Waymarks 52 February 2008

Waymarks 52

Report of Open air Preaching

19^th December LUTON T. C.  Christmas lights, unlit, hang miserably along the street. There is no “Jingle Bell” music either, thankfully, it being supposed that it could offend the ethnic minorities, who as it happens simply adore Christmas. So it is quiet along the High Street and the gospel can be preached. But the preacher is totally ignored today.

At last a lady approaches but takes a step past me to the Big Issue boy standing next to me. Actually he got here first, but I’ve been preaching here for 33 years now.  “Have you been blessed?” The lady asks the B I B. He hadn’t, apparently. She bought a copy of Big Issue, and went on her way.

2^nd January LUTON T.C.  I get a response to my preaching today. A man shouts at me, “It’s all over”. I ignore him and continue preaching so he repeats his cry. If he means God is no longer saving souls, he is very much mistaken. The presence of a gospel preacher on the street is an indication of God’s mercy and longsuffering. The presence of believers here on earth is an indication the rapture has not yet taken place —all be it many are asleep.

16^th January LUTON T.C. Today somebody wants to talk to me. My first reaction was that I should advise him to dispose of his can of lager lest he get arrested. I though better of this as I would probably then lose any opportunity of preaching to him. He wanted me to know that he had been brought up Catholic but had now become a Christian. His main question was “what do I think of marriage?”  I told him God instituted marriage for the whole human race.  He seemed pleased with this reply and said he was worried about his relationship. He was living with his pal’s girlfriend who was soon due out of prison. I told him to repent and get right with God as soon as he could . At which he asked me to pray for him. I asked his name. “Oscar”, he replied. I was about to pray for this man’s conversion when two of his friends arrived. “Hallo Linden,” said one of them.

I learned they were all living rough and they seemed to me to be the sort that go around kicking people’s heads in on a Saturday night. Two of them accepted Way of Salvation booklets.

“While I was talking to the first man another man arrived who wanted to speak to me. Oscar/Linden told him to clear off because he was already talking to me.

12thFebruary LUTON T.C.  Preached for a while, beginning as usual with John 3: 16. Then S— arrived, introducing herself as the sister of P—. I didn’t recognise her but she seemed to know me well enough. Her sister, P— has been to our Gospel Hall several times. Although R.C., she had taken a lot of interest in the gospel but had never made a profession. She spent a period in a psychiatric hospital and while there nominated me as her pastor. This gave me any time access to the hospital.

S— accepted a Way of Salvation booklet.

Next three small children came and stood in front of me, listening to the gospel. The oldest, about five years old, told me she liked my story because she was Catholic. They were waiting for their mother who had gone into a nearby shop, leaving them alone in the street. When she came out she seemed not in the least concerned that they had been listening to a street preacher!

AV Verses Vindicated

Mark 9: 42

And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.

Darby puts “in me” in square brackets, indicating his objection to these words and casting doubt on their genuineness. They have indeed been bracketed in the Critical Text and are now missing from some modern versions, notably the NASV.

The manuscript evidence in favour of “in me” is massive. Their removal is therefore malicious. To some it matters not what is believed as long as one does not believe in Christ.

What confounds the critic is that not even the Codex Vaticanus omits “in me” while its twin pillar of the critical Text has thrown out these words.

Acts 20: 28 (a)

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers....

“...in the which..” (RV, ESV, etc.).

David Oliver, in Truth and Tidings (Nov. 07) wrote,

The Authorized Version is misleading in translating [this]verse,

It is assumed that the AV translators were unlettered clods. Such is the crass ignorance of those who make such an assumption. The Greek preposition en is translated “over” in the AV Bible at this verse. The translators were well aware of the wide use of en as does the Bible student who has learned to use his Greek lexicon. There are many words in the English language that can be used legitimately to translate en besides “in”. The choice depends on the context.

The object is “overseers”, one who oversees or superintends, therefore the most suitable English preposition is “over”.

This in no way diminishes the fact the overseer is first a brother among his brethren.

David Oliver presumably does not believe the Authorized Version is the Holy Bible. He thinks the ESV is “more accurate”.

Galatians 5: 19

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

We are not surprised that adultery is missing from modern versions, from the RV onwards. Jeremiah tells us, They were as fed horses in the morning: every one neighed after his neighbour’s wife. (Jer. 5: 8). This sin remains common practice throughout Christendom.

