|
Summer 2001
No.25
Waymarks
“Let us walk by
the same rule, let us mind the same thing.”
Phil.3:16
|
Contents
Report of Open Air
Preaching.......................................2
The Integrity of the
AV Bible.........................................5
Isaiah 9:3
John 6:47
1 Cor. 3:1
Phil. 3:16
1 John 5:7
The Written
Word.........................................................10
The Oxford
Illustrated History of the Bible...............12
The Scholars Almost
Accurate bible...........................14
Letter..............................................................................15
“The Bible’s
Pedigree”.................................................16
Report of Open Air Preaching
February 12th
HITCHIN
MARKET SQUARE. There were a number of people sitting on the benches today, it
being a mild sunny day. A woman wanted to tell me that religion has been the
source of so much trouble in the world. I agreed with her and told her I wasn’t
preaching religion but how to get to heaven. She told me she wanted to be saved
but thought she had left it too late. She took a tract before leaving.
After a few more
minutes preaching a man interrupted me to tell me I was wasting my time
preaching about sin because people didn’t understand what I was talking about.
I suggested that by the look on their faces they understood only too well what
I was talking about. But he knew he was right because he had been brought up in
the Crusaders and was now a Pentecostal.
All my quotes
are from the AV Bible and no person yet has complained that they don’t
understand the thees, thous, -ests and -eths. None has complained that I am
preaching in 17th Century English. The AV Bible certainly wasn’t
written in 17th Century English. One has only to read the Prologue Dedicatory in the front of the
Bible, with its yous and yours, to appreciate that the translators made a
resolve to keep to the accurate translation of Hebrew and Greek even down to
their personal prepositions, though these forms had already dropped out of common usage.
I Preached again for a few minutes and
then was interrupted by a woman possessed of an evil spirit (so she said) and
wanted my help. This evil spirit attacked her when she prayed or read her
Bible. It felt like a knife being thrust into her chest. I knew she was Greek Orthodox because I had
spoken to her husband on several occasions and today they had both sat
listening to me for an hour. I told her first that I thought it was probably a
psychological problem. She would not accept this. I told her that the body of a
believer is the temple of the Spirit of God Who does not cohabit with evil
spirits. If she insisted that she was demon possessed then she certainly could
not be a child of God. So I told her again of her great need of a Saviour Who
could indeed release her from the bondage of sin. She then fell back on her
Greek Orthodoxy, informing me that she had been a Christian from infancy, and
that she partook of the Sacrifice of Christ every week. I did not give her the
“right” answers so she went and sat down again next to her husband.
March 13th
HITCHIN Mkt. Sq. A woman sat nearby, listening
to the preaching. When I had finished she made a caustic comment. I thought to
give her a sharp rebuke but I noticed when I turned to face her that there were
tears in her eyes. She told me that she was saved but had reached such a state
of despair that she had set out to kill herself. Her despair was the result of
charismatic influence. She told me that one of the female leaders in her
fellowship had informed her that she had been given a picture of her sinful
state and that she had the power to cleanse her of it. She had fallen for this
and had “confessed” to this woman all the sins of her life. Despite laying on
of hands and anointings she soon found herself held in a spell and was brought
to a mental breakdown. She told me she now believed the whole charismatic
movement to be Satanic and indeed all of professing Christendom to be
Antichrist. She knew that her sins were already blotted out, she said, but how
could she find anything or anybody who is genuine? The answer to this is of
course, Beloved, believe not every
spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God. (1 John 4:1). They are
tested against the word of God.
This dear woman
I took to be a genuine believer who had got caught up in this foul and devilish
system, the charismatic movement. She was in a far better frame of mind when we
parted nearly two hours later. This wicked system permeates Christendom and
believers need to shun it in its entirety.
March 28th
LUTON T
C. A busy day. I preached for twenty minutes and then had several enquirers.
The first told me he was a “witness” but didn’t know what he was witnessing to.
He breathed alcohol fumes into my face so I took him to be a drunkard. He
refused to accept a tract. The second man wanted to know why nobody listened to
me. He told me he was a Christian but had never heard of the need for conversion.
