(includes Newsletters 1-3)November 1993/May 1994. These have now been reformatted three times. The first seven Newsletters consisted of two sides of A4. Please excuse remaining typos etc)
. 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: You can be saved without
being born again,:- " I mean really saved, not merely quickened". Notes
& Jottings p.186.
KELLY concerning Cornelius, Acts.10. "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! 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 p.398. When one's knowledge is satisfactory
then his faith can be sealed.
This, Darby describes as "a deliverance,-not
being born again, not forgiveness-though both
be true-but 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 twentyfive 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.Michael Browne, in his book Aspects
of Some Exclusive Doctrines shows that these views put forward by Darby and
Kelly are still being taught by modern
exclusives. He quotes Prof. W.J.OUWENEEL of Holland (a Kellyite) as stating in
his commentary on Titus 3:4-7, "...Cornelius was only converted and born
again and had only new life from God before he came into contact with the
gospel by which he was to be saved (Acts11:14). Besides regeneration he also
had to be saved..." Mr. Browne
outlines the major exclusive errors in his book and warns against the blatant
sectarian activity by exclusive factions. He
writes of a vigorous attempt to target so-called 'Open' assemblies. Much
of their own literature is being published by Chapter Two, Plumstead.
"The following quotations are from the
Kansas City Times back in the years 1887 and 1888. The writer is John Newman
Edwards (1839-1889)... The Revised
Version of the New Testament cannot be made to supersede the old King James
translation. It came as a great flourished religious trumpet . For ten years it
was, in the hands of scholars, to be in every way exalted. When the work was
done the cry went up from orthodox lips that it marked a wonderful epic in religious history.....One
thing the people will never permit to have taken away from them is their old
fashioned Bible. They never asked for any revision. They never for a moment
thought a revision was necessary..... It makes no difference what a man may
want with his Bible, how he may use it, how he explains it, or expounds it, or
how he interprets it. His only solace is to know that it is his father's Bible
and that the refiners, the agnostics, the tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee fellows
of the last century have not laid their hands upon it. If that is in fact true,
all the balance is easy." Taken from Bible Believers Bulletin; April 1996.
The Revised Version has now been
practically forty-five years before our
people....yet the new Version shows as little sign today of superseding the
Authorised in use, as it did on the day of its publication- indeed it shows
less. It would probably be within the mark to say that the older version is
sold and used fifty times for once that the newer one is, and there is no sign
that the gap is being closed.
How far this is due to the drastic
interpretation which the New Testament revisers put upon their instructions and
the thirty-six thousand changes which they deemed it necessary to make, and how
far to the unfortunate lack of the sense of rhythm and music which seems to
have characterised them, is hard to say; but the fact is unquestionable. So far
as use goes, it seems likely that the question is settled, and that the older
version has definitely triumphed." The
English Bible and its Story; J.Baikie;1929.
The R.V. has been obsolete for over 100
years. In the C.L.C. Bookshop, Central London
(possibly the largest Bible Bookshop in England) there is one single copy
on the shelf. That same copy has lain there for several years. I have seen it
there. I am assured that the only publishers of the RV today are the Christadelphians. The only question I ask
is why do our brethren quote from it? Is it because it is so similar to another
oft-quoted and little read version, JND's New Translation?
THE REVISED TEXT Some brethren like to
refer to the Revised Text. They think it is superior to all else. If asked to which Revised Text they refer it is not likely that they could give an answer. There are many. I
have a list of 34 Greek Texts. The list is by no means exhaustive for some have
been re-revised a number of times. They may answer, that they mean the Nestle
text. Then let them tell you how this one is to be preferred against the
current United Bible Societies Text, or the Hodges-Farstad 2nd Edition Text
published 1985. And what is wrong with the Westcott-Hort Revised Text? If they
still cling to Nestle, do they know that the Nestle Text has long since been
superseded by the Nestle-Aland Text? Now in its 26th edition!!! Do they mean
the latest "hot-off-the press" Text? Then let them tell you what was
wrong with the one immediately before it.They may tell you that it is certainly
not the Byzantine, or the Received or the Traditional to which they adhere, for
according to them it was THIS text that was a revision of the original Text and
the modern versionist wants to get back to the
original. But there was no one
single original text! By the time the first complete Bible appeared, no later
than the beginning of the 2nd Cent. the original manuscript had disappeared.
There was no revision of the collected Greek Text in the 3rd/4th Cents. that
was ever accepted by the Church in those days (Church= regenerate born-again
blood-bought children of God). Modern apostate Christendom has accepted the two
false texts which were rejected by the early Church. They are two solitary
manuscripts, (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)
disagreeing severely with each other, which are the bases for all the
subsequent revisions.
We are satisfied that the Greek Text
underlying the AV is as near to the "original" as is possible. It is
presently found in the Text issued by
the Trinitarian Bible Society 1991, the preface of which states:- "The
editions of Stephens, Beza and the
Elzevirs all present substantially the same text, and the variations are not of
great significance and rarely affect the sense. The present edition of theTextus
Receptus underlying the English
Authorized Version of 1611 follows the text of Beza's 1598 edition as the
primary authority, and corresponds with 'The New Testament on the Original
Greek according to the text followed in the Authorized Version,' edited by
F.H.A. Scrivener, M.A.,D.C.L., LL.D., and published by Cambridge University
Press in 1894 and 1902."
We bear in mind that The Holy Bible is not
"The Greek Text" or the "Revised
Text" or even "The Original Text". For us it is the
Authorized Version.
