Waymarks No.20

Waymarks numbers 1 to 19 seem to have disappeared from my hard drive.                

Spring 2000                                                  Waymarks                                                    No. 20

"Let us walk by the same rule"

Phil.3:16

Contents

Report of Open Air Preaching ..............................................................2

Integrity of the AV Bible .......................................................................4

1. Acts 13:48

                                                           2. Mat.4:1

3. Phil.2:5,6,7

Biblical Criticism ....................................................................................7

Uncritical Criticism ................................................................................8

Verbal Plenary Inspiration ...................................................................10

The Corrected Text ................................................................................11

The Writing on the Wall  ......................................................................12

Letters .....................................................................................................15

"The Young Christian" ........................................................................16                             

REPORT OF OPEN AIR PREACHING

November 22nd LUTON.  Town.Centre.

Preached for a while and then a man asked if one could be too bad to be saved. As I began to speak to him a woman intervened, mistaking him for somebody else. She turned out to be a charismatic, professing to be saved through the preaching of a brother known to me. The outcome was that she told the man to repeat a prayer after her, which he did. She then pronounced him "saved".  He told me he had heard me preach in Hitchin and that is why he had approached me today. I think the man was genuinely seeking and I regarded the woman's intervention as satanic interference, an attempt to snatch the seed away. There is no assembly in Hitchin but there will be opportunity to follow him up as I have his address. His name is Rufus.

December 10th DUNSTABLE, Market Square.

 Since the market was relocated to this square it has been difficult to find a place to stand and preach. On market days it has been too crowded to find room and on other days there are few people about. But today as I arrived the workmen were just washing down the steps of a new clock tower. As they left, I became the first member of the public to occupy it. There are a couple of steps on all four sides of the plinth, with room to sit directly under the tower. Room to stand as well, holding my banner. Today there was just the bus queue to preach to. I gave my "Christmas" message(Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.  That is what Bethlehem is all about. Bethlehem tells men that they are sinners on the way to hell and the only remedy is the coming into this world of a Saviour, Jesus Christ the Lord, born of a virgin, and coming to give His life as a ransom for all. (1 Tim.2:6).

December 14th HITCHIN. Mkt .Sq.

 What a surprise to arrive and to find a clock tower erected right where I usually stand. It isn't as elaborate as the Dunstable one but it is a good place to stand, right next to it, to remind folk that time is fast running out and it is time to seek the Lord.

 January 6th LUTON T.C.

 Pray for the AA (Automobile Association) man. He stands next to me, touting for new members, all the  while I am preaching. He has been around for a long time now and must be very familiar indeed with the gospel. He is a cheerful fellow and has never shown any resentment at my presence though he has never shown any interest either. But he does listen and has listened for several years to the preaching of the word.  

January 12th LUTON T.C.

 A beggar sat facing my stand when I arrived today. Almost as if he was waiting for the "meeting" to start. The last time we met, he told me he came from Blackburn. I bought him a hot drink (he told me he wasn't hungry), which I thought might make him more amenable to listening without heckling. He thanked me, and crossed himself, before drinking his hot chocolate. But after a few minutes of the gospel he got up and ambled off(to a new site presumably.

Next, a man wanted to tell me how the Holy Spirit had got hold of him at a "New Wine" festival and had instantly delivered him from alcoholism. (The Bible calls these people drunkards.) I asked him how he got saved and he said it was when the Holy Spirit "got hold" of him. No repentance mentioned, no faith in Christ, no Scriptures. There is a  myriad of these poor deluded folk about. He told me he wished he had my courage to preach in the street, which I thought was strange that he had none if the Holy Spirit had really "got hold" of him. Then he started preaching. Only it wasn't the gospel. In a loud voice he proclaimed "Jesus, you're wonderful, Jesus, you're great, etc." I moved away lest people should think we were connected.

January 13th LUTON T.C.

The beggar was here again, so that cost me another 60p. Trevor the AA man was back, but today he moved a little farther up the street when he saw me. Perhaps he is under conviction. Peter arrived and wanted to be reassured that he was saved. One could only outline the gospel again, concerning which he said he believed. There is a strong temptation to pronounce a person saved, but I think that is always unwise. Peter told me that two others came and preached yesterday, as soon as I had finished. They were waiting for me to go. Presumably they had "another gospel" as they did not wish to make themselves known to me.