He told me he had just lost his wife and he accepted a Luke’s Gospel and some
tracts. The third man wanted to know if I could take him to a retreat! He said
he was a backslider and needed Christian fellowship. I offered to collect him
to take to our meeting but he wasn’t sure about that. He told me that if I
could let him have twenty pence he could phone me in the morning to let him
know if I had found a retreat for him.
April 25th
LUTON MARKET HILL. The OAM people were
occupying my stand when I arrived today, so I continued on up to Market Hill. A
young man who told me he was saved was somewhat put out that I should be
preaching and not supporting the OAM. Three reasons were given to him why I am
not free to support the OAM. First, it is an organisation unrecognized in
Scripture, and very mixed. Second it uses female preachers and third, it
distributes perverted portions of Scripture based on the NKJV. I am well aware
that some of the workers employed by OAM are very keen and preach a good gospel
and that many of the tracts they use contain a clear gospel message. But it is organized. Men just love committees and
delegating others to do the preaching.
May10th LEIGHTON BUZZARD. The old road-sweeper stopped to listen to the
gospel again. An Italian man also stopped to listen. He knew hardly any English
and was here for three weeks to visit his daughter and family. He showed me a
wad of pages from a calendar block, something like Daily Gleanings, only in Italian. I looked up some of the verses
for him in my Bible, which he wanted to hold and inspect. It seemed he had never seen any Bible before.
He took two tracts for his daughter to translate for him so the gospel will
reach that home we trust. Perhaps he will journey back to Italy a saved man. If
I see him before he returns I hope to give him an Italian Bible.
Another system
that seems to be growing in some areas is Augustinism, also known as Calvinism,
Reformed Theology, or Covenant Theology. This is essentially the view that God
has chosen some to salvation from eternity and God has chosen to damn for
eternity the rest¾the greater part of the human race¾denying them the opportunity to believe and be saved even if they
wanted to. (Of course they wouldn’t want to be saved, say the Reformists, because
God wouldn’t allow that thought to enter their heads.)
Reformist
doctrine is severely askew regarding conversion and salvation. The order, says
one of my correspondents, is Calling, Regeneration, Faith and Repentance,
Justification. We pointed out the folly of this idea in Waymarks No.24. If this
is true we have born again souls (this is what regeneration means) who have not
changed their minds about their sin. They were born again without faith, that
coming later. Faith they tell us is a gift of God to be asked for. It wasn’t
necessary for their regeneration. You will note that Reformists rarely speak of
conversion.
J N Darby,
Father of Exclusive Brethrenism, was one who could not speak of conversion. He
merely had a “deliverance”. He was Calvinistic in doctrine. I quote from Waymarks No.5:-
J.N.DARBY'S view on repentance:- “If it is put before faith, it
unsettles the whole ground we stand upon before God..” Notes & Jottings p.9.
On salvation, he tells us you can be saved without being born
again,:- “I mean really saved, not merely quickened.” Notes & Jottings p.186.
KELLY concerning Cornelius, Acts.10.¾ “He was already a converted man.... But he did not know salvation
proclaimed in the gospel.” Exposition of
Acts. p.151. Converted without being saved, we note!
Again, “Those who are born again do not enter Christian ground until
they have received at least the first and most needful blessing ”. Ibid.,p.164.
This appears to be becoming saved at some time after being born again.
Kelly assures his readers that Cornelius was “Already born of God”
but “had now to learn of salvation's door open to the Gentile believer”. ...
“To be born again never did suffice. There may be conversion. But till one
knows that all is clear between the soul and God...the Holy Spirit does not
seal the person”. DARBY again:- “Born again we must be to have the smallest
part in these things but it is faith in Christ's work which is sealed by the
gift of the Holy Spirit”. Collected
Writings Vol.?) p.398. When one's knowledge is satisfactory then his faith
can be sealed. This, Darby describes as “a deliverance,¾not being born again, not forgiveness¾though both be true¾but
deliverance, by the Spirit dwelling in us...” Ibid.,p.412.
These exclusive
doctrines appear to accommodate the account of Darby's conversion given by
W.G.TURNER in his biography: -“From the age of eighteen until he was twenty
five Mr. Darby underwent much spiritual exercise. Speaking to the late Mr.
