized Bible as
being the true and only Holy Bible in the English language. Further copies may
be obtained upon request. This publication is a personal exercise and is made
free of charge. Waymarks may be freely copied but acknowledgments should
be given.
http://members.aol.com/waymarks/ All
Correspondence to:- Ron Smith
c/o Waymarks
email:
waymarks@aol.com
8 Newbury Close
Luton
Beds
LU4
9QJ
No comments:
Post a Comment