The NIV reads, “The acts of the sinful nature are obvious”  which is very vague for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

moicheia (adultery) is found in the majority of cursive manuscripts. It is also quoted by three of the “Fathers”.

2 Thes.2:2.

….the day of Christ is 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 first 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.

*The Hodges/Farstad MajorityText footnote for this verse shows the consensus of Alexandrian manuscripts to have Kyrios, against the majority of manuscripts which have Xristos.

For the Bible believer, this speaks for itself. It is the battle of apostasy against faith.

Hebrews 12: 16,17

Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright.

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sort it carefully with tears.

ASV    “....he found no place for a change of mind in his father”.

CEV    “....even though he begged his father and cried.”

GW     “....even though he begged and cried for the blessing, he couldn’t do anything to change what had happened.”

Those opposed to genuine heart repentance make a travesty of this verse. The Scripture teaches us here that Esau lived and died an unrepentant fornicator and profane person. He made a great show with his crocodile tears and hoped there might be some way out of his mess but he was never truly sorry for his deeds. He wished to repent on his own terms as many do today.

There are many who show a degree of remorse. They wish they could change things and they make a form of believing. They’ll do anything but change their mind about their sin. They will even give it up BUT in their heart they relish what they have done so they have not repented.

Esau was such a man. Suggesting it was his father who needed to change his mind is an opinion not found in the text and it mocks God.

The Progress of Apostasy

The history of Textual Criticism is the story of Apostasy. A study of the lives of modern textual critics from the 18^th century on will reveal this. Each rising generation of critics appear more apostate than those who went before them, from Griesbach, and Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort, Aland, Metzger, to Ehrmann who denies the faith entirely because of his studies in Criticism.

It is not my intention to deal with apostasy generally but to describe my own conflict with it as it is met in Gospel Halls today.

Twenty minutes after I got saved I bought a Bible. It was an Authorized Version. There were no other versions on the bookstand that night. All the preachers read and quoted only from this Bible.

By the mid sixties certain men were telling us better renderings were to be found in the RV or even JND. This they claimed was due to a better scholarship. It was not long therefore before they were telling us how much they upheld the inspiration and inerrancy of the original Scriptures. The implication of this being that our present day Bibles could not be inspired and inerrant. Some of us woke up at this point. We realized that these men who came to our platforms were destroying faith in God’s written word. We began to read what the critics were saying so that we might answer them.

So by the eighties were learned that the critics were teaching the non-recoverability of the “originals”. This left them free to make up their own bibles based on likely readings, or what they thought the writers were trying to say. Formal translations were regarded as not possible and not necessary.

The verbal inspiration of Scripture had gone and for the last thirty years I have never heard it taught in any Gospel Hall.

Yet brethren will refer to the inspired word, while privately believing there is no such thing.

The latest development in textual criticism is there were no originals anyway. The critic tells us God did not inspire certain men to write what He directed. They tell us that God did not really have anything to do with the Bible anyway. What happened was that over a period of time stories were passed on by word of mouth concerning the words and deeds of Jesus. Naturally these were embellished as time went on to include miracles and resurrection etc. Some disciples decided they had better write it all down using the pseudonyms of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, etc. These were collected together and the bible appeared.

Already we are hearing allusions to this from our bible-teachers. Peter didn’t write the epistles by Peter!  Apostasy is upon us. The Bible is out. Of course our public men do not want to put themselves out of business so they will give their little devotional talks, but they don’t need a Bible to do it. The Brethren slumber on.

The Barrenness of the Brethren Gospel

I shall refer to one example of Brethren preaching that I listened to recently. It is typical of so many I have heard over the years.

The meeting began with the singing of three gospel hymns. They were “old time” hymns, sung from the Irish Gospel Hymn Book but still popular today with N. I. Brethren and some G B assemblies. They were hymns sung by most evangelical churches in the past. They were hymns I like to sing.

Then came an opening prayer which lasted about one minute. This is probably a good thing too if the desired audience should be made up of unconverted folk, not used to lengthy theological prayers. The praying had been done before the meeting started.