Inspirer of the ancient seers,
Who wrote from Thee the sacred page
The same through all succeeding years,
To us, in our degenerate age,
The spirit of Thy word impart,
And breathe the life into our heart
While now Thine oracles we read,
With earnest prayer and strong desire,
let
Thy Spirit from Thee proceed,
Our souls to awaken and inspire,
Our weakness help, our darkness chase,
And guide us by the light of grace
*****
CANON
VS100 answers (mar94)
to Dennis Clapham's letter
ANSWERS TO A CORRESPONDENT'S CRITICISMS
DC
"Your note....I hope will not lead to the polarising of the saints”..
.Polarisation began when the first copy of
the R.V. was brought into the assembly. The recovery of assembly truth last
century was made through the only available version, the A.V. There was no
other bible used. The Newsletter is intended to bring saints back to a united
stand.
"No-one
has any right to tell another what bible they should use"
Not even elders in the assembly? Must we
tolerate confusion? Must we say nothing when we know that modern versions are
the work of unregenerate men who have used lies and deceit to produce their
work? If the elders in the assembly may not speak on the matter, what may they
speak on?
"If
it (the A.V.) leads to defective understanding of the mind of God, then one who
is better taught may well, in love, seek to enlighten, as Aquilla and Priscilla of Apollos.
No child of God was ever led to a defective
understanding because he used the A.V. Bible. That the Bible God has used and blessed
for 400 years could lead a saint astray in any respect is a thought that
sullies the mind. In almost 40 years of Christian experience I have yet to meet
one individual better taught through the use of modern versions. Note also that
Aquilla, Priscilla and Apollos used the same Masoretic text-based scripture;
that on which the A.V. is based.
"In
those countries where English is spoken, although I have no figures to back up
the supposition, it would not surprise me if souls were brought to the faith by
other means than by the A.V. of 1611 , in greater numbers than by that revered
translation.
What are these "other means"?
Appeals, squashes,youth nights,ladies tea-parties,pentecostalist froth and
bubble? Or do you mean "other versions", though after 400 years the
A.V. is still the world's best seller. Agreed,God is sovereign and a soul might
come across a fragment of the pure Word of God amongst the 5000 changes made in
every modern version, and be saved by it.
"It
might surprise us greatly to know just what translation God has been pleased to
use in people's salvation, and to feed them with spiritual food."
Well, never mind the Reformation! Just
think of the mighty revivals of last century.There have been no revivals since
the modern versions began to proliferate.
"God
is not restricted. Who can tell Him what He ought to use?
But may we not expect God to use His own
Word, that which was settled in heaven before the world was made? Would He use
the words of lying men, as Westcott and Hort have been shown to be?
"The
language (Paul and his company) spoke was "colloquial", for they
aimed to reach the people"
I cannot find evidence of this. The N.I.V.
uses colloquial speech with grievous results.I would certainly never preach in
colloquial English,that would cheapen the gospel and I also want people to
understand me.
"It
is the content of the message that counts....A postman would lose his job if he
decided he would only deliver packages of a certain colour."
He might lose his job quicker if he started
to deliver unauthorised mail !!
*****
Rationalism.
Rationalism undermines the authority of
scripture, either by rejecting it as an internal revelation, or by accepting
it; but making human reason the sole arbiter of its meaning. (J.Harries, A Handbook of Theology,quoting from Dr.
Pope's Compendium P.91)
2.Practice of explaining the supernatural
in religion in a way consonant with
reason, or of treating reason as the ultimate authority in religion as
elsewhere; theory that reason is the foundation of certainty in knowledge.(
Concise Oxford Dict.1984) We have met rationalism in our bible readings, when a
brother, anxious to uphold a reading not found in the A.V. concludes that if an
acceptable exposition of the A.V. reading cannot be given, then that A.V. reading is false. Thus if the
reading does not make sense to the natural mind, it must be rejected.
Newsletter 1
REPORT OF OPEN AIR PREACHING
St. Albans. This is a very religious
town, but indifferent to the gospel. An old man often heckles me, shouting
abuse. He gets very agitated and is obviously disturbed by the gospel. He never
comes near enough for me to speak to him personally
Aylesbury.
A town near to our meeting at Buckland
Wharf. We have come under
assault from moslem youths a number of times.Various missiles have been thrown.
Crowds of more than 100 have gathered and then have stood for an hour or so
listening to the gospel.
Luton I have a number of regular contacts here. Pray for Peter who always
takes a tract and knows he needs to be
saved. He recently asked for a bible
HitchinI stand with my text-board where
George Whitefield once stood to preach; by the gates to the parish church, now
within a shopping precinct. The parish priest had the bells rung to drive him away but I've had no
such opposition! There has been a measure
of interest shown
Tower Hill A most prestigious preaching
spot, on the roof of a McDonald's ( a designated Speakers Corner) overlooking
the Tower of London. The professional hecklers gather here besides the tourists
and it is not a place for the faint-hearted
Dunstable Here on many a Wednesday
afternoon some folk have gathered that they might listen to the preaching.
Tommy has heard the gospel here many times. At first he used to heckle. Recently he was severely
beaten up outside his own house. He is a transvestite
Leighton BuzzardI once preached to a gang
of skin-heads here, much to the consternation of the local shopkeepers who
expected a riot to break out at any moment!
They called the police who came in two cars but they made no attempt to
stop me preachingThese are the places I visit on a regular basis. I estimate
that at least a quarter of a million people hear the gospel each year. Up to
two hours are spent at each stand , usually with a poster text on display and a
bible in my hand.Thus people know why I am there even when I am not preaching.
With most towns now having pedestrian precincts I find a loudspeaker
unnecessary
There must be 10M souls within an hour's journey
from home, so I am able to give support to the local assembly as well as giving
help in ministry and gospel to other
assemblies. We have not been able to arrange tent meetings again this
year. I am sorry about this because we have seen more saved in the tent
meetings than any other way.
