Waymarks 28

	Spring 2002                                                                        No. 28              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 AV Bible Vindicated………………………………………...3

Ps. 58:1,  Isa.7:14,  Acts 13:33,  17:22,  1 Cor.14:2,  Heb.1:5

More about “Church” v. “Assembly”…………………………..7

The English Standard Version…………………………………..8

G V Wigram’s Conversion Story………………………………..9

The Inviolable Word of God……………………………………10

Something About that Verse……………………………………12

“Instruction’s Warning Voice”…………………………………16

  

                                 Report of Open Air Preaching

January 3^rd LEIGHTON BUZZARD, by the Cross. A new year and the long suffering of our God continues. I regard it as an immense privilege to stand in a public place to declare the gospel of the grace of God. Last year tens of thousands were reached in this manner. Today some children stand nearby and some interference is expected. This is usual during school holidays. So, a lad aged about twelve came over to me and his friends followed. But he wanted to ask some questions ¾ How do I know that I am right and all the other religions are wrong? How do I know that the Bible is true? These questions have to be answered concisely as one usually has only seconds to give an answer. They must be answered courteously too. These children were told that the man known as Jesus of Nazareth came from heaven, proved Himself to be God, died on a cross for your sins and rose again. Read the gospels. They accepted tracts-without discarding them- and were gone.

January 8th HITCHIN, on Market Square. It was a cold, bleak day, but a young couple who were sitting on a bench remained throughout my preaching. A young girl shouted abuse and then stood in a shop doorway, mocking. A Sikh man waited for me to finish and then informed me that his Guru said Christ was crying on the cross and the tears ran down His face. His Guru never cried. I let him know that his Guru was a wicked liar and deceiver and that he should turn and believe the gospel. The Sikh then went across to the off-licence and came out with a can of beer.

January 28^th LUTON TOWN CENTRE. A young man approached in rather a threatening manner. He was a skinhead and his speech indicated a Glaswegian origin. He tried to intimidate me by standing immediately in front of me while I preached. I recognised him as the man as the man who usually stood behind me selling copies of Big Issue.

He seemed surprised that I was willing to talk to him and within minutes was giving me his life story. He had a grandmother in Glasgow who was “very religious” and who would rebuke him for any misdemeanour. He said he had great respect for her¾and for me too, for standing up for my faith in a hostile town. He accepted a booklet “The Way of Salvation”. 

We are glad to hear of others witnessing in the open air. The preaching is usually bolder and more fervent than anything we hear from our Gospel Hall platforms. But a number of assemblies do conduct regular open-air meetings so all is not yet lost.

We read of the testimony in one town, St Andrews, where many students are reached with the gospel. At the other end of the town there is also a regular stand. Here, outside the Baptist church in St Andrews, conjurors are employed and passers-by are entertained with magic and little white-board sketches. It is thought that some might be won to Christ by this sleight of hand. This was the place I attended when first saved. Things were vastly different in the ’fifties.

However, it is not only some Baptist churches that are now totally apostate. There are Gospel Halls which  would be better described as Music Halls. Mossknowe Gospel Hall, Cumbernauld, invites folk to their Liberty Praise Evening for a time of worship and praise with the Valley Quartet and Friends of Liberty. Tickets £4.  We suspect by “liberty” they really mean “licence” . Llandaff North Gospel Hall, Cardiff,  like to present the story of Jesus in song and dance. These all are neo-evengelicals who love the world.

In the majority of Gospel Halls, where the traditional gospel meeting is being maintained the gospel is seldom preached. A modern gospel is proclaimed. It is the “only believe” gospel.

It is presented as all one has to do to be saved is to believe the gospel. Believe you are a sinner, believe Christ died for you on the cross, and you are saved.

There is more needed than only believing. The Lord said so in His very first public words. He said repent ye, AND believe the gospel. Mark 1:15. Repentance is not being preached from our platforms. Failure to do so negates the commission given in Luke 24:47, repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations. This failure to preach repentance is due to several causes, not least because so often the preacher is unconverted himself. Our “preacher circuit system” militates against effective preaching. If I upset some with my warnings of hell, I shall never be invited back again.

The preacher who does not tell the unsaved in his congregation that they will have to give up sin and they will have to give up the world in order to get saved is dishonest.  