William Kelly many years after on the subject of the possibility of real
conversion before the peace of conversion, Mr. Darby said that for these seven
years he practically lived in the 88th Psalm, his only ray of light [my italics] being in the opening words 'O Lord God
of my salvation.' " John Nelson
Darby; by W.G.Turner, p.16.
Note that
Psalm! It is the mournful dirge of a man
who lacks peace with God. It is not a Christian song. It was what Darby
experienced, he tells us.
Yet another
system impeding the gospel is Churches Together. One of its members in Luton is
Stopsley Baptist Church which has hundreds of adherents. Its emphasis is on
social work so it has a social centre and employs social workers. There is no
emphasis on the gospel. It promotes Liberal Theology (see my article below on
the Oxford History of the Bible). It
is strongly committed to ecumenicalism, and is presently running a series of
meetings in conjunction with sixty Luton churches, called “Find Heaven in
Luton”. These meetings are to do with stress control, marriage guidance, temper
control etc. and are totally divorced from anything Christian.
Members of
Churches Together include The Greek Orthodox Church, Russian Orthodox Church,
Roman Catholic Church (Murphy-O’Connor is one of the presidents), Anglican and
Lutheran Churches, Church of Ireland, Baptist Union (Stopsley Baptist is a
member also of this apostate organisation), Methodist Church, Quakers,
Salvation Army, Church of Scotland, United Reformed Church, Free Church
Council, Cherubim & Seraphim council of Churches (a black Pentecostal group),
Seventh Day Adventist Church, and others.
These are
committed to replacing Biblical Christianity with Sociology. This is what we
are up against when we stand all alone in the street preaching the gospel of
Christ. But there is a mighty power in the gospel of Christ, so we
persist.
*****
The Integrity of the AV Bible
Isaiah 9:3
Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased the joy: they joy before thee according to the
joy in harvest, and as men rejoice when they divide the spoil.
Regarding Isaiah
9:3, the Masoretic Text has the word "not" (the Heb. letters lamed aleph.) Therefore the AV is
accurately translated here¾as
everywhere. The exquisite care taken by the Masoretes in copying manuscripts is
well known and there are no grounds whatsoever for altering the Hebrew
Text. The AV translators were obviously
puzzled by this. (They had no difficulty translating it) so they put in a
marginal note: "or to Him." but
they kept "not" in the reading. The AV stands entirely alone in
this. No commentator attempts to explain
the AV reading. All without exception ignore it.
The verse tells us that joy was not increased. It doesn't say that joy was not given, only that in this prophesy the existing joy was not increased. We must simply read the verse as it stands.
The verse tells us that joy was not increased. It doesn't say that joy was not given, only that in this prophesy the existing joy was not increased. We must simply read the verse as it stands.
This is a
significant case where the critics have altered the original Scripture in the
modern versions on the ground that it doesn’t make sense to them. There are no
alternative Hebrew readings that I know of.
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.
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.
Philippians 3:16
Nevertheless, whereto we have already
attained, let us walk by the same rule, let us mind the same thing.
The words
“...rule, let us mind the same thing” (kanoni, to auto fronein), were
wrested from the Greek N T by Greisbach in 1805. This error was very quickly
exposed by Fred. Nolan in 1815. He wrote, “the following [list of omitted texts]
may be restored to the sacred text on the testimony of the annexed authorities:
...Phil.3:16 Byz. Syr. 1 .It. 3. Arab.
These authorities are the earliest
versions (=translations) of the Bible in Greek, Syriac, Old Latin, and Arabic.
Believers dispersed throughout Europe, Byzantium, North Africa had a Bible with
an identical text though in their own language. They kept to the same rule
(canon); they were all of the same mind. What they had attained to, they kept.
If ignorant men ask where the Bible was to be found prior to 1611, they have
the answer here. It was in the hands of believers throughout the inhabited
world. It was a Bible with which our English AV Bible is in full agreement,
ours being based on the Received Text, referred to by some as the Byzantine
text.
Whereto we have already attained is the
Apostles’ Doctrine. We do not need the creeds of men while we have a reliable
Bible. Men such as Origen, Augustine, Greisbach, Westcott, Hort, Nestle, were
never happy with the Apostles’ Doctrine. They did not wish to walk by the same
rule. So they simply cut it out. Thus we read in the NIV etc. “Only let us live
up to what we have already attained”. No common rule and no united mind. Unwary readers of modern versions will be
unaware that they are reading seriously mutilated perversions of Scripture. The
critics do not usually indicate what they have done.