Tracting is a vital work which we can all
undertake. It doesn't call for a special gift to give out tracts. I find that
in a busy shopping precinct 200 can be given out in an hour. The tracts I use
contain nothing but the gospel- no cartoon strips etc. which so demean the
gospel
. I meet many people who stop to speak and
they tell me they are believers but a lot of them hold beliefs contrary to the
gospel of Christ. A young woman told me she was saved and a R.C.. She then told
me her salvation came through baptism into the R.C. church. Others are ensared
by the charismatic movement. Still more know nothing more than a social gospel.
It amazes me that the greater the lie, the more willing folk are to believe it
and the simple truth of the gospel is rejected. One of the greatest hoaxes of
the century, evolution, is now commonly accepted as fact. This keeps multitudes
away from Christ. It is promoted in our assemblies under the guise of the Gap
Theory
There are many other hindrances to the
gospel, of course, such as materialism (otherwise known as covetousness),
television, ecumenism etc. Nevertheless the Word of God has a power of its own
and that is why it must be quoted and preached accurately and faithfully. There
are some who believe that the Word of God does not exist today. No doubt the
proliferation of modern versions has encouraged this unbelief. The Revised
Version and J.N.D's translation are the first of the modern versions. More on
this subject overleaf
INTEGRITY OF THE A. V. BIBLE
In recent years it has become fashionable
to question the reliability of translation in hundreds of places in the A. V.
bible. The underlying Greek text, known as the Received Text, is also
questioned in hundreds of places. None of these are justified and neither do I
hold to the A.V. simply as a matter of faith or through tradition
Some tell us that only the original
scriptures were inspired. If that is so then we have no scripture today for All
scripture is given by inspiration of God; 2 Tim. 3 v. 16 What is not inspired
is not Scripture. But inspiration is not lost through translation as the many
O.T.(Hebrew) verses quoted in the N.T. (Greek) prove. Also our God is able to preserve
His own Word, For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in
heaven; Ps. 119 v. 89. How could it then be unsettled on earth? Heaven and
earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away Mt. ; 24 v. 35.
That
the "original" manuscripts are no more is not surprising,as they
would have been very quickly worn out. But they were faithfully copied
multitudes of times. Early translations were also produced such as the 2nd
Cent. Peshitto in the Syriac language. The vast majority of manuscripts and
early versions are in agreement with the
Received Text. We can have confidence in our A.V. Bible. Its pedigree can be
traced at least to the 2nd century. The text of the R.V. Bible was shown to be
corrupt more than 100 years ago, being based on two depraved manuscripts.
Modern scholars have rejected this text, preferring the unsettled and evolving
Nestles text. I wish to show in the following contested verses that departure
from the A.V. reading is unwarranted.
Take,
eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 1
Cor. 11 v. 24. The word broken is omitted in the R.V. but has the support of
the majority of the Byzantine mss. and lectionary copies. It is also in the
Peshitto and Harcleian Syriac and is quoted in the writings of some of the
early "fathers". The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the few mss. omitting
the word, but even this has been altered by a corrector to include it. In this
there is no contradiction and no
departure from the Passover symbolism. The bones of the Passover Lamb were not
to be broken. The bones of the Lord Jesus Christ were not broken. The body of
the Passover Lamb was certainly broken, when its blood was shed,and when it was
skinned before roasting. It is equally true to say of the Lord that, while no bone was broken,His body
was broken, when the crown of thorns broke
the flesh of His brow, when the scourging broke the flesh of His body,
when the nails broke the flesh of His hands and feet, and when the spear broke
the flesh of His side. There was thus a literal fulfilment of the Passover
symbolism in that His bones were not broken; and a fulfilment of Isaiah 53- He
was wounded for our transgressions.
Another
contested verse in the A.V. is Blessed are they that do his commandments Rev.
22 v. 14 , which is changed to "Blessed are they that wash their
robes" in the R.V. and J.N.D.'s translation with virtually no textual
authority. This rendering is used to support the Romish doctrine of the mass.
The
.A.V. is not teaching salvation by works here but speaks of the blessedness of
those already saved. Compare verses ch.12 v17 & ch.14v12 in Revelation.If
ye love me, keep my commandments Jn. 14 v. 15. Believers do that.The authority
for the A.V. rendering of this verse is found in the majority of mss., plus the
Old Latin, Syriac and Coptic versions etc. It is even found in the Vatican manuscript !! In future Newsletters I hope to
give further examples of contested verses as well as expanded reports of gospel
work.
The NIV, NASB, NKJV and many other versions,
carry the religion of the New Age Movement. Six years of researching modern
versions and their underlying texts have
revealed the degree to which perversion has taken place. Words and
phrases have been changed without any textual authority whatsoever (e.g. the
name Lucifer is exchanged for morning star in the NIV rendering of Isaiah
14:12-17, so that Satan might get the worship due only to the Lord and not be
portrayed as the fallen one).
The two modern mutilators of scripture,
Westcott and Hort, are revealed for what they were -winebibbers, steeped in
occult practices and God-hating. The book is well documented and spoilt only by
a number of typographical errors. "...there has been a revival at the
popular level of an advocacy of the textus receptus and the KJV. Much of this
is simply the rhetoric of misinformed fundamentalism." -G.D.Fee. Studies in the Theory and Method of New
Testament Textual Criticism, 1993.
There is nothing more fundamental than
believing the Bible, which the modern critics do not.
"- the text of the N.T. in its earliest stages was a vibrant,
living text that functioned dynamically within the developing church." -E.J.Epp
ibid.
These men, who regard themselves as
leaders in the field of textual
criticism, really do believe that they can make it up as they go along. For
them there is no established Word of God and there never was. These are the
promoters of every succeeding perversion of scripture. It is essential that we contend
earnestly for the faith once given, brethren, for the critics will rob us of
the Word of Life.