*****

 

 

The AV Bible Vindicated

 

Psalm 58:1

Do ye indeed speak righteousness, O congregation? Do ye judge uprightly, O ye sons of men?

A commentator tells us,

It is universally agreed that the opening words of the Psalm are obscure. The word which by the AV is rendered “congregation” (482) is the word ELEM, and is found elsewhere only once, in the title of Psalm 56, “Jonath-elem-rechokim”. ….Apart from those who argue a textual corruption it is agreed by all others that the word is ELEM and means “silence”. JN Darby will therefore translate, “Is righteousness indeed silent?” ¾What the Bible Teaches-Psalms.

The obscurity of the verse is not universally agreed of course. Men will make such assertions in order to promote their own rationalistic views and to ape the apostate scholars. Bible believers see no obscurity and accept the verse as it stands. The AV translators saw no obscurity for they made no account of it in the margin.

Darby is compelled to ignore the verb to speak which is also plainly in the Hebrew reading. Otherwise we get the gobble-de-gook version “Do ye indeed speak righteousness in silence?”

This congregation did not speak righteousnessness. They did not judge uprightly. These conditions repeat themselves in our day.

The preface to this commentary assures the reader,

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

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

So how is “congregation” to be justified as the correct interpretation of ELEM? It is justified by its presence in the English Bible. The believer does not call into doubt the words that he finds on the holy page of Scripture. Let our modernist friends attempt to justify their alteration. They tell us they rely on “modern views”.

They turn to H F W Gesenius (1786-1842), a noted German rationalistic theologian. His lexicon was translated into English by S P Tregelles  who spent some time among the Exclusive Brethren. 

Gesenius wrote of ELEM,

Mla m. silence. [“…It may be worth inquiry whether Mla (ELEM) should not be dropped, having sprung perhaps from a careless repetition of mnma”. This conjecture is wholly needless….]

In this Gesenius showed his contempt for the verbal inspiration of Scripture. His words are those between the speech marks. He is described by B Wilkinson as “Gesenius a notorious liberal, [who] specialised in changing the theological terminology of the Bible into that of liberals”. ¾Our Authorized Bible Vindicated p104.

Isaiah 7:14

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

A comment on this verse, found on the internet site Truth and Tidings, for October 2001, reveals the inevitable fruit of textual criticism. Readers are told that Isa.7:14 doesn’t mean what it plainly says, that a virgin shall conceive and bear a son. The word “virgin” is clearly understood by all to mean a pure young woman who has never known a man. But the Truth and Tidings implication  is that ’almah is a vague word with more than one meaning. In which case the Hebrew Bible lacks a word equating to our English “virgin”. ’almah occurs at Gen. 24:43, Ex.2:8, Ps.68:25, Prov.30:19, S.of S.1:3, 6:8, and Isa.7:14 only. If Isaiah meant only that a “young woman capable of bearing children” conceived, all would reply, “some sign!”.

The Angel of the Lord told Joseph unequivocally, that the prophecy  of Isaiah 7:14 was to be fulfilled in the birth of Christ. Joseph clearly believed this. Isaiah knew that the prophecy did not relate to himself. He never called his son Immanuel. He did relate verse 15 to the subject of verse 14, without allowing the possibility of double fulfillment. We have no problem with this either. Luke tells us that the child grew and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom. (2:40). Luke speaks of the Lord in His humanity; His growth as a child.

Truth and Tidings tells us the sign in Isaiah was for Ahaz. It was not ¾Isaiah tells us it was for the whole House of David. (v.11) . To Ahaz he says “Ask THEE  a sign. Ahaz refused to hear it. The sign to Ahaz would be the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, born of Isaiah’s wife, and not a virgin. So Isaiah turned and addressed the House of David; “The Lord Himself shall give YOU a sign. After this, in v.16, it is back to “Thou” (Singular) with a prophecy in relation to Ahaz.

It is very regrettable that the crystal clear prophecy of the virgin birth of Christ in Isaiah is now denied by those who regard themselves as the fount of all truth.

Acts 13:33

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

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

We quote

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

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

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

Acts 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.

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.

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

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.

*****

More about “Church” v. “Assembly”

What word best translates ekklesia? The word I find written in my God-given Bible, of course! There the matter rests for the believer. I read “church” and argument ceases. But we like to assure readers that we do not rest on any bigotted, blind-faith traditionalist untutored biased assumption concerning the word of God.