This was followed by the reading of the Bible and here he trouble started. We were told that a few words would be read and they would be applied out of context. They were “For how long shall thy journey be?” Neh. 2: 6.

There were no good gospel passages for the preacher to use apparently. He indicated by his use of Scripture his low regard for it. His message was to be a succession of semi-related anecdotes. He would not be relying on Scripture to apply his message and he quoted no texts during his preaching.

One appreciates that it is difficult to mention every gospel word or phrase within the bounds of a 45 minute gospel message but to make no mention at all of the cross? Not only was the cross ignored but also no mention was made of Lord, Jesus, virgin birth, deity, resurrection, repentance,  conversion, faith, trust, forgiveness, pardon ,lake of fire, eternal punishment, Scripture.

It was all a succession of anecdotes. Some were quite moving and one felt one’s emotions being stirred. Some appeared totally irrelevant. We were told of the surgeon who stopped to ask a drink at a house while out walking. The little girl of the house brought him a glass of milk. Later the little girl was taken ill and needed surgery. The surgeon, unrecognised, performed the operation and as the family was poor he wrote on his bill, “Paid in full —with one glass of milk.”

I missed what theological point this fulfilled. I think it was we can gain salvation with as little as a glass of milk. Certainly not “nothing to pay” because the little girl had done something to merit her bill being paid.

The meeting closed with a short prayer for people to get right with God and another gospel hymn.

Those present appeared to be impressed with this message. None showed any concern that this did not relate to the gospel revealed in the New Testament.

This was not a case of the preaching of the cross; the cross was not even mentioned.  Eugene Higgins certainly did not preach Christ crucified. The person of Christ, His deity etc. was not mentioned. No instruction was given concerning the reality of hell. The word hell was mentioned but very quickly passed over. No advice was given concerning the responsibilities of the new convert. No suggestion that there were things that would have to be given up. No one was made to feel uncomfortable.

********

A blasphemous entry appears on the Hebron Hall, Bicester, website:­

All of this prefigured Christ, who by becoming man also became our ‘near-kinsman’ (Heb 2:11-17). “That he might have a right to redeem man, He took upon Him human nature, and thus became a kinsman of the great family of the human race, and thereby possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin apart], and of buying back to man that inheritance which had been forfeited by transgression.” Adam Clarke.

It seems this is the stated belief of those meeting at the above Gospel Hall.—Christ took on Himself a fallen human nature. (But we doubt if many at Hebron Hall have seen this website. It is largely the work of M Penfold who has this same statement on his other website, webtruth.org)

 For Christ to have a fallen (i.e. sinful) nature, He must have had a human father. Adding to Clarke’s quote the words [sin apart] only aggravates the issue, implying that the Lord could sin because He had a fallen nature but chose not to.

The surprising thing about all this is that reputable brethren visit this Gospel Hall with no qualms as to what they will be associated with.

 Devils or Demons? by will Kinney, and found on Steve van Nattan’s website (copyright lifted)