QUOTE No. 3 "No kind of evidence needs
more the test of cross-examination than that of the experts. In no other sphere
save that of religious controversy would sensible people accept the dicta of
experts until they had been thus tested; and yet the history of the Higher
Criticism movement gives abundant proof that no class of expert is more
untrustworthy than the critic.-Sir Robert Anderson; The Bible and Modern
Criticism.
Newsletter 2
The purpose in sending out my newsletter is
to encourage other brethren to go out into the open air to preach. Already I
have heard of one brother thus encouraged. If folk are not coming in to our
halls, we must go out to them. That is no ground for abandoning the weekly
gospel meeting however. There are many ways of reaching the lost and we must be ready to use every scriptural
means. All the details recorded below have occurred since my first newsletter
was sent out in August.
REPORT OF OPEN AIR PREACHING
Luton. Peter, who recently asked for a
bible, now tells me he has been baptized into the Mormon church. For years I
have preached the gospel to him. I asked him what they had required of him, - what questions did they
ask? He had only to promise to read the book of Mormon and sign a declaration
giving 10% of his income to these folk.
What
a foul and satanic cult Mormonism is. These really are birds of the air waiting
to snatch away the seed. But he took a bible and listened to the gospel again.
A week later he told me he wanted to be saved but still does nothing about it.
He does not yet acknowledge his soul's great need. Listening to our
conversation on this occasion was an anglican pentecostal. (What a combination
of errors!) I think he wanted to lead him off to his place. Sometimes the fowls
have to be driven away or they will devour all.
Leighton Buzzard School holidays are often
hazardous times for open air preaching. I was attacked by a 12 year old lad who
kicked my text-display to pieces, causing several of the texts to blow about the High Street.
Two of his friends, however, picked it all up for me. The following week I had
no trouble and preached to the bus queue with much liberty. One man left the
queue to tell me he had now heard me preach in three different towns and was
pleased to hear the gospel going forth.
Dunstable It is very quiet in the precinct now that
Sainsbury's have moved out of town. I have decided to move out too, and so
preach in Tring instead.
Tring is two miles from our hall. I have
spent three Friday afternoons there so far. A man spoken to on the first visit
has been there each time since. I stand with my back to the parish church
Tower Hil There are less tourists now, and
the hecklers seem to be more subdued. A few
people gather to listen and there are sometimes opportunities for
conversations with some. Other preachers come here so I try to get in first. I
do not believe in competing with anybody though the sectarians (7th day
adventists, romanists, charismatics etc.) will do so when they come.
Aylesbury. Some moslems listened, on my
last visit, but there was no opposition.
"Malcolm" introduced himself. He
told me he was an atheist and then showed me a little T.B.S. booklet, he had
carefully preserved in his wallet.
COMMENT
No longer is it necessary for someone to
learn the Greek language to gain a deeper understanding of God's Word. This
volume provides you with all you need to explore every idiom and nuance of the
original Greek text (Back cover of July issue of Believers Magazine,
advertising the Zodhiates Word Study Dictionary)
Believers know that it was never necessary
to do such a thing, though profitable if one is able.The words of Tyndale must
surely remain true for us today-"...I will cause a boy that driveth a
plough shall know more of the scripture than thou doest." 1COR.2:9-16
shows up the error
of thinking that the scriptures cannot be understood without the aid of the
scholars, most of whom are apostate modernists anyway. The deep things of God
are spiritually discerned through the operation of the Holy Spirit. They will
never be discovered through the pages of
a lexicon. What should have been helps - lexicons etc.- are now being used by
Satan to rob the believer of his dependancy on the Spirit of God. But we have
the mind of Christ. Note also 1 John 2v20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One,
and ye know all things, and v.27...the same anointing teacheth you of all
things. All things include the deep
things of God and without recourse to additional helps or aids or modernistic
scholars. Believers may continue to
rely on the English Bible.
. The words of Romans 5 v.1 as they appear
in the A.V. have brought comfort to multitudes of believers:- Therefore being
justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. This
peace is the present possession of every soul justified by faith, i.e., of
every born again believer. But the R.V. would rob us of this peace, making it a
thing to be striven for, even after conversion, by altering the reading to being
therefore justified by faith, let us have peace with God....Our peace has been
secured on the cross.
Metzger (whose feminized New R.S.V. is
about to hit the market) would have us believe that the error came about and
was perpetuated in the vast majority of manuscripts because scribes, copying by
dictation, misheard the word evolem.
The Vaticanus and the Siniaticus and one
or two other manuscripts managed to get
it right. If you believe that you really will believe anything..
The
words why hast Thou forsaken me, Mat.27
V.46 have been rendered "why didst Thou forsake me" by W.
Kelly and these have been taken up with enthusiasm by some of our
brethren.
However, we find the following all in
agreement with the A.V. :- Tyndale; R.V.; J.N.D.; R.S.V.; N.I.V., Douay version
and many others. So why change it? Because, we are told, it is in the aorist
tense and never mind the weight of evidence against such a change. So I look it
up in my Bagster's Analytical Greek Lexicon and read ecjasekipe? 2nd. Pers. Sing.
Aorist Ind.
Act. and Mr. Newberry tells us the aorist is a "point in the expanse of
time".So now we know. But note 2Tim 4v.10 for Demas hath forsaken me. The
same Greek word is used and also in the aorist tense. It may be that the act of
forsaking took place in a moment of time but the condition of being forsaken
continued up to the time of Paul's writing his second letter to Timothy.
We believe the Lord was still forsaken as
He uttered those solemn words Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani. If not then uncertainty is cast on the efficacy of
His atoning work, for Christ died for our sins and the words "why didst
Thou forsake me suggest that the forsaking had ended before His death. The A.V.
translation is the only acceptable one Forsaken once e'en of Thy God,
O Lord, our sins on Thee were laid;
But now Thou art enthroned on high-
The proof for us that peace was made.