We are told that the word “church” has been abused and it is better therefore to use the word “assembly”. But the name “Christian” ( a name given by God to those who belong to Him through faith in Christ) is abused, so ought we not to use it? Many other Bible words are abused.

A writer asks,

where does the word church come from? The word is from the Greek “kyriakon doma” or “kyriakon oikia” which means lordly house or lordly place. These Greek expressions never occur in the original manuscripts as representing the assembly. Of course, the word “church” occurs many times in the Authorized Version, but the choice of word to represent “ekklesia” tells us more about the preferences of the translators to use language that reflected their religious affliliation at the time, namely the Church of England. ¾ E Ritchie; Assembly Testimony; Nov/Dec 2001; p141.  

We have no sympathy for the C of E. But God used some of these men in a mighty way to produce the English Bible.

In Learn Ancient Greek, Peter Jones points out that “church” ultimately [my italics] derives from kyrios, “lord”, through “kyriakon doma” “house belonging to the lord”, which was taken up by the Saxons on the continent, who brought it to England, where it emerged as “cirice” in the language of our ancestors the Anglo-Saxons, out of which “church” evolved. (p115).

Ritchie implies that the translators read into the Greek some words not found in any Greek manuscript. If our faithful translators had found the words “doma” or “oikia” in the Greek text replacing “ekklesia”, we can be sure that the English word house would have appeared in the reading. In any case these words are never translated “place”!

The translators, reading “ekklesia” used the modern form of  the Anglo-Saxon “cirice”.

And does the word house only speak of bricks and mortar? The Lord said to the nobleman the son liveth: and himself believed, and his whole house John 5:53.

The word church means “The Lord’s house” that is, the “Lord’s people”, gathered out and gathered to. Every believer knows this.

The word assembly was used by Darby not so much as to speak of those called out from the world but to distinguish those separating from Christians not holding the same views of ecclesiastical order. ( I happen to agree that we gather not to a system or a particular doctrine, neither to a man’s name, nor to a scriptural practice, but to the Lord Himself. We have no right to form a denomination.

But our brethren are corrupting the word of God, an error far more serious than that of supporting one man financially to pastor the local church. 

*****

The English Standard Version

The ESV is a revision of the Revised Standard Version, which was soundly condemned for its modernism when it appeared in 1952. The ESV must not be confused with the New Revised Standard Version, which appeared in 1990.

An agreement was reached in Sept 1998 with the National Council of Churches, which apostate organisation had produced the RSV, “allowing translators freedom to modify the original text of the RSV as necessary to rid it of de-Christianing translation choices.”

Crossway Books, the publishers of the ESV, claim

The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. ¾ David Bayly; World on the Web. Vol.14,No.22.

ESV is to be commended for its use of formal equivalence, but its textual sources are depraved. Its Old Testament translation is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (2^nd ed., 1083). This is not the Masoretic text underlying the AV Bible but is the product of German rationalism. It changes the  Masoretic of the AV in 20,000 to 30,000 places. The New Testament is based on the Greek text in the 1993 editions of the Greek New Testament (4^th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (27^th ed.), edited by Nestle and Aland. Both of these scholars are noted for their apostasy.

An example of translation is “for I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek”.(Rom.1:16)

The correct reading is For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The words “of Christ” appear in the majority of manuscripts. Clearly modern versionists are ashamed of the gospel of Christ. It cuts right across their arrogance and pride.

*****

G V Wigram’s Conversion Story

The following is his own account of his conversion while a subaltern officer in the army.

Good instructions as to the contents of the Bible were mine at school, at seventeen, under a John the Baptist ministry;

•   but I never knew the gospel till, at nineteen, I went abroad, full of the animal pleasures of the military life.

•  I and my comrade spent out long and tiring day on the field of Waterloo in June, 1824. Arriving late at night at —, I soon went to my bedroom.

•   It struck me, 'I will say my prayers'. It was the habit of childhood, neglected in youth. I fell down by my bedside; but I found I had forgotten what to say.

•  I looked up as if trying to remember, when suddenly there came on my soul a something I had never known before.