January 19th  LUTON T.C.

 A young man demanded to know why I was preaching in the street. So that he could get saved, of course! He denied everything I said but would not go away. Eventually he stopped a woman and her daughter as they passed by, assuring me that no passer-by would believe a word of the gospel. The couple turned out to be Irish Catholics and proceeded to give the young man short shrift for his atheism. All three accepted tracts before departing. The man told me before he left that his fiancee and her parents were very religious. Presumably none of them saved.

January 24th  LUTON T.C.

 A young woman raged at me with such intensity, with curses and blasphemies, that I thought she was possessed of a devil, or at least that she was mentally ill. She screamed at me that she would get to heaven her way and then she ran off. Later, I had the conviction that I knew this poor girl and that I had been her class teacher some years ago when she was eleven years old. This girl had been an emotionally disturbed child from a Muslim home.

February 2nd LUTON T.C.

Had to wait for the busker to go. There were two men who later stood listening. One of them had listened on past occasions. The second, later approached me for conversation and stayed for nearly an hour. He had a lot of questions and seemed very sincere. He thought he might be too bad to be saved, and listened then to the story of the dying thief.

It would be easy to press some to an immediate "decision" but I have always felt that to be an unwise practice. It is far better to allow the Holy Spirit to work on a person's heart. I believe this was happening with this young man so do pray for him. His name is Paul. He took a tract with my address on it.

An essential of our preaching is that ye must be born again, Jn.3:7. Without the New Birth a soul perishes for eternity so it is not surprising that Satan has done his utmost to obliterate this precious truth. It has nothing to do with joining a church, christening, confirmation, etc. Certainly it is not produced by the application of H2O as the Anglicans and others teach.

There is a further erroneous teaching abroad concerning the New Birth that a person cannot repent of his sins until he has been born again. This is Reformed teaching and accounts for the fact that multitudes of people caught up in Reformism have never been converted.

The New Birth means new life. It is the life of Christ imparted to the believing soul through the power of the Holy Spirit Who then indwells that newborn soul.  If at this stage I had not repented already of my sins then I would have been still in my sin and unforgiven. There is NO forgiveness before repentance. Repent ye therefore and be converted that your sins may be blotted out is God's order. Repentance followed by conversion. Otherwise the Holy Spirit would be required to take up residence in an unclean temple(the body.

The water referred to by the Lord in John 3 is the washing of water by the word. Eph.5:26.  No person can be saved without the application of Scripture to the soul. That is why Satan is producing so many parodies of the Word in these end times. But God's word tells us this: being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Peter 1:23.  

 God's word is a seed( it is alive and gives life. It is incorruptible seed, therefore it is that same word that was settled in heaven before the world was made. Never lost and never corrupted. God's word is also water(it cleanses.

So we preach the word. We preach for repentance and urge the sinner to turn to Christ.

Repentance is a voluntary action of the will or it is nothing at all. When I repented of my sin prior to my conversion in 1955 I believed it was because I chose to repent. Certainly the Holy Spirit was pleading with me but I could have hardened my heart against God. I thank God that I didn't. The possibility is made plain by the words of Stephen(ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost. Acts 7:51. When Stephen spoke these words he was full of the Holy Ghost, v.55, therefore not in error. Yet our Reformer friends tell us it is impossible to resist the Holy Ghost. So we do NOT preach "Irresistible Grace". That is an error. If I had died at 9pm on 15th Oct. 1955 I would have gone instantly to hell. At 9.15pm on that day I was saved and on the way to heaven. I had just been born again. Praise God.

We just add also, every conversion recorded in the NT was sudden. Conversion; the New Birth is not a process as Rome teaches now on the Internet. My conversion put me among God's elect.  

THE INTEGRITY OF THE AV BIBLE

1. Acts 13:48.

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

Though the AV translators may have been largely "Calvinistic", they were a mixed company of Anglicans and Puritans who were godly men committed to producing a faithful and accurate English translation. They did not allow their doctrinal views to colour the translation. They did not blindly follow the Vulgate. Their work was based almost entirely on William Tyndale's translation. Tyndale has been described as the Father of the English Bible.