TRANSMISSION OF N.T. MANUSCRIPTS
Advocates of modern versions tell us that
it is impossible to copy lengthy passages without making a large number of
mistakes. They tell us also that the work of copying N.T. manuscripts was left
largely to ignorant ungodly monks
D.A.Carson in his book The King James Version Debate issued a challenge. He wrote “People
are not capable of copying a lengthy piece of written material without
introducing some errors. This is easily proved. Sit down and copy out the
Gospel of John. After you have finished, read it through and correct it. Then
give it to two or three friends and have each of them correct your correction.
No more evidence will be needed.
No indeed! I have copied the gospel of John longhand to chapter 10
without error and I am quite confident that the first believers did the same
with all the N.T. writings. So the first foundational tenet of modern textual
criticism is shown to be false. Scripture can be copied accurately. Believers
made their own copies as the manuscripts became available. And bear in mind too
that in the 1st. cent. A.D. literacy was
at a high level throughout the Roman Empire. Even slaves could read and write
and almost all, including slaves, were
at least bilingual.
Revised RSV is 'No Bible!' -Prof
Judisch Zondervan Publishing House of
Grand Rapids, Michigan, one of the world's largest Christian publishers (and
still owned by Rupert Murdoch), is to produce the New Revised Standard Version complete
with the Apocrypha. Zondervan's promotional material includes an endorsement by
television preacher Robert Schuller, of the Crystal Palace in California, whose
teaching is strongly at odds with evangelical theology
The New RSV translation team was headed by Dr. Bruce Metzger of
Princeton Seminary. It is a 'feminized' translation in which masculine language
has been removed from the text regardless of the distortions which have
resulted. Prof. Douglas Judisch of Concordia Seminary described this
translation as 'no bible -any more than a gelding is a stallion. (Zondervan are also the owners of the New
International Version of the Bible.) -SWORD AND TROWEL 1993 NO.2
Metzger is also on the editorial panel of the Nestle's Greek New
Testament(so lauded by some of our brethren). It's latest edition (the 26th)
received 700 alterations.
Newsletter 3 feb 94
We
hear or read this statement, "the A.V. wrongly reads....." and we
might think that we are being given the benefit of scholarly information. More
often it is modernistic misinformation. An example lies before me. I quote:-
"Marriage is honourable in all ,and
the bed undefiled: but fornicators (not "whoremongers" as the A.V.
wrongly reads)...." unquote. John Spencer helped translate the book of
Hebrews for the 1611 A.V. Bible. At 19
years of age he lectured in Greek at Oxford. Another translator was John Bois.
By the age of 6 he could read and write Hebrew. Most of the translators were
fluent in a number of languages besides Hebrew and Greek. I would like to know
what are the linguistic abilities of our modern critics.
As for the AV rendering of
"pornos" translated "whoremonger" in Heb.13 v. 4, I look into
my Parkhurst's Greek Lexicon, 1805 edition, and read:-" pornos: An impure
or unclean person of whatever kind." Reliable English Dictionaries tell us
that "whoremonger" is in current usage, (i.e. not an archaic word)
meaning an immoral person. The A.V. therefore rightly reads.
"The preaching of the cross is to them that perish
foolishness", so they tell us it was never a cross but a stake. If no cross
then Christ was not crucified . The Hebrews had no word for cross, that
barbaric form of punishment being foreign to them. Thus Peter (Acts5v.30, and
10v.39) and Paul (Acts13v.29 and Gal.3v.13) preaching to Jews and speaking of Christ on the tree have in
mind the words of Dt.21v.23, He that is hanged (on a tree) is accursed of God)
The word for tree in the N.T. may also be translated stave, but it is never
translated cross. The word used for cross is never translated any other way,
i.e. never spoken of as a stave. The symbol of the cross was well enough known
in pre-Christian times.
.
BOOK
REVIEW
NEW AGE VERSIONS; G.A. RIPLINGER; PB.690pp;
AV PUBLICATIONS, OHIO; 1993 (I do not agree with Riplinger in all she wrote or stands for)
The author shows that the modern Bible versions, which include the NIV,
NASB, NKJV and many others, carry the religion of the New Age Movement. Six
years of researching modern versions and their underlying texts have revealed the degree to which perversion has
taken place. Words and phrases have been changed without any textual authority
whatsoever (e.g. the name Lucifer is exchanged for morning star in the NIV
rendering of Isaiah 14:12-17, so that Satan might get the worship due only to
the Lord and not be portrayed as the fallen one). The two modern mutilators of
scripture, Westcott and Hort, are revealed for what they were -winebibbers,
steeped in occult practices and God-hating. The book is well documented and
spoilt only by a number of typographical errors.
QUOTE No. 1
"...there has been a revival at the
popular level of an advocacy of the textus receptus and the KJV. Much of this
is simply the rhetoric of misinformed fundamentalism." - G.D.Fee Studies
in the Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, 1993
There is nothing more fundamental than believing the Bible, which the
modern critics do not.
QUOTE No. 2 “The text of the N.T. in its earliest
stages was a vibrant, living text that functioned dynamically within the
developing church." E.J.Epp ibid.
These men, who regard themselves as
leaders in the field of textual
criticism, really do believe that they can make it up as they go along. For
them there is no established Word of God and there never was. These are the
promoters of every succeeding perversion of scripture. It is essential that we contend
earnestly for the faith once given, brethren, for the critics will rob us of
the Word of Life.
QUOTE No. 3 "No kind of evidence needs
more the test of cross-examination than that of the experts. In no other sphere
save that of religious controversy would sensible people accept the dicta of
experts until they had been thus tested; and yet the history of the Higher
Criticism movement gives abundant proof that no class of expert is more
untrustworthy than the critics -Sir Robert Anderson; The Bible and Modern
Criticism”
The same may be said of the experts in
Lower Criticism, which name was changed to Textual Criticism in a further
attempt to deceive the elect.