•   It was as if some One, Infinite and Almighty, knowing everything, full of the deepest, and tenderest interest in myself, though utterly and entirely abhorring everything in, and connected with me, made known to me that He pitied and loved myself.
My eye saw no one; but I knew assuredly that the One whom I knew not, and never had met, had met me for the first time, and made me to know that we were together.

•  There was a light, no sense or facility my own human nature ever knew; there was a presence of what seemed infinite in greatness -

•   something altogether of a class that was apart and supreme, and yet at the same time making itself known to me in a way that I as a man thoroughly feel, and taste, and enjoy.

•   The Light made all light. Himself withal; but it did not destroy, for it was love itself, and I was loved individually by Him.

•   The exquisite tenderness and fulness of that love, the way it appropriated me myself for Him, in whom it all was, while the light from which it was inseparable in Him, discovered to me the contrast I had been to all that was light and love.                                          

•   I wept for a while on my knees, said nothing, then got into bed.

•  The next morning's thought was, 'Get a Bible'. I got one, and it was thenceforward my handbook. My clergyman companion noticed this, and also my entire change of life and thought.
We journeyed on together to Geneva, where there was an active persecution of the faithful going on. He went to Italy,

•   and I found my own company - stayed with those who were suffering for Christ.
I could quite now, after fifty years' trial, adopted to myself in these few lines, as descriptive of that night's experience;

                       

                       Christ, the Father’s rest the eternal,

                        Jesus once looked down on me,

                       Called me by my name external,

                       And revealed Himself to me.

                       With His whisper, light, life giving,

                       Glowed in me, the dark and dead;

                       Made me live. Himself receiving,

                       Who once died for me and the bled [sic]

(this story taken from an “Exclusive Brethren” web-site)

  

Wigram, one of the 19^th century ”brethren”, produced the Englishman’s Greek and Hebrew Concordances. His conversion story has nothing Biblical about it. No gospel, no repentance, no faith exercised. There is no gospel in the verse and no personal response.

  

*****

The Inviolable Word of God

An article under this heading, written by J N Darby, was published in Believer’s Magazine

In 1921. We thoroughly concur with the title. The word of God is inviolable. It is not to be violated; it is sacred, holy. We shall go further¾it cannot be violated. It is settled and established and endures for ever.

Strange then that such an article should come from J N D.

He wrote

I have a profound, unfeigned¾I believe divinely given¾faith in the Bible. I have, through grace, been by it converted, enlightened, quickened, saved. I have received the knowledge of God by it, to adore His perfections¾of JESUS, the Saviour, joy, strength, comfort of my soul…..

I avow, in the fullest, clearest, and distinctest manner here, my deep, divinely taught conviction of the inspiration of the Scriptures. While of course allowing, if need be, for the defects in the translation, and the like, when I read the Bible, I read it as of absolute authority for my soul, as God’s Word.

What Bible was Darby referring to? Was it the AV, or his own New Translation? They are inherently different. When Darby rewrote the Bible he used the works of the unconverted rationalistic scholars, relying on depraved manuscripts.

Darby’s “divinely given” unfeigned faith in the Bible led him to altr we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death (Hebrews 2:9), to read “we see Jesus, who [was] made some little inferior to angels on account of the suffering of death”.

Some may argue that “inferior” is a technically correct translation but in our language it has a bad sense. Even the NIV retains “lower”. The inference that Jesus might be in any way inferior is evil.

Darby’s avowal concerning the inspiration of Scripture is false. He “allows” for defects in the translation. This raises a number of problems.

The alleged defects are presumably not inspired. If not then neither are they Scripture, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God. The translation is then not all Scripture. It cannot be called the Word of God. The translation is not entirely the Holy Bible. The word “Scripture” refers to the God-given written Word which is found in its entirety within the covers of the Book we call the Holy Bible. There is nothing to be found between Genesis1:1 and Revelation 22:21 in my Bible which is not Scripture. Thus the word “all” is used with the singular Scripture.

Darby believed, and all his followers believe as a consequence of his teaching, that inspiration died with the original manuscripts. So no Bible today can be described as the verbally inspired word of God.

Darby, owning that some parts of his New Translation may not be Scripture,  translates 2 Tim.3:16, “Every scripture [is] divinely inspired”.  “Every” fragments the body of Scripture and allows for the inclusion of non-scripture. The omission of “given” (on the grounds that there is no Greek word for it in the text) strengthens the view that the words of Scripture became inspired at the point of writing.   The word “divinely” is not found in the text.