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

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

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

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

2. Mat.4:1

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

In Mk.1:12 immediately the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness. The Greek verb ekballo here is more often translated "cast out", but in Jn.2:15 it is translated as in Mk.1:12, He drove them all out of the temple.  Mark expresses the Lord's willing determination and the power in all his movements in pleasing the Father.

[next paragraph  omitted, having become unreadable]….

…..Nature and form are not the same. I might have the same nature as my father but my form is not identical. The  AV Bible speaks of an existing equality in the Godhead which was not surrendered in incarnation. The form of God is manifested in the form of a servant. The passage does not suggest that Christ relinquished the form of God.

The NIV does suggest that Christ released His grasp on His divine attributes (nature) and became NOTHING, displaying the attributes of a servant, without becoming in very being (form) a servant.

Following modern versions, we see, will lead us into very serious(and blasphemous(error. Many years ago, at the end of the Breaking of Bread meeting, a man rose to give ministry in which he said that the Lord, while on earth, was in essence less than God. We could not continue in fellowship with such a man of course.

Now we read, in Bible League Quarterly, Jan-Mar. 2000, p147.  "As to His essential nature He always was and has never ceased to be equal with God. But where would any of us be now, if He had demanded to remain on equality with God in position and role, instead of humbling Himself and taking the form of a servant and obediently submitting Himself to God as His Head? (Professor David Gooding.

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

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

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

BIBLICAL CRITICISM

In 1905, twenty-five years after the Revised Version was published, a declaration was made and signed by 1,725 Anglican clergymen. The declaration was to this effect:-

1. That the clergy may now receive authoritative encouragement to face the critical problems of the NT with entire candour.

2. That those who apply historical methods to the gospel records should not be lost to the high office of the Ministry.

3. That it would be perilous to build the faith of souls primarily upon details of the NT narrative, the historical validity of which must ultimately be determined in the court of trained research.

4. That the faith of the Church [of England] will stand, whatever the historical revisions, upon the spiritual foundations to which Christian experience and the Creed of the Church alike bear testimony.

A letter was published on 30th May 1905 in all leading newspapers in the Empire referring to the Declaration. Below is an excerpt as it appeared in The Times on that day.

"It calls attention to a momentous intellectual movement of our times, named Biblical Criticism. In relation thereto it takes up two positions. (1) It asserts that it is both unwise and dangerous to shrink from applying to the New Testament, as the historical basis of Christianity, the processes of critical enquiry that have already, with advantage to faith and with general assent, been applied to the Old Testament; and that there is within the Church a legitimate and even necessary place for reverent, frank, and dispassionate discussion of the problems to which the criticism of the New Testament gives rise. (2) The declaration maintains that, whatever be the issue of criticism, the Faith of the Church will stand unmoved. Though no man, looking a generation or two ahead, can foresee the results of criticism, or can say to the critical movement, 'thus far shalt thou go, and no farther,' still the Declaration holds that the Faith of the Church will remain, strengthened and secure.

These men feared the opposition of godly and well-taught Bible believers in their midst. Dean Burgon had been one of them. They wanted men who would ravage the word of God and bring it to no effect. They wanted a system built on "experience" and man made rules rather than the Scriptures.

A century later we see the devastating results of this critical philosophy throughout Christendom( an Anglican Church in full apostasy. The essential doctrines of faith(the Full Deity, the Virgin Birth, the Sacrificial Death, the Real Resurrection, of Christ(denied. And evil practices found instead not only among Anglican clergy but also throughout professing Christendom.

Biblical Criticism has led to a denial of the Word of God which has spread like a cancer. Biblical Criticism destroys faith and cannot build faith. Biblical Criticism has not been ignored by competent believing scholars. It has been closely examined by men such as Burgon, Hills, Otis Fuller, Nolan, etc. and has been found wanting.

Believers do accept the historical narratives as being verbally inspired and given through the Holy Spirit of God.  The narratives are Scripture and are therefore accurate in detail and without any error. They are the only record for the child of God concerning the life of Christ. Faith can be built on nothing else.