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines OF DEVILS." 1 Timothy 4:1
There are a multitude of Bible critics who insist the King James Bible is in error when it translates the Greek word daimonion as "devils". They tell us this word should be translated as "demons" and not devils, because everyone knows there is only one Devil, that is Satan, and not many.
Let's do a little word study to see if there is any legitimacy to their claims.
The late Baptist pastor and King James Bible defender Bruce Lackey wrote a little book titled Why I Believe the Old King James Bible. On pages 44-48 he says regarding the use of the word devils and other alleged errors in the King James Bible: "Rather than treat these places as errors, why not remember that the King James translators were intelligent and reverent scholars, and try to find out why they did a particular thing in the way that they did?"
Mr Lackey writes: "The word Devils¹ is another word that the critics delight in pouncing on, as a wrong translation. Everyone knows, they say, that there is only one devil (Satan), but many demons. Also, the Greek word from which Odevils¹ comes (DAIMON, and cognates) is different from that which refers to Satan (DIABOLOS). Again, a little investigation will prove this charge to be foolish, to say the least, and ignorant, at the most. Consider:
"(1) The word translated devil,¹ when referring to Satan, does not always refer to him; DIABOLOS is translated slanderers¹ in 1 Timothy 3:11, and as false accusers¹ in 2 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 2:3. In all three places, it refers to human beings. Again, we see the necessity of translating in a manner which will be understood by the readers.
"(2) Devil in the English language has multiple meanings; it may refer to Satan, demons, a very wicked person, an unlucky person (that poor devil), a printer¹s devil (apprentice or errand boy) as any good English dictionary would show. To say that devil¹ is an erroneous translation, because it can only refer to Satan, is to ignore the dictionary!" - Mr. Bruce Lackey.
I might add that to affirm there is only one Devil and this is Satan is also incorrect. In the gospel of John, immediately after Peter said: "Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God", the Lord Himself answered them: "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you IS A DEVIL."
The Lord was obviously referring to Judas Iscariot, and mere man, yet He calls him a devil - DIABOLOS.
Let's look at some of the English dictionaries Mr. Lackey referred to.
Dictionary.Com, and the modern Webster's Dictionary define devil:
1. Devil - In many religions, the major personified spirit of evil, ruler of Hell, and foe of God. Used with the.
2. A subordinate evil spirit; a demon.
3. A wicked or malevolent person.
Demon - Likewise these dictionaries give the following definitions for "demon". Notice numbers 2 and 3.
Main Entry: de·mon
Variant(s): or dae·mon
Etymology: Middle English demon, from Late Latin & Latin; Late Latin daemon evil spirit, from Latin, divinity, spirit, from Greek daimOn, 1 a. an evil spirit b. : a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin 2 usually daemon : an attendant power or spirit: Genius 3 usually daemon : a supernatural being of Greek mythology intermediate between gods and men
New Agers today refer to daemons as good spirits who guide us in this life. I have heard some of the lectures on the Power of Myth by the late Joseph Cambell. He frequently used the word "daemon" in a positive way as some sort of spiritual guide. I'm sure he now knows how wrong he was during his lifetime.
Shakespeare also used the word daemon (demon) is a positive way. Therefore, O Antony, stay not by his side. Thy demon, that thy spirit which keeps thee, is Noble, courageous, high, unmatchable Where Caesar's is not. But near him thy angel Becomes a fear, as being o'erpow'red. . . --Antony and Cleopatra, II.iii.18-22.
Basilides, in his book The Seven Sermons to the Dead, translated by Carl Jung (another New Ager) says: "The daemon of spirituality descends into our soul as the white bird. It is half human and appears as desire-thought... The White Bird is a half-celestial soul of man. He bids with the Mother."
Another point I have never seen raised by these modern version proponents who criticize the King James Bible has to do with the New Testament Greek itself. They love to "go to the Greek" to show us their expertise and convince us of the alleged errors in the Holy Bible.
Regarding the Greek words daimon, and daimonion, which are translated as "devils" in the King James Bible, and as "demons" in the NKJV, NIV, NASB, several Greek lexicons give us the following definitions.
Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon 17th edition 1878 says the verb daimonizomai means "to be possessed by a devil." It then goes on to define daimonion as "an inferior race of divine beings".
Thayer's Greek Lexicon says daimonion is 1. the Divine power, deity, divinity, and 2. a spirit, a being inferior to God, superior to man, in both a good and a bad sense.
Bauer, Arndt & Gingrich likewise tell us daimonion is 1. a deity, a divinity, 2. a demon, an evil spirit.
Kittel's massive work says of both daimon and daimonion that they are first used to denote gods. They can also refer to lesser deities or a protective deity. They also are "messengers between gods and men".