INTEGRITY OF THE A.V. BIBLE (PART 4thus
Early waymarks vol.2
MAY 1994 NEWSLETTER 4
A foreign gentleman, a Mr.Palau, came to Luton to preach but was unable to erect his tent. He pronounced the people of Luton as being
"spiritual". I wonder then, why so many of them shout abuse and
obscenities at me whilst I preach in the town centre.
The
Mohammedans had a stand a few yards from me last Saturday morning but I never
heard anyone shout at them. There are other groups now preaching regularly in
the town centre on a Saturday, including the Taylorites who are now no more
than an evil and false cult.
Peter, a regular member of my
"congregation", has at last started to read the bible I gave him
Hitchin There has never been any opposition to my preaching here.
Three times different folk have brought
cups of tea to me. Two years ago a young girl told me she could not
believe the gospel because God never helped her. I asked her what help did she
want and she confessed that her husband was in prison in Aylesbury and she was
unable to visit him. I took her on several visits (each trip about 100 miles
for me) and was able to speak to her husband also, But though she experienced
the goodness of God, she still made no response to the gospel and I suspect
that her husband tried to use me in the furtherance of his crimes. Last Friday,
being a warm day, a number of folk were sitting on the benches around the
square, so I had a good audience. A drunk tried to interfere but soon gave up.
Covent Garden, London
The antics of a young Italian tourist
standing next to me on the wall and mimicking,drew a crowd of about 200 to
listen to the gospel. On the next visit to London, at Tower Hill, after
preaching for about half an hour I found myself surrounded by the regular
hecklers. They tried to give me a rough time with all their clever debates and
philosophies, laughing and jeering at every response I made. I think it was
very much like Mars hill
Leighton Buzzard
A man told me he knew he needed to be saved
and that he wanted to be saved but admitted that the world's attractions held
him back. Some would tell him that him that he could be saved and still enjoy
his sport or whatever. What a hellish lie that is. He went on to tell me that
his girl-friend, who was born again, had warned him that he would go to hell if
he didn't get saved. I thought it unlikely that she was saved, for like
attracts like and very few genuine believers, indwelt by the Spirit of God,
would make that kind of yoke. He did take a copy of The Reason Why and I trust
he has now responded to its message.
Dunstable.
I
decided to revisit this town though it is very quiet where I stand now that
Sainsbury's has gone. A young man asked me how I knew "it" was all
true. The answer to that is simple enough:- taste and see that the Lord is good,
Ps.34v.8. The word of God is able to speak to every heart to make these things
real. To the scoffer we ask, "how do you know it isn't true?"
Unbelief is wilful disobedience against God.
This young man listened and showed some concern but he would not take a
tract.
Sometimes I am told that my preaching
drives people away. I notice that the Lord's preaching had that effect (John6 v.66). It seems that
we must say nothing at all that will disturb unconverted folk, whether to those
in the open-air, or to those who sit in our gospel halls so regularly on Sunday
evenings. They might stop coming so better to stop the effective preacher
coming. But a few convicted sinners might get saved if they were reminded a
little more often of the horrors of hell. Alas some of our brethren are even
denying the reality of hell. The fire is no more than figurative! I suppose
they are figurative worms too, that never die. Some would have us believe that
the fire is that of remorse. In which case it is not God Who punishes but the
sinner in hell will punish himself. And I have heard of folk here on earth
being filled with remorse, so hell will not bring anything new for them. If the
fire is not literal it is not anything. They want us to believe it's all in the
mind. What deception!
But
heresies abound today. It is not only a watered down gospel that is being
preached, but its essential truths are being denied. We hear of the true
humanity of Christ being denied in that wicked teaching of a foetal implant in
Mary's womb. Others persist in the satanic lie that Christ could have sinned. Also,
those who boast in the NIV must believe that Joseph was the father of the Lord
(Luke 2v.33). Or do they believe only what they want to believe in the
"bible"?(The NIV has no claim to the title "Holy Bible").
Those who follow that rule regard themselves as the final authority, superior
to the scriptures themselves. If a
settled, and 100% reliable bible, as the AV is, should be rejected, then it is inevitable that error will be taught
INTEGRITY OF THE A.V. BIBLE (PART 4thus
It is being taught that the seed, Mt13, is
not the word, but is a person who is sown. It is conceded that in Lk8v.11 The
seed is the word of God is an accurate translation, so making the Lord say one
thing one day but another thing on another. The A.V. translaters would not make
the Lord contradict Himself as do all modern versions. They knew that the Word
is that seed and he which received seed by the way side Mt.13v.19, means
"he that was sown with the seed by the way side It was sown in his heart.
The verse says so. The sower never sowed him anywhere. The scholars cannot
grasp these elementary truths. Professing themselves to be wise, they became
fools
*****
No Enemies
You have no enemies, you say?
Alas, my friend, the boast is poor.
He
who has mingled in the fray
Of duty, that the brave endure
Must have made foes, if you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You've never turned the wrong to right,
You've been a coward in the fight
Charles Mackay.
*****
QUOTE:
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 S.
Paisley; Words in Season, Feb 1994
The above statement 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, word for word,
jot for jot, tittle for tittle as when first given. You cannot say that for 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 they must tell us which is the inspired rendering; the one on
the sacred page, or their innovation. The common answer is the one that makes
sense to them is the correct reading. This is 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. That has been the rationalistic approach of
textual criticism from the beginning.
An example may be found in 2 Thes.2v.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 the change is very poor. The vast majority of
all manuscripts support "day of Christ". Some Alexandrian manuscripts
(i.e. found in Egypt
where early corruptions of the scriptures are known to have taken place)
support "day of the Lord". So let us believe what the bible says and
admit that maybe we do not fully understand the doctrine of the day of Christ.