UNCRITICAL CRITICISM

The following paragraph is taken from HOMOEOPATHY What are we swallowing? I quote it here because it reveals a similar attitude that many take towards modern versions. The author, Stephen Ransom, is quoting Donald Gould, the former editor of New Scientist who warns of the dangers we invite by adopting laissez-faire reasoning in relation to homoeopathy.

"Why not make the most of what the non-conformists have to offer and [reject] uncharitable logic? There is, I suggest, a powerful reason for rejecting this superficially attractive option. Truth is a fundamental value. If we accept uncritical thinking in one area of our lives for the sake of convenience or because of the popular appeal of a seductive myth and the short-term comfort to be gained by believing in the unbelievable, or because the false answer lets us pretend we are completely coping with a painful problem we haven't truly tackled, then we are all the more likely to adopt the same strategy in other situations, from dealing with the family, to managing the national economy, and from chairing the parish council to handling the arsenals of nuclear weapons. The result is likely to be unhappy and stands a decent chance of proving a disaster. Irrational beliefs are always dangerously corrupting, even when they only relate to the cause and cure of piles."

Homeopathy has been shown to have its roots in the occult. Those following this practice will inevitably have their minds warped against spiritual values and their minds will become closed to the truth.

The same uncritical thinking has been applied to the subject of modern versions. Along with alternative medicine we have the alternative bible. The only cry that matters is that it "works". The alternative bible is said to be easier to understand, and therefore better. Sources do not matter, though they are shown to be corrupt. The modern alternative bible must be good, they say, because scholars produced it.

But scholars can be most unscholarly in their work as was Hahnemann the father of homoeopathy. He was a very clever man. He was also a freemason and dabbled in the occult. Westcott and Hort, who "fathered" the RV were also scholars who applied unscholarly principles to their work. They concocted theories concerning the origin of the Received Text that have no foundation in history and have subsequently been shown up as false. They also dabbled in the occult.

Those who insist in promoting the critical text(the Greek text that serves the modern versions(are frequently found to be very uncritical towards that same text. They close their minds to its glaring inconsistencies. One major inconsistency being the huge conflict between the two leading mss of the critical text, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. They differ in hundreds of places.

They close their minds also to the character of the so-called scholars of the critical text. Almost to a man they have been shown up as apostates who deny the truths of the word of God.

They close their minds to the methods used by these Textual Critics. They are governed by opinions rather than facts. Their opinion is that the Bible is no different from any other book and their methods of deducing what was in "the original" can be applied to any book.

VERBAL PLENARY INSPIRATION

Because some are still speaking of the plenary inspiration of Scripture as though they believed in it when they plainly do not. I reprint the following article which first appeared in my Newsletter4; May 94.

"The verbal plenary inspiration of the sacred page still remains. The bible is true.... the bible has been preserved. It remains, for it is forever settled in heaven. (Ps.119:89)". (Harold Paisley: Words in Season; Feb.94.

The statement above should raise no eyebrows. It is a fundamental of the faith. To reject it would be a mark of unbelief. The Bible, which is the word of God, is still the same, jot and tittle, as when it was first given. That cannot be said of modern versions of course. They are always changing. Those who in their ministry refer to other versions, better readings, critical texts, etc. Can hardly claim to believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the sacred page. When they supply their alternative "renderings" they must tell us which is the inspired reading(the one we find on the sacred page in front of us, or their innovation. The common answer is the one that makes sense to them is the correct reading.

This is the answer of Rationalism(I do not understand the verse, it does not fit in with my system of theology. I will not change my views but I will change the text. This has been the rationalistic approach of textual criticism from the beginning.

An example may be found in 2 Thes.2:2, where we read of the Day of Christ being at hand. Modern versions change this to the Day of the Lord being come. This appears more suitable in relation to what the rest of Scripture teaches concerning the Day of the Lord. But the manuscript evidence for this is very poor. The vast majority of all mss support "day of Christ". A few Alexandrian mss (i.e. mss found in Egypt where early corruptions of the Scriptures are known to have taken place) support "day of the Lord". So let us believe what the Bible says and admit that maybe we do not fully understand the teaching of the day of Christ.