G W Anderson, in the current Quarterly Record of the Trinitarian Bible Society gives a helpful comment on inspiration. He writes

Not understanding the resultant use of the word theopneustos [to mean no more than “God-breathed”] results in a misunderstanding of how God gave His Word. The idea many get from rendering the word ‘God-breathed’ is that God breathed inspiration into the words of Scripture. This is not what inspiration means. God did not breathe into the words but instead breathed out the words of Scripture. The source and authority of the words is from God Himself.

Thus while the literal meaning of the two Greek words can in theory be put together to mean ‘God-breathed’, the word theopneustos actually has the meaning ‘inspired’. This has been understood and been the practice for many centuries, and in most instances is continued today. Rendering the word as ‘inspired’ will help Christians understand the doctrine of the verbal inspiration of the Scripture more clearly and correctly. ¾The Question of ‘God-breathed’ and the NIV. P18

*****

               

Something about  that   Verse

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

Have you ever wondered about I John 5:7, that verse attested to by barely a thimble-full of ancient Greek manuscripts, that verse removed by virtually all New bibles and yet not removed in the same fashion as the other omitted verses are, that verse about which even some Majority text advocates change their tune and say should be in the Bible even though it is NOT Majority text. That verse despised by Martin Luther (kept out of his Bible Version during his lifetime but returned to the text afterwards) and said to have been doubted by Erasmus, that verse famous for being the clearest affirmation of the doctrine of the Trinity in the entire Bible, that wonderful verse. Have you ever wondered that there just might possibly be something about that verse?

Many Christians believe that the Majority text and the Received text or Textus Receptus  are one and the same and generally speaking this can be said to be true because most of the Textus Receptus follows the majority of Greek manuscripts. However there are a very small number of cases in the Textus Receptus, and the Authorized Bible (which was translated from it), that reflect minority Greek readings, the most famous of which is I John 5:7. The danger in thinking that the underlying Greek text of the Authorized Bible is the same as, for instance, the so- called Hodges and Farstad Majority Text, is that, to date, no unflawed or even remotely reliable Majority Greek Text from a collation of the majority of ancient Greek manuscripts has ever been produced. Such a 'Majority' text, in any case, would omit I John 5:7 as it is supported by so few ancient Greek manuscripts, thus making it a corrupted Majority Greek Text, for, of a certainty, I John 5:7 should retain its place in the canon of Scripture! 'Majority' is not always best, just like 'oldest' is not always best.

There are about 11 ancient manuscripts that testify to the verse, although only 6 have it within the main body of the text and one is presently missing. These manuscripts are Erasmus' Codex Britannicus (although now missing, its reading is preserved in Erasmus' 3^rd edition). Codex Montfortianus (61 -claimed, but not proven to be a forgery), Codex Regius (88), Codex Ravianus (w 110), 221,429, Codex Ottobonianus (629), 635, 636, 918, and 2318. The verse is also found in virtually all Latin manuscripts (8000 +), and has been found in the Syriac Peshitta, a few Armenian manuscripts, and Georgian manuscripts. Several church ‘Fathers’ also showed a familiarity with the passage. Tertullian (who died in 220 AD) seems to allude to the verse in his Adversus Proxean, but this is denied by modern scholarship. However, Cyprian of Carthage (died 258 AD) plainly quotes from the verse, as does Idacius Clarus (c. 350 AD), Athanasius (350 AD), and Jerome in his Epistle to Eustochium (450 AD). Priscillian (died 385 AD) quotes the verse in his Liber Apologeticus, as do two works by Vigilus of Thapsus (490 AD); Cassiodorus (480- 570 AD) quotes the verse, and Fulgentius of Ruspe (510 AD) also quotes the passage in his Die Fide Catholica adv. Pintam. The ancient Latin treatise called the Speculum gives witness that the verse was to be found in the Old Italic Bible, and the verse is also found in the Old Italic fragments Codex Freisingensis (q and r). The ancient creed known as Expositio Fidei quotes the verse as does the confession of faith drawn up by Eugenius of Carthage (484 AD), the Council of Carthage already having used the verse against the Arian heresy in 415 AD. Even the early Latin Vulgate manuscript Fuldensis (546) which is one the few Latin manuscripts not to include I John 5:7 and is often cited by opponents because of this, actually quotes it in its prologue, which begs the conclusion that Fuldensis is simply a corrupted copy of a Bible Version that DID contain the disputed passage in its main text, but the corrupters missed the citation in the prologue.