Many modern versions themselves are inconsistent. Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ASV, and Darby render the noun and verb (daimonion, daimonizomai) as "demons" and yet when they come to the adjective of this word in James 3:15 (daimoviwdns) they translate it as "devilish" or "of the devil". "This wisdom descendeth not from above, but is earthly, sensual, DEVILISH." - James 3:15.
The Greek New testament, no matter which one you choose with all the textual variations, all agree in Acts 17:18. Here we see from the New Testament Greek itself the relationship between daimonion and the gods. Remember, the word daimonion meant in Greek mythology an intermediate spirit between the gods and men.
In Acts 17:18 we read: "Then certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks, encountered him. And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange GODS: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection."
The word here translated as "gods" is daimonion, the very same word translated as "devils" in the KJB and many others, and as "demons" in the RSV, NASB, NKJV, ESV, and NIV. Demons = gods.
Another Greek word found in the New Testament shows again this relationship between the daimonion (devils) and religion. In this same chapter (Acts 17:22) the apostle Paul walked around the city of Athens and observed their devotions and altars of pagan gods. Paul says to them: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too SUPERSTITIOUS."
For a more complete study on this verse and why the King James Bible is correct, please see my article http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Acts17-22.html
The word translated as "too superstitious" in the King James Bible is composed of two elements - Deisi and daimonesterous. The first part is the verb deido which means to fear, and the second part is an adjective from the noun daimon, which means devils or demons. The word daimon is used six times in the New Testament and is always translated as devils in the KJB.
What we see here in the Greek language is that the words daimon, and daimonion can both carry the idea of a positive and beneficial spiritual entity. The King James translatos were aware of this, and correctly translated these words as "devils". The word "devils" is directly related to the Devil and we are in no doubt as to which side they are on.
Martin Luther was not confused about this issue when he composed his famous song, A Mighty Fortress is Our God. One of the lines of this great song is: "And though this world with DEVILS filled should threaten to undo us, we will not fear, for God hath willed, His truth to triumph through us."
Most modern versions have removed the word "devils" when it refers to unclean or evil spirits. These include the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV and the ESV.
However there are many Bible versions both before and after the King James Holy Bible that correctly translate this word as devils. Among these are the following:
Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, Webster's 1833 translation (Deut. 32:17; 2 Chron. 11:15), Douay Rheims 1950, Jerusalem Bible 1968, New American Bible 1970, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta 1933, the New English Bible 1970, J. B. Phillips (Luke 11:19), the KJV 21st Century, the Third Millenium Bible, the 2001 Easy to Read Version (Psalms 106:37 "God's people killed their own children and offered the children to those devils."), and the modern 2002 paraphrase called The Message - Isaiah 34:14, Matthew 12:27, 45; Luke 11:19 "but if you're slinging devil mud at me, calling me a devil who kicks out DEVILS, doesn't the same mud stick to your own exorcists?".
Those who criticize the King James Bible for using the word devils instead of demons apparently do not understand either the Greek or the English language very well. They are like those described in 1 Timothy 1:7 "Desiring to be teachers of the law; understanding neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm."
At the beginning of this little study we quoted 1 Timothy 4:1 where the Spirit speaketh expressly that in the latter days some would depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils.
Without exception, I have found that those who criticize our beloved King James Bible do not believe that any single text or Bible version, be it in Hebrew, Greek, English, Swahili or whatever, is the complete, inerrant, inspired, and pure words of God. In regards to the Bible version issue, the modern scholars have adopted the methods and beliefs of liberal apostates who tell us the Hebrew Masoretic texts have been corrupted and the Greek texts are uncertain and in need of constant research and updating. They have no infallible Holy Bible to give us and they ridicule those of us who believe God has preserved His pure words and that today and for almost 400 years they are found in the King James Holy Bible.
I have personally been called an ignorant fool, an apostate, and even demon possessed because I believe God meant what He said about heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away.
There are two basic views hotly debated among Christians today concerning the Bible version issue. You are on one side or the other.
#1. Believing God has kept His promises to preserve His words and has given us an inerrant Bible or #2. Believing there is no such thing as a complete, inerrant, and perfect Bible on the face of this earth?
Now which of these two views do you think is a doctrine of devils?