The Thessalonians had no such problems in their understanding though they most certainly read "day of Christ". The Day of the Lord had been expounded in their first epistle from the apostle. They knew it would come as a thief in the night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them. (5:4). They knew that the Day of Christ would affect them. (2 Thes.2:5, and compare Phil.1:10, 2:16 which show the Day of Christ to be associated with the Judgment Seat of Christ where the work and life of believers will be appraised.) and that it would be preceded by the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come (at hand means that) then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the false teaching they were getting on the subject, including apparently, a letter from Paul himself saying that Day had come.

Note that! They were getting falsified Scripture (see 2 Cor.2:17). Thus are we warned in Scripture that men would from the beginning seek to corrupt the word of God. Note that the NIV even mutilates this verse to read.... we do not peddle the word of God for profit. But that is what modern versionism is about!

A correspondent has reminded me of a statement made by Mr Newberry in his introduction to his Englishman's Bible. There we read "The plenary inspiration of the original Scriptures is taken for granted. [my italics]. The original Scriptures disappeared a long time ago so we conclude that there can be no plenary inspired Scriptures today according to Mr Newberry. So we have no trustworthy Bible and we are compelled to accept the opinions of the "experts", most of whom are unconverted.

But having given His inspired word, would God have abandoned it to the Egyptian desert, or a monastic dustbin? Would God NOT be able to preserve that same Word for ever, as He said He would? Or is the Scripture The word of the Lord endureth for ever false? See Isa.48:8, 1 Pet.1:23, Ps.12:6,7.

Plenary: Full, entire, complete, whole, absolute, i.e. nothing missing. Which bible is the preacher holding up when he describes it as plenary? The one which he, at the same time, tells you is lacking in many verses?

Verbal Inspiration: The very words, and every word, of the English Bible are those given by God from the beginning. When the preacher holds up his Bible and tells you he believes in verbal inspiration, does he go on to tell you that certain words ought not to be there? If he doesn't believe in the plenary verbal inspiration of the word of God, he is a man to be avoided.

Inerrant: Not liable to err. If the Bible is not inerrant then neither can be its Author. Men, to gain public acceptance, will boast that they hold to an inerrant Bible, and then they will go on to question the validity of various dates, places, names, etc. given in the Book. Some in their folly claim that David wasn't the man who killed Goliath, that Jonah never got swallowed by a whale, that Moses never wrote the entire Pentateuch.

  

THE CORRECTED TEXT

"If we must receive the Corrected Text of M. Griesbach, [regarded by many as the father of modern textual criticism], to the exclusion of the Greek Vulgate [=Received Text], we must accept it as a demonstrative proof of the general corruption of the sacred text, and of the faithlessness of the traditional testimony on which it is supported, for a period extending from the apostolical to the present age. One of the first positions laid down in his critical theory, and implied in the conclusions which it involves, is, that the two principal Classes of Text out of which his edition  is formed, have been interpolated in every part of them for that period.

One of the last consequences which that theory tends to establish, is, that the only remaining Class of Text existing in the Greek Vulgate, and against which the immense number of 150,000 various readings has been collected, has existed in its present state of corruption nearly 1400 years. If these conclusions are unavoidable, there seems to be no reservation by which the doctrinal integrity of the sacred Scriptures can be saved. If the apostolical age has thus erred in its testimony, and its evidence has been further corrupted in the primitive age; whatever be the text, which is gathered out of the immense number of various readings, which make up the sum of their testimony, it may be as well any other text, as that which the inspired writers originally delivered to the church.

Fred Nolan; An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate; 1815.

What Nolan pointed out, well nigh 200 years ago,  and 66 years before the RV was published, was that if the sacred text has been corrupted from the beginning then we have no hope of certainty as to the word of God. Further; statements concerning the faithfulness of God in preserving the Scriptures are false.