Not one single minority reading opposed to the Textus Receptus or Authorized Bible reading, used in any Critical Greek Text or New bible whatsoever is as well attested to as this rare minority Traditional reading. No minority reading in any Romish Vulgate bible opposed to any Traditional Bible reading has even been used to defend the faith as much, or with the effectiveness of this rare verse. Not one single minority reading opposed to the Honest Greek Text of the Authorized Bible even has such a history as that found attaching itself to this verse. This is not a minority reading of the like of those used by the wave of corrupt New bibles today or yesterday. The doctrine of this rare verse is good and godly! The doctrines clinging to the  minority corruptions of Vaticanus and its black flock are dark and Satanic and against the beauty of truth.

Only being found presently in a small (but growing) number of Greek manuscripts, why do most Majority Greek Text advocates say that the verse should be in the Bible? Several reasons are put forward, but mainly that it would have been
appallingly bad Greek for the Apostle not to have written it originally. Without verse 7, the  passage  ignores an  important fundamental of Greek grammar -and such terribly inferior grammar is not evidenced in the rest of Apostle John's writings. Without the seventh verse, to quote R.L. Dabney, ¾

''...the masculine article, numeral, and particle... ...are made to agree directly with three neuters - an insuperable and very bald grammatical difficulty. But if the disputed words are allowed to stand, they agree directly with two masculines and one
neuter noun... ...where, according to a well known rule of syntax, the masculines  among the group control the gender over a neuter connected with them...' A rather complicated way of saying it would be unbelievably poor Greek for the Apostle John not to have written verse 7 between verses 6 and 8! To quote J.A. Moorman,¾ 'If the passage is removed from the Greek text ,the two loose ends will not join up grammatically.'

One thing that actually makes I John 5:7 stand out for me is the fact that it alone is omitted in the New bibles in a different way from other omitted verses. The New International Version is typical of the New bible versions in that the verse numbers for its missing verses do not even make an appearance in the main text, but in I John 5:7 the first words of verse 8 are to be found labelled as verse 7 because they are virtually the same words as those starting verse 7 whether read in Greek or English (only 1 small word in any Greek text which removes the passage could be rightly called part of verse 7, but if the New bibles marked the word 'for' only as verse 7, their error would be made manifest to anybody with eyes to see). Or are they really the first line of verse 7! It doesn't matter for, in English translations, there is virtually no difference between omitting the whole, but one word of verse 7 (and 3 words of 8) and omitting the first line of verse 8 and everything but the first line of verse 7. " ⁷ For there are three that bear record...⁸ the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.", or " ⁷ For... ⁸ ...there are three that bear witness... ...the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."

Very little difference, you will agree, especially if you take into account the different words for 'record' or 'witness' in the modern translations is the very same word in their underlying Greek Texts, (the NIV has 'testify', - now which verse does that really come from?). Tyndale's Bible makes this very clear, "(For there are three which bear record in heaven, the father, the word, and the holy ghost. And these three are one). For there are three which bear record (in earth:) the spirit, and water, and blood: and these three are one." The brackets showing that the words of the minority reading cover the whole of verse 7 and two words in verse 8. So if Tyndale had omitted the passage instead of putting it in parenthesis, his Bible would have had no verse 7. God's Word TM has "There are three witnesses," and the New Living Translation has "So we have these three witnesses," as verse 7, yet in the Authorised Bible translation the word 'witness' corresponds to the first line of verse 8 and not verse 7. This is the only remotely defensible method of pretending to include verse 7 in a New bible whilst actually omitting it. However, some New bibles pretend to include verse 7 in a way that is in no wise defensible and which shows up the reality of what is happening even in the former version type. The New American   Standard   bible,   Norlie's Simplified New Testament, Darby's New Translation, Moffatt's New Translation, the Revised Standard Version and the Revised Version, ALL take the last part of verse 6 ("And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.") and label it as verse 7 in their attempt to disguise the fact that they have omitted the verse.