The Gospel

The Gospel is “Good News”.  It is good news to the human race. It is good news for this reason— it is not inevitable that the sinner should go down into hell. There is a heaven to be gained.

The gospel is God’s (Rom. 1: 1) and it is the gospel of his Son (Rom. 1: 9). There is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. (1 Tim. 2: 5)

There is therefore  only one gospel and all other gospels are false. All world religions have their gospel but the total sum of this world’s religions stink in the nostrils of a holy God. All roads do not lead to the God of heaven. They lead down into hell and are lumped together under the title of “The Broad Way” (Matt. 7: 13)

God’s way declares mankind to be depraved and lost in sin. This is the starting point, dear reader. do you think you have any natural standing with God?  Do you think He is impressed by your puny attempts to do good? There is none that doeth good (Rom. 3: 12) whether he be a pope, or she be a mother Teresa, all are spiritually bankrupt in the sight of God. You must first acknowledge that your sins have come between you and your God. The least of your great weight of sins damns you in the sight of God. If you are unwilling to face up to this you remain lost and amongst the hell-bound.

Attempts at self improvement are of no avail. You have probably tried this course to no effect. You must accept God’s gospel or perish.

If you are not a religionist you may be an atheist. There is no sincere atheist. You do not KNOW there is no God. You merely pretend there is no God because you know if you acknowledge a God  your life must be condemned. It is anyway. All unbelievers are condemned already.

The true and living God is seen in creation.

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1: 19,20

Evolutionists wilfully deny God. The evidence is there in creation. No evolutionist will ever get to heaven.

A personal knowledge of God can come only through Jesus Christ. The Scripture says concerning Him; God was manifest in the flesh. 1 Tim.3: 16. He proved Himself to be God by His miraculous entry into this world; by means of the virgin’s womb; By His sinless life; by His death, burial, and resurrection.

He came to redeem you and me by dying on a Roman cross.

The good news therefore is Repent ye and believe the gospel. Mark 1: 15. His death opens up the way for the repentant believing soul to gain heaven and avoid hell. Christ died for our sins.

Repentance precedes conversion. Repent ye therefore and be converted. Repentance is not remorse, regret, or feeling sorry for oneself. It is a change of mind which produces a change of behaviour. If you carry on loving the world then you haven’t repented.

Believing means trusting Christ and receiving Him as the eternal Son of God, the Saviour of the world. Wrong thoughs of Christ will take you into hell

Conversion involves the work of the Holy Spirit. The soul becomes new-born. Eternal life is gained. This is an irreversible condition that will take you eventually into heaven.

The Bible Text Issue

Son of Deceased Apostate Textual "Scholar" Hails Father as Ecumenical Pioneer Who Greatly Contributed to Worldwide "Church Unity"

Dr. Bruce Metzger’s name is well known in Biblical textual circles, since he was one of the most prominent liberal scholars in the textual field for more than sixty years. A religious apostate, Metzger often cloaked his unbelief with conservative terminology.
In a tribute to his father that appeared in the Volume XXVII Number 1 issue (2007) issue of The Princeton Seminary Bulletin, his son John M. Metzger hailed his father as an ecumenical pioneer. Metzger wrote: "One aspect of Dad’s scholarly work that has sometimes not been sufficiently recognized or appreciated is that his work has brought Christian believers together and has encouraged unity and understanding within the ecumenical church at a fundamental Biblical level…"
"By 1967, however, in a review of the Jerusalem Bible, Dad wrote that ‘during the past generation the differences between the results of Protestant and Roman Catholic Biblical scholarship have been reduced almost to the vanishing point…
Indeed, Dad’s biblical scholarship has significantly advanced the ecumenical movement, for example, in May 1973, when he and several others presented a specially bound copy of the Collins RSV ‘Common’ Bible to Pope Paul VI…When these additional texts were published on May 19, 1977, in the New Oxford Annotated Bible, with the Apocrypha, it could at last be said that ‘Now for the first time since the Reformation, one edition of the Bible had received the blessings of leaders of Protestant, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches alike.’"
"Dad’s high-level ecumenical contacts continued when, in Advent 1991, he and several others presented a Roman Catholic Edition…of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV] in white calf to Pope John Paul II, who expressed his appreciation that such an edition was now available. Dad’s efforts in developing a single edition of the scriptures that is acceptable to all major branches of Christianity is truly a major contribution to church unity."
Ed: Despite his supposed evangelical beliefs, Metzger was a blatant apostate. The writer has beside him a copy of The Oxford Annotated Bible, RSV edition of which Metzger was a co-editor. In this volume, Metzger boldly denied the verbal inspiration of Scripture calling the Pentateuch a "matrix of myth, legend and history." (p. xxi) The book of Job was portrayed as an "ancient folktale" (p. 613), while Jonah was declared to a "didactic narrative" that was taken from "popular legend." (p. 1120)
In a chapter at the book’s conclusion entitled "How to Read the Bible with Understanding," Metzger stated on p. 1513: "The opening chapters of the O. T. deal with human origin. They are not to be read as history." Metzger also believed that the KJV had "grave defects" (Preface, p. ix) and that it "was based on a text that was marred by mistakes (Ibid, p. xii)."
Metzger also served as editor of the New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]. Speaking about Christ’s humanity in Luke 2:33, the NRSV blasphemously states that "the child’s [Jesus] father and mother were amazed at what was being said about him." The above article conclusively proves that there is a decisive link between the ecumenical movement and unreliable modern Bible translations!