The work of the Textual Critic is to iron out all that he sees as corruptions in the Scriptures. This is the very foundation stone of Textual Criticism. It is the heart of modern versionism. Griesbach published his Greek NT in Germany in 1775, in an attempt to destroy the Received Text. He wasn't the first, to endeavour to overthrow the true word of God. Men like Origen and Eusebius had sought to do that at a very early stage. The Master Overthrower and Revisionist is Satan of course.

Ours is no blind adherence to an antiquated and forlorn book. The word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword. Heb.4:12. Our Book is living. It has an inherent vitality, and if it can age and fall into decay, then so can God. It is His word. More than that, it is Christ.  His name is called The Word of God. Rev.19:13.  Attacks on the Scriptures are attacks on Christ. If the written Word can be proved defective then Christ is proved to be defective.

THE WRITING ON THE WALL

By A Reeves and R Smith of Bromley.

We believe that we have in this day and age, reached a very dangerous position, regarding what is called 'Versionism'. One bible, only twenty years ago, was the accepted Word of God. Ministers and Preachers would affirm that from Genesis to Revelation every Word was inspired. Children and adults would memorise verses from the Word of God.

The Authorized Version was the believers' Bible. The authority of God was upheld in the congregation, by the public reading of his Most Holy Word.

We were known as "THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK". What has changed?

Daniel talking to Belshazzar states that:

"Nebuchadnezar was given by the most high God a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour.... all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him.....But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed....till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men....And thou....Belshazar hast not humbled thy heart, though thou knewest all this; But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of Heaven" Daniel 5.

"And then Belshazar saw part of the hand that wrote."

Matthew Poole says:

"God intended it for him, and that he should see it with his own eyes, and it should not be brought him by report, which affords ground of doubting; but here was undeniable proof and conviction, the visible hand of God was here."

In the Bible we read, that God at the Tower of Babel, brought about the confusion of languages, this retarded  further advancement on a questionable building project.

Surely God would never have changed every tongue, knowing that one day in the future, it would prevent the Scriptures being translated into other tongues, free of error?

The writing on the wall and the confusion of languages show that Almighty God is in no way restricted by different tongues and languages. spoken or written. He employs them to His own advantage. Daniel by the power of God interpreted the writing on the wall, and we by the same power and authority of the Holy Spirit, can read, and understand, God's Word in our own tongue, free from error. Amen.

Belshazzar had gone too far! He was about to be judged by God.

Have we as a nation gone too far?. Have we rejected the Bible, that God has given to the English speaking people?.

Bibles are being produced by scholars who confuse those who are seeking to know the truth, they issue such statements as: "archaic words are detrimental to the understanding of the Bible."

For example:

In helping to encourage people to read the Bible daily a leading Evangelical Churchman wrote:

"There are ways in which a tablet can be made easier to take. Sugar-coating helps it slip down. Many of us remember too well the years of trying to swallow tablets that did not slip down. A good coating also helps it get more quickly to where it can take effect. There are also various 'coatings' to help us digest the Scriptures more readily and effectively. Just on the market is the Revised English Bible - successor to the New English Bible. Then there is the New International Version; the Good News Version, all right for starting - not reliable for study; the Revised Standard Version; the Jerusalem Bible - and so many more. My heart sinks to see some confirmation candidates clutching a white-covered Authorised Version - which a young person finds so difficult to grasp even if older folk like it.... If you do not have a good Bible - buy one this week."                Chester Diocesan News. No.769.

The Authorised Version has been tested and approved over a four hundred year

history, and by countless revivals in many lands.

This is what John Sawyer said in London in 1990:

"Are you aware that a competition between publishers and scholars is in progress, trying to produce a new Bible that will monopolize the market."

The truth of the problem was stated years ago by Mark Twain:

"It is not so much the things that I do not understand about the Bible that bothers me. but the things I do."

With an English dictionary one can look up the meaning of the few words not used today in ordinary conversation.

Read the Apostle Peter's observations concerning the Apostle Paul's writings.

"As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness." 2 Peter 3:16.17.

Theodore P. Letis. Edinburgh. September 1989 speaking about modern bible publishers writes:

"The supreme example of their work is the translation that did not blush to make bold in its earliest advertising claims to be the beginning of a New Tradition in the history of the English Bible. This was a deliberate disowning of the martyr's Bible tradition to make way for the corporate boardroom Bible. Though it was given life by the Zondervan Corporation, the New International Version then fell into the hands of the Harper and Row Publishers as a result of a corporate take-over.