Walking by the same rule must mean having
a common definitive Bible. The proliferation of versions is a denial of this
verse of Scripture and demands its removal. We have a God given standard Bible
in the English tongue, in full agreement with the Bible of the first generation
of Christians, which is known as the Authorized Version. It has a proven pedigree.
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 to 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.
*****
The Written Word
The following words were written in 1896
“Then came the internal criticism,
applying the resources of history, of physical science, of archaeology, to
examining the Scriptures and the authenticity and integrity of its various books, which has precisely
the same effect on the mass of people as tradition had under the influence of Rome,—namely, to make them think that the
simple and unlearned man is not able to understand the Scripture, that there is
a hedge of thorns and briars round about it, and that only those who devote
themselves to the study of specific
points can with any certainty ascertain what is true and what is spurious in
the Bible. And not withstanding these facts—that pagan Rome sought to kill the
bible, and papal Rome to imprison the Bible, Rationalism to emasculate the
Bible, Pantheism to bury the Bible, and this modern criticism to remove the
Bible to an infinite distance from the generality of mankind—the Bible lives,
like the Jews. Pharaoh tried to drown them, another great king tried to burn
them, Haman tried to give them up to an ignominious death. But not withstanding
all this, they live, and so does the Bible live; and not merely does it live,
but it has never shown so much vitality as in the present day.”
Dr Adolph
Saphir; The Divine Unity of Scripture; p9.
One hundred years later the “modern” critics
rage on. They have changed their tactics only in that the very words of
Scripture are questioned as to their authenticity and integrity. The intent
remains the same. An intent we believe to be directed by Satan—that the simple
believer should think he cannot understand the Scriptures without the help of
the “scholars”. By this means Satan brings lack of trust in the Bible. The Book
is no longer read, and faith declines.
So the “Minister
of the Word”, himself unbelieving, will speak of the Bible’s mistakes, of
better readings, of the need to know the Greek. You will note that this
“Minister” never tells you of the errors of the RV, NIV, NKJV, etc. which are
multitudinous.
In contrast to
Dr Saphir are the words of J Anderson in What
the Bible Teaches; J Ritchie;Vol.9; p.145.
The AV reader may well be confused by
the word “again” in [Acts 13] v.33, which is a translators insertion, with no
authority from the Greek manuscripts, suggesting resurrection, whereas in the
order of Paul’s thoughts resurrection is not in view in v.33.
It is quite staggering that Mr Anderson should know Paul’s order of
thoughts or that he should know anything at all of the apostle’s thoughts after 2000 years. But Bible
critics like to believe that AV readers (i.e. readers of Holy Scripture) are
confused and so will make all manner of wild statements to seek to prove it.
In this case the confusion lies with J Ritchie, because there was no
translators’ insertion at all. The word "again" is part of the verb anisteemi, = to raise up again. This is
the common verb used in connection with resurrection. See Mt.17:9 and
especially John 11:23,24 where even JND has Thy
brother shall rise again. Martha says to him, I know that he will rise again in
the resurrection.
The word anisteemi is
used 111 times in the New Testament and
37 of these clearly speak of resurrection. Only once is the word used in
relation to birth, at Mt.22:24 and this does not speak of Christ.
Confusion rises when men alter the word of God to fit their
theology. There may be difficulty in understanding resurrection in this context
but that is what the passage actually says so that must be our starting point
in interpreting the words.
*****
The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible
This is a new
history, first published this year. The back cover tells us, “Here a distinguished
team of scholars presents an authoritative account of that story, richly
illustrated, and bringing to bear the latest findings. It tells how and why a
collection of writings in Semitic languages and Greek that we now call the
Books of the Bible came to be written over a period of about 800 years...”
The casual
reader might think it of little consequence that the scholars allot an 800 year
time span to the writing of the Bible. This is offered as a statement of fact.
What was a theory in the 19th century is now gospel truth.