God’s Providential Preservation of the Perfect Scriptures

In the Aug. 2007 issue of the Plains Baptist Challenger, E. L. Bynum penned an incisive article entitled "On the Fence" in which he asserted that middle-of-the road compromisers were straddling the fences on numerous vital religious issues including Biblical preservation.
In his article Bynum vigorously defended God’s preservation of His Holy Scriptures, declaring that in II Peter 1:19-21 "Peter said ‘WE HAVE a more sure word,’ and he did not say ‘we once had.’ He spoke in the present tense, yet much of the Bible was more than 1,500 years old and they did not have the original manuscripts in his day.
In the previous verses Peter is telling us about his wonderful experience on the mount of transfiguration (Matt. 17:1-8). However, he now tells us that the Bible is a more sure word of prophecy. On the mount, Peter had an experience, but in the Bible he had a divinely inspired, God-breathed revelation from God.
Some will say, ‘yes, we believe that, but we don’t have the original manuscripts.’ If that is the test, then no one, living or dead, had on this earth an infallible, inspired Bible. No man ever had all the original manuscripts. According to this theory, they were all polluted and contained errors the first time they were copied or translated.
Why would God give an inspired and infallible book, if it would only be available for the immediate writer and the few that might be able to read it? You may serve that kind of God, but I do not. The proposition is simple, either God gave His perfect word and kept it pure, or we have no Bible today.
If our Bible today is filled with errors as the modern translators tell us [Ed: That’s what Bruce Metzger alleged!], then we have no dependable Bible in the first place. If that be so, we are as bad off as the modernists who believe that a lot of the Bible is the ideas of man. Brother, get off the fence and stand for the total trustworthiness of our KJV Bible." To E. L. Bynum’s statement, the F.D. editor adds a hearty "amen."
—The two articles above are taken from The Fundamentalist Digest; Oct/Nov 2007

Interpretations

 He was a quiet brother.                         meaning     He never spoke a word for the Lord.

 We don’t know whether he’s saved.          “            He never spoke a word for the Lord.

 We don’t know whether he is saved.         “           He’s unmoved by gospel preaching.

 He doesn’t show much interest.                 “           He sleeps through the meetings. 

 He’s a carnal believer.                               “            He asks questions of the oversight.

 He’s a great scholar.                                  “            He thinks the Bible is full of error.

 He’s very gifted.                                        “            He has two cars and a big house.

 He’s a fine preacher.                                  “            His ministry never touches me.

 He’s a humble brother                                “           He doesn’t earn half what I do.

 He has a simple faith.                                 “           He never reads his Bible.

 He attends the meetings regularly              “           He comes Sunday mornings only.

 He’s a powerful preacher                           “           He never calls for repentance.

 His wife is a “mother in Israel”.                 “           His wife rules the Assembly.

 We are not sure where his children stand . “           His children run wild.

He wants to be the church secretary            “           He understands the “book me-book you” system.

“It must be from God”

The Holy Bible must have been

Inspired of God and not of men

I could not, if I would, believe

That good men wrote it to deceive,

and bad men could not if they would.,

and surely would not if they could,

Proceed to write a book so good.

and certainly no crazy man

could e’er conceive its wondrous plan,

And pray, what other kinds of men

Than do these three groups comprehend?

Hence it must be that God inspired

The Word which souls of prophets fired.

Author Unknown

Waymarks 51 November 2007

Waymarks 51

Report of Open Air Preaching

August 28^th DUNSTABLE. Ashton Square. Preached for half an hour. Then a man sat down beside me and asked me what I thought of Christianity. “Not much”, I replied. “Its branches are full of every fowl of the air.” This seemed to please him. He told me he preached all over the world and warned against false religion. It became apparent after a minute or two that false religion to him was everything outside of Armstrongism. I asked him one or two questions. Hell was a state of mind, he told me. He was using the word “hell” as a swear word, along with another swear word. But he didn’t stay long. He found the gospel of Christ unacceptable. Armstrongism  goes under the name of “Worldwide Church of God”. It is a wicked, blasphemous cult and has ensnared not a few with its Plain Truth magazine.