The Thessalonians had no such problems and they most certainly read "day
of Christ".
The Day of the Lord had been expounded in
the 1st epistle to the Thessalonians. They knew it would come as a thief in the
night, unexpectedly, and that it would not affect them (ch.5v.4) They knew that
the Day of Christ would affect them (2Thes.2v.5 and compare Phil.1v.10 &
2v.16) and that it would be preceded by
the great apostasy. If the Day of Christ had come ("at hand" means
that), then for a start they had missed the rapture. What troubled them was the
false teaching they were getting on the subject including apparently a letter
from Paul himself saying the Day had come. Note that! Falsified scripture.
(N.B. 2Cor.2v.17) Thus we are warned in scripture that men would from the
beginning seek to corrupt the Word of God. Note that the N.I.V. mutilates even
this verse to read "....we do not peddle the word of God for profit."
But that is what every modern version is about.
A correspondent
has reminded me of a statement made by Mr. Newberry in his introduction to his
Enlishman'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 are no plenary inspired scriptures existing
today, according to Mr. Newberry. So we have no trustworthy bible today and we
are compelled to accept the opinions of the "experts".
But having given His inspired word, would
God not be able to preserve that same word for ever? Or is the Scripture, The
Word of the Lord endureth for ever, false? And what about Isa.48v.8;
1Pet.1v.23; Ps.12vv.6,7? Metzger's name reappears as co-editor of the Oxford
Companion to the Bible.
Under the heading Jesus Christ we are informed that His father
was a carpenter; he never made any claims to deity and He was at first a
disciple of John the Baptist until he
formed His own break-away movement. The virgin birth is described as a Roman
Catholic doctrine. There are further blasphemous insinuations made against the
Lord which I would not print, though I have read them in this book. Metzger is
described as a Liberal Theologian, a leading textual critic of our day, author
of a feminised bible, a member of the Nestle's Text committee. So the lie that
Joseph was the father of the Lord found in Lk.2vv.33,43 of the N.I.V. is still
persisted in by this man. Prof. D. Gooding was in the "team" that
produced the N.I.V.
The only name I recognised among the contributors
to the Oxford Companion was F.F.Bruce A free copy of "Why not the
NIV?" Reasons why the NIV is
unreliable: By G.R. Guile, may be obtained by sending a A5 s.a.e. to me
Newsletter 5
May 11th
In Luton,
I
was attacked by a group of gypsy children. A pole behind me prevented me from
being knocked to the ground.
Met
David who professed to be saved and who insisted on buying me a can of coke.
Then Pauline, another professed believer, stopped to speak. She wanted to talk
of all her problems. I am often called upon to give counseling in the street,
which I am happy to do. I notice however, that counseling is big business these
days, but I do not believe that counseling in its modern form nor psychiatry
have any part to play in assembly life. We have elders for that work.
May 12th.
Elizabeth listened for a while in Leighton
Buzzard and then expressed a desire to come along to a meeting. As our hall was
too far for her, I was able to put her in touch with the saints at New
Bradwell, where she has attended a number of times. I don't think she is saved
yet
May 18th.
David was waiting for me when I arrived in
Luton today. After I had preached, he wanted to tell me all his troubles so we
adjourned to a nearby cafe. I came to the conclusion that he was mentally ill,
because he could not distinguish reality from fantasy. I have not seen him
since
June 8th
Two young friends came to support the preaching again in Luton. We find ourselves engaged in bible study in the
street from time to time, as well as preaching and counseling. Today it was a
two hour "meeting". Peter came by, as he often does but still no
movement on his part
June
22nd In Luton, had a long conversation
with Phillip, a Baptist, who sees nothing wrong in believers having TV's and
thinks that the best way to win souls is to go to the pub or the football match
with them. I reminded him that friendship of the world is enmity with God. His
antagonism towards that Scripture persuaded me that he was unconverted
June 23rd
Preached twice from the steps of the Market Cross, Leighton Buzzard.
Each time for about a half-hour. In between was "question time" with
a group of youths who were sitting on the steps. The questions were mainly
sensible, one teen-aged girl confessing that she was frightened of dying
June 29th
Rather quiet for a change, here in Luton,
though not entirely without some heckling. A young man introduced himself as a
believer, a Messianic Jew. They have their own church, here in Luton. He claimed to believe the New Testament but at the
same time wished to maintain the Jewish (i.e. Judaistic) culture. Paul had
plenty to say about folk like that in his letter to the Galatians. They were a
false cult in Paul's day . They are a false cult today. Of course, Christendom
at large is strongly Judaistic in its attempts to maintain a ritualistic and
legalistic system.
July
6th Luton.
It began to rain as I preached and I was without my umbrella, so I was
compelled to stop. I had a burden to return after the rain, and immediately met
Mick who was looking for me and wanted to be saved. How easy it would have been
to extract a "confession" from him! I spoke to him for some time
without further response on his part. After him came a white Mohammedan took
offence at my preaching. I pointed out to him that the historic Mohammed was
not what Islam claims him to be, so he walked away muttering oaths as he went.
Two J.W.'s then approached and I was able to preach Christ to them for a while.
July 27th George St., Luton.
There are some days when the air feels heavy with satanic malevolence. I had
hardly begun to preach when a man came and put up a table next to me with a
display of cultist literature on it. Later a drunk arrived and stood facing me
whilst he sang various pub songs
July 28th
A young woman listened, in Dunstable. She told me she was a R.C. and
that she agreed with all that I had said! Some of her friends passed by so she
called to them to listen, assuring them that they need not be put off because I
was wearing a suit, the message was still true!! Of course I wear a suit when
preaching, even if the temperature
is up in the eighties. Being a
servant of the Lord demands that dignity
July 29th A very good hearing on the Market Square in
Hitchin today. There are now refreshment stalls with people sitting at the
tables nearby. I thought the vendors might object to my preaching but that hasn't happened yet.