This company, in turn, was also taken over by Rupert Murdock. the publisher of among other things the British daily paper the SUN. notorious for its nude pin-ups. Such is the modern world of the designer Bible."

We mention this not to indulge in criticism, but rather to drive home the fact that modern Bible publishers - operate in the cold world of profit, like any other business organisation. It is not the edification of men's souls they are after, it is their purchasing power.

Belshazzar had gone too far?

Again we ask, have we as a nation, or as a Church GONE TOO FAR?.

Are we to be found wanting? to be judged by God?.

Belshazzar did not heed what had happened to Nebuchadnezzar, but poured scorn on God. May we in God's mercy, before it is too late, turn back to be known once again as: THE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK.

The commercialisation of the Bible really has become big business today. It is seen as a commodity for which there has always been a demand and will continue as such. It is one for which new and changing expressions are always wanted, such is the craving of man. It is also one which has many related purchasing opportunities. By this we mean different age groups, sections of society and associated needs. Concordances, Dictionaries, Handbooks, Commentaries, Study books can all be published and sold having been based upon the new version.

Jesus once spoke in judgement to those who made merchandise of God's holy house. John 2:16.

Peter warns us of covetous persons who with feigned words (not real, simulated, made up) shall make merchandise of you. 2 Peter 2:1-3.

The leaflet 'Commodity Bibles' and 'Turner Bible' at £250 [sic] each are

illustrations of this. (Available upon request.)

This leaflet THE WRITING ON THE WALL... is part of a booklet entitled: THY WORD IS TRUTH by Alfred Reeves and Ron Smith [of Bromley]. A copy of this booklet will be sent upon request. There is no charge.

LETTER (email)

I have a "high" regard for the KJV and use it almost exclusively in my personal study, but there's at least one word in it that I "wince at", since in today's vernacular it has become a "swear word" and I wouldn't use it in my daily speech. I don't "worship" the AV, I  worship the God of Whom it speaks.  - JP

Answer:

Unto the pure all things are pure. It is not the fault of Scripture if words in it are abused by the ungodly. What sort of Bible would we have if it had to be amended every time the wicked abuse it? The very name "God" is a blasphemy on the lips of the world. Should the word be removed? And what about the word "Hell"? Must that go too?

I have never met a person yet who worships the AV Bible. I know that some who recognise the AV Bible as the true word of God are called Bibliolators, but(in the words of another(the folk making this accusation are mainly Selfolators.

 

THE YOUNG CHRISTIAN (selected verses)

    I cannot give it up,                                            And yet "outside the camp"

    The little world I know!                                   'Twas there my Saviour died!    

    The innocent delights of youth,                        It was the world that cast Him forth

    The things I cherish so!                                    And saw Him crucified.

    'tis true I love my Lord                                     Can I take part with those

    And want to do his will,                                   Who nailed Him to the tree

    And oh! I may enjoy the world,                       And where His name is never praised

    And be a Christian still.                                     Is there the place for me?

  

    I love the hour of prayer,                                   Nay, world! I turn away,

    O love the hymns of praise,                              Though thou seem fair and good;

    I love the blessed word that tells                       That friendly outstretched hand of thine  

    Of God's redeeming grace.                                 Is stained with Jesus' blood.

    But I am human still!                                         If in thy least device 

    And while I dwell on earth                                 I stoop to take a part,

    God surely will not grudge the hours                All unaware, thine influence steals                   

    I spend in harmless mirth!                                 God's presence from my heart. 

    These things belong to youth,                           Shame on me that I sought

    And are its natural right-                                  Another joy than this,

    My dress, my pastimes, and my friends           Or dreamt a heart at rest with Thee  

    The merry and the bright.                                 Could crave for earthly bliss!

    My Father's heart is kind!                                 These vain and worldly things,

    He will not count it ill                                       I put them all aside;

    That my small corner of the world                   His goodness fills my longing soul,  

    Should please and hold me still.                       And I am satisfied. 

                    Margaret Mauro