August 29^th LUTON T.C. I wasn’t able to preach today because P- arrived as I did. He had so many questions so I held a one-to-one Bible Class in the Street, which lasted one and a quarter hours. P-is the man who trusted the Saviour on this same spot many years ago.

September 5^th LUTON T.C.  I resolved that I would preach today even if I got interrupted.

The first interruption came after five minutes. A “tough guy” came and stood immediately in front of me. I continued to preach to his navel. (I was on my scooter). After a few moments he lunged forward and put his hand on my shoulder. “God bless you” he said, and then he walked away. I then noted he was carrying a baby in one hand – and a cigarette in the other. “and you too” I called after him.

My Calvinist friend came by. He told me that those who endure to the end will be saved. What a poor, wretched religion he holds to. My salvation doesn’t depend on my perseverance. It was settled eternally at the cross and secured for me the instant I trusted Him. My friend is unable to cope with discussion so he immediately walked away from me when I challenged him.

A young man who distributes leaflets for an international cult greeted me and said he would be back once he had “signed on”. He did come back but did not show himself until I had finished preaching. He seemed impressed by my preaching and told me I was a great encouragement to him. I decided I would explain to him why his cult is so wrong. He listened entirely without interrupting me. It may be this young man is still seeking the truth, though he is caught up in a cult.

September 19^th LUTON. T.C. I preached for 20 minutes and then a young Muslim man approached me. Was I aware of the similarities between the Koran and the Bible? Muslims have tried to draw me into this useless debate in the past. I told him the differences are fundamental. The Bible is a Book from heaven and the Koran is a book from hell. He did not hang around. As he left the cult boys arrived so rather than risk further distraction I began to preach again. They made no attempt to interrupt or peddle their wares. Rather, they “amened” me several times. While they were doing this another man interrupted. He knew the first two so I thought he was their minder. He turned out to be the Reverend Mark. He felt it important for me to know he  was a Reverend because he repeated it several times. He is pastor of “Agape Church” in Luton. I had never heard of it. These places seem to spring up every time it rains. There are now dozens of such places in Luton. Most of them are cults. The remainder are Charismatic. All are very evangelical! There never has been a day such as this for religious fervour and never before have we been so deep into apostasy.   

Ocober 10^th LUTON T.C. John, ear-studded, accepted  a Way of Salvation after a few minutes talk. Emmanuel stood waiting to talk to me. Emmanuel has spoken to me several times now. He left India some 50 years ago and was proud to be a 4^th generation Christian. He appeared to equate Anglicanism with being born again, and was quite astonished to learn that I, born in “Christian England”, didn’t hear the gospel until I was nineteen years old. My parents, nominally C of E, were heathen. He accepted all Bible teaching, but thought the Lord’s body must have begun to corrupt in the grave. (he thought this after 75 years in the Cof E!!) This was enough to convince me the poor man was without eternal life and his Indian Christianity no more than a doctrine of devils. However, he seemed very willing to listen to me and was very responsive. I explained to him Peter’s use of Psalm 16 in his preaching on the day of Pentecost, neither wilt thou suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. He accepted this. But I do not believe a converted soul could go so long with wrong thoughts concerning Christ.   

(We note M Penfold of Penfold Books does believe the Lord saw corruption. See By the Way... below.)

October 17^th LUTON T C. I preached for 15 minutes and then Emmanuel arrived. I kept preaching for a few more minutes as I didn’t want to be bogged down with a profitless conversation. I then noticed a young Muslim woman hovering in the background. She was obviously interested and spoke to E while I was preaching. When I stopped she approached me and wanted me to know she was a devout Muslim. She listened to my testimony and accepted a tract but I think she was after material help. She told me she had been in the UK only three years and was looking for employment. She is a qualified dentist.

After she departed E wanted to explain to me that the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all titles of Jesus.  Pray for this poor man’s conversion. I do not believe it possible for a believer to hold such erroneous views.

November 13^th DUSTABLE. Ashton Square. I was about to start preaching when an elderly couple shuffled up and sat down on the wall next to me. The man was out of