The first thing to note is that they fix the
end of this period around 100 AD, the last writing (they say) being John’s
Gospel. The first writing therefore must have been around 700 BC. But by 700BC
Hezekiah was dead and Samaria had fallen. Moses had been dead some 700 years
and Judah’s exile was fast approaching.
It is plain therefore that the scholars do not believe that Moses,
David, or Solomon wrote any part of the Bible. They have never believed that
Daniel wrote Daniel. All the OT writings are regarded as post-exilic.
This
distinguished team of scholars does not believe in the verbal inspiration of
Scripture. The Bible is not to them a God-given Book. They believe the Lord was
wrong when He attributed the writing of the law to Moses, echoing the
sentiments already expressed in the sister volume, Oxford Dictionary of the Bible¾“few will nowadays be willing to support the traditional view that
Moses himself wrote the five books of
the Pentateuch.” But the Lord held the “traditional” view for said, had ye believed Moses, ye would have
believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writing, how shall
ye believe my words? (John 5:46,47). Paul wrote, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1:22).
These scholars have overthrown the traditional
view of conservative Bible believers for a modern view that has nothing to do
with scholarship. True scholarship cannot lead a person to reject the words of
Christ.
Inevitably the
scholarship of earlier Christ-rejecters is promoted. Of Greisbach, the father
of modern Bible criticism, we read
Greisbach provided the most thorough
history of the text. He also developed further the canons of criticism listing
fifteen in all. The task of the student of the New Testament text was emerging
as containing two stages. The first was the reconstruction of the history of
the text and the recovery of the early forms in which it existed. The second
was the comparison of these forms, and the applications of the canons, in order
to ascertain, where they differed, which was the more recent. The greatest
advances in these directions was found in two nineteenth century
editions.(p122)
The book concludes with two chapters on the modern use of the Bible
in feminist criticism and in the movements for theological liberation in Latin
America, Africa, and Europe.
It is feminist criticism that objects to the stories of Hagar,
Tamar, Jepthah’s daughter, and the Levite’s concubine in the Bible (p303). But
these are historical factual accounts, God-given that may reflect upon the men
involved rather than the women. The female “theologians” of this book are
merely sexist and anti-truth.
Feminist criticism gives us the re-written bible¾the inclusive NIV.
Liberation theology seems to me a matter of using interpretations
from a modern bible to promote political ends. A definition is given as “doing
theology from a lived experience with the poor in solidarity with their
struggle for a life free from oppression.” (p316). “Solidarity” and “struggle”
are Marxist terms and reveal the true nature of this book.
We read again, “Liberation theology....challenged biblical scholars
to examine their own political attitudes and to place their extremely
privileged positions alongside the marginalized and persecuted positions of
prophets such as Amos and Jeremiah.” (p359). These are the people who tell us
that Amos did not write 9:11, In that
day will I raise up the tabernacle of David...
They just know that he, being a down-trodden peasant, would never
have written that sort of thing. The real reason they reject Amos’s words is
because they are prophetic and there is no way the hand of God will be
acknowledged by them in the writings of Holy Scripture. The words are in the
preserved Hebrew text.
ALAN MORRISON quotes one of the stated
goals of Communism to be to "infiltrate the churches and replace revealed
religion with 'social' religion. Discredit the Bible..." (The Serpent and the Cross p.533).
Communism may appear to be dead, but the Marxist World Council of
Churches isn't.
True religion and
undefiled before God and the Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows
in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world. James 1:27. Believers have been doing this from the beginning.
Modern critics might note two points in this verse. It is not God and the
Mother and Father, and the practice of true religion calls for separation from
the world.
We need to remind ourselves of the true purpose of Scripture.
And many other signs truly
did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book:
But these are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son
of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name. John 20:30,31.
We believe the gospel accounts of the life of Christ were written by
inspiration of God by the men whose names appear at the head of each volume,
Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who were eye-witnesses of that Life. The critics
do not believe this, neither do they believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God. Therefore they do not possess life through His name.
Margaret Davies refers to the evangelical understanding of God’s
purposes in redemption as revealed in the New Testament as “a divine comedy”.
(p41)
We do not need to be moved by those who promote an evolving bible
and then use it to their own ends.