Of all the New bibles I have examined, only the Twentieth Century New Testament made no pretence of including the verse and omitted even the verse number! Why is it that these bibles happily omit whole verses in other parts of the text, but seek to hide the omission of I John 5:7? Guilt? Whatever the reason, it marks I John5:7 out as something unusual.

One of the most common arguments made against the verse is the myth of how it wound up in Erasmus' 3^rd edition Textus Receptus when it was omitted in his first two editions. James R. White, in his book The King James Only Controversy sums up this story, 'The story of how this passage ended up in the KingJames Version is very instructive. When the first edition of Erasmus' work came out in 1516 this phrase, dubbed today the "Johannine comma,"... ...was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of I John that Erasmus had examined... ...Both Edward Lee and Diego Lopez  Zuniga attacked Erasmus for not including this passage   and   hence   encouraging "Arianism,"... ...In responding to Lee, Erasmus challenged him to "produce a Greek manuscript that has what is missing in my edition."... ...Since Erasmus had promised, in his response to Lee, to include the passage should a Greek manuscript be found that contained it, he was constrained to insert the phrase in the third edition when presented with an Irish manuscript that contained the disputed phrase. Codex Montfortianus...' This argument is made so as to make it appear that Erasmus only included I John 5:7 in his 3rd edition to fulfill a promise, but included it unwillingly.

This argument by White and numerous others is total mythology! It is true that, at first, Erasmus was a vocal opponent of I John 5:7, but before he released his 3^rd edition, he had been convinced otherwise, which is why he included it in his third and the two other editions which followed until his death. Added to that, the manuscript Erasmus used was Codex Britannicus and had a different reading from Codex Montfortianus.  When  Lee,  because Erasmus had omitted I John 5:7, accused him of negligence in not consulting enough manuscripts when compiling his Greek text, Erasmus replied, 'Is it negligence and impiety, if I did not consult manuscripts which were simply not within my reach? I have at least assembled whatever I could assemble. Let Lee produce a Greek Manuscript which contains what my edition does not contain and let him show that that manuscript was within my reach. Only then can he reproach me with negligence in sacred matters.' Not at one single moment did Erasmus promise that he would add the verse to his text if such a manuscript was found. Not once! Erasmus argued that Lee could only charge him with negligence if he demonstrated that Erasmus ignored a manuscript within easy reach. No promise to include I John 5:7 there! When Erasmus placed I John 5:7 into his text, it was because he was convinced that it should be there. On November the 1^st 1533, Juan Ginez Sepulveda wrote to Erasmus enclosing 365 readings from Codex Vaticanus which differed from Erasmus' texts, but the great scholar did not change his text for such evidence. How is it, then, that on the weight of one single manuscript (commonly said to be the allegedly forged Montfortianus) Erasmus included I John 5:7 in all his editions from his 3rd until his death, if 365 readings from Vaticanus were refused? Erasmus was no fool! We do not know how, but Erasmus, from being a sceptic, became convinced until his dying day that I John 5:7 was part of Divine Writ. What we do know is that it was NOT because of some forgery by a Friar with its ink barely dry!

There is something about I John 5:7 that is special. Martin Luther's Bible was never complete until his friends added the verse, from Erasmus' 3rd, after the great Lutheran's death (Luther was too blind to see the flaw and preferred Erasmus' 2^nd edition). Erasmus' 1st edition was never used to translate a Bible, his 2nd was used by Luther but as soon as Erasmus replaced the verse, the Lord used that text as the basis of the Authorised Bible. From Erasmus' 3rd came editions of the Textus Receptus by other great scholars of the past and finally the Authorized Bible. I believe that this most famous 'Trinitarian' proof text can be considered a badge of authority and blessing upon any Bible which contains it, and that no book that omits it can rightly claim to be God's Holy Book.  • Nigel C.Harris

*****

“Instruction’s Warning Voice”

O happy is the man who hears

Instruction’s warning voice;

And who celestial Wisdom makes

His early, only choice.

For she has treasures greater far

Than east or west unfold;

And her rewards more precious are

Than all their stores of gold.

                                     J S Geikie

Waymarks is a tract published quarterly. Its purpose is to encourage open-air preaching and to establish the confidence of the Lord’s people in the Authorized Version 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 necessary to identify sources of information so that my readers may verify statements made.

This publication is a personal exercise and is made free of charge. Waymarks may be freely copied without alteration and acknowledgements must be given.