Several youths engaged me in fierce debate so
I answered loudly enough for the people at the tables to hear, at which
a young West Indian woman came over to
tell me she was a believer and that she agreed with every word I had spoken so
far
Many other days were spent preaching. Care
of the local assembly continues. Other days were engaged in
"tent-making", i.e. supply teaching
I am informed that Mr. Palau will not
be returning to Luton
(see my last Newsletter). TML. intend to sue the tent suppliers for failing to
put a tent up for him on his last visit. Now why should they do that? TML is a
local evangelical organisation, TML standing for "There's more to
Life". Since the lost do not possess life, they cannot obtain more of what
they have not got. I suspect these "evangelicals" do not understand
the true nature of the gospel. And if they do not understand it, they certainly
cannot preach it
INTEGRITY OF THE A.V. BIBLE (PART 5
Bible believers understand the words...the church of God, which he hath purchased with his
own blood (Acts 20:28) to
be a clear statement of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. The verse is
accurately translated from reliable manuscripts. Because the verse shows Christ
to be God it has long been a source of contention to some. J. Heading wrote,
"the translation 'purchased with his own blood' can be paraphrased more
helpfully as 'purchased with the blood of his own Son' ”Acts p.254.
He knew that it could not be translated
thus. There is no authority whatever for the inclusion of "Son" in
the text. So Heading paraphrased more helpfully! This is an attempt to improve
on the work of the Holy Spirit Who supplied and preserves all scripture.
Hort
was the first to include "son" in his Greek text, though they dared
not print it in the R.V.. Darby's New Translation (a mutation of the R.V.)
reads "with the blood of his own." which is ambiguous and not good
English. W.Kelly confesses that "the expression as it stands in the
Authorized and Revised Versions, is unexampled in scripture (must every unique
statement of scripture be abandoned then?) and what is more,...it is peculiarly
embarrassing for the Christian scholar." An exposition of the Acts of the Apostles, p.309
But who are these Christian scholars? The
wine-bibbing, spiritists Westcott and Hort were two of them. If you know of a
Christian scholar not marked by rationalism, I would like to know his name.
Kelly went on to say, "if the true text were[?] we must translate it as in
the Authorized Version." Well, that is how it appears in the majority of
manuscripts and only the few perverted manuscripts change it. It is indeed the
true text
For of a truth against thy Holy Child
Jesus, whom thou hast anointed....by the name of thy Holy Child Jesus. (Acts4
:27,30) These verses link the deity of Christ with His virgin birth. The word
CHILD appears in Tyndale, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishop's Bible
and even in the R.C. Douay-Rheims Bible
Also, there is not one ms. giving DOULOS ( =
servant). The greek word used is PAIS which the A.V. translators were well
aware may be translated CHILD or SERVANT according to the context. Thus He hath holpen his servant Israel (Luke
1:54and healed the child (Luke 9:42) If we read SERVANT instead of CHILD in
ACTS 4:27,30 then Christ is brought down to the level of a mortal sinning man
for in that same context we read of thy servant (PAIS) David (v.25)
Again we see the spiritual intelligence of
the A.V. translators
REVIEW OF BOOK REVIEW
A review of D.A.Carson's book THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE appears in
the latest issue of PRECIOUS SEED. There, we read "This book is to be
commended for a fair representation of what the author set out to do, viz. to
concern himself with principles and not specific biblical passages in his
discussion." By that the bible believer is forewarned that this man cannot
substantiate his "principles" with one verse of scripture, though he
quotes a few. His "principles" reveal a lack of integrity on his part
and one of his false claims I dealt with in my 2nd Newsletter. His 14 theses
were discedited in a T.B.S. leaflet, "A review of D.A.Carson's The King
James Version Debate" as long ago as 1979, (article no.69). The first thesis; "There is no unambiguous
evidence that the Byzantine text-type was known before the middle of the fourth
century" is misleading. "Byzantine text-type" is a fancy name
given to the Greek text, better known as the
Received Text, of the A.V. Bible. Carson's
claim is that it was invented around 350A.D. He
ignores the fact that those readings peculiar to the Received Text are
found in early versions such as the Syriac and Old Latin. They are also quoted
by the so-called Fathers, such as Clement, Origen etc.
Of
course, there never was any such thing as a "text-type" in the first 4 centuries A.D. but the
majority of manuscripts existing today
carry the Received Text. The versions and the Fathers prove that the
"original copy" of these manuscripts must have existed prior to
350A.D
Hogg and Vine, in the introduction to their
commendable commentary on Galatians, wrote in 1922 concerning the A.V.:-
"now seldom printed". Last year the T.B.S. distributed over 346,000
Bibles and over 155,000 New Testaments. In addition, 49,000 Bibles and over
3,300,000 New Testaments were distributed under royalty agreements. All were A.V. or its equivalent in other
languages of course. Now add to these figures the sales of A.V. Bibles from all
the other Bible publishers. Now try to buy a copy of the R.V. You will be hard
put to it. Now ask yourself why that should be.
Here
is another strange paradox. You may go into the PROTESTANT TRUTH SOCIETY
bookshop in Fleet Street and buy a R.C. version. viz. the N.I.V. or a bible
containing the Apocrapha. But you will not be able to buy an A.V. Bible at the R.C.
bookshop in Victoria Street.
Think on these things!! Alas! many of our ministering brethren do not believe
any bible to be the Word of God. They may tell you that some translations
contain more of the Word of God than others but it's all a matter of personal
preference. The enclosed leaflet, "Questions for those who use modern
versions of the Bible" should help to resolve the issue for those concerned.
(remaining back numbers to be added)
No comments:
Post a Comment