*****
The
Scholar’s Nearly Accurate bible
It is only in regard to one word in a
thousand that the textual critics, by laborious comparison of manuscripts, have
to determine the exact reading of the original text.¾A McD. Redwood; The Faith¾A
Symposium;p327; P & I Ltd. 1952. (This book has
recently been reprinted.)
When will they ever learn? The same old lies are still being
propagated. Inspect any modern version since 1952 and see if only one word in a
thousand is changed. And how did they select that “one word” in a thousand? By
turning to seriously depraved (acknowledged to be so by themselves) manuscripts
that had been known and rejected by the early church. Of course, these men had
never seen the original text and so felt free to invent their own.
Redwood then quotes Kenyon’s book The Story of the Bible¾
It may be disturbing to some to part
with the conception of a Bible handed down through the ages without alteration
and in unchallenged authority; but it is a higher ideal to face the facts, to
apply the best powers with which God has endowed us to the solution of the
problems which they present to us; and it is reassuring at the end to find that
the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen
the proof of the authenticity of the
Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial
integrity, the veritable Word of God.
Kenyon, along with all scholars, thought that only ignoramuses
believed in the preservation of Scripture. Kenyon thought it more noble to rely
on his own intellect to decide what is Scripture and what is not. He was proud
to announce that through all his endeavours he very nearly had a bible he could
trust.
Redwood, perhaps realizing that Kenyon’s views seriously undermine
faith, and writing in a book supposedly giving a symposium of the faith, lamely
closed his chapter How we got our Bible
with these words¾
Let it be stated categorically that all the authorities in the field of
textual criticism assure us that no single doctrine of the Gospel is affected
by any of the variations still unexplained.
Well, they would say that, wouldn’t they? But “the authorities...
assure us”? Are we not able to read for ourselves? Are we so ignorant that we
don’t know what the “doctrines of the Gospel” are? What about the variations
that are explained? Do we ignore
them? Which are these unexplained ones and why can they not be explained?
In any case we know that doctrines are affected. David Cloud in his
book Myths about the Modern Bible
Versions lists fifty doctrines removed, weakened, changed, or added in the
UBS Greek Text and the Modern Versions.
Because of these views put out by leading brethren in a past generation
we have now a situation where anything goes. A few years ago brethren would
read publicly from the AV Bible and then tell us why the JND New Translation or
the Revised Version was superior. Now we find audacious men who mount the
platform and read from the NIV or the NKJB. We have a situation of confusion
and a decline in faith.
*****
Letter
Dear Ron,
I always enjoy getting your magazine Waymarks. Do take
care, stay encouraged and non-compromising.
Yours truly, L.W.J., Calif. USA
Dear brother,
Thank you for
those few words. I am encouraged indeed. I don’t expect to convert many folk
through Waymarks but I do try to strengthen the converted. We live in a day of
compromise. The gospel of Christ is watered down by many, so as not to give
offense, and the word of God is replaced by the compromiser’s modern version.
However, we
rejoice to see a growing number of believers who are alert to what some men are
trying to thrust on us. We have an unblemished Bible. Apostate Christendom can
keep its polluted bibles produced by ungodly men using false and biased methods
of translation as they work on depraved manuscripts.
Yours in Christ,
Ron.
“The Bible’s Pedigree”
The
Bible is, we plainly see;
Then
it must have a pedigree.
It
either is a Book divine,
Or
men to make it did combine.
Suppose
the latter, then they must
Either
be wicked men or just;
Take
either case and you will see
A
proof of its divinity.
If
wicked men composed this Book,
Surely
their senses they forsook;
For
they the righteous man defend,
And
curse the bad man from end to end.
If
righteous, then they change their name,
For
they the authorship disclaim,
And
often say, “Thus saith the Lord,”
And
testify, “It is His word.”
If
it be not they tell a lie
And
all their righteousness deny.
Anon
______________________________________________________________________________________
Waymarks is published quarterly and is
usually sent out as a tract, 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.
We are
sometimes accused by those of differing views of showing a lack of love and of
being critical of the saints. We love all those who love Christ but it is not
love to Christ to condone error or to ignore it. It is also necessary to
identify sources of information so that statements made may be verified by my
readers.
Further
copies may be obtained upon request. This publication is a personal exercise
and is made free of charge. Waymarks may be freely copied without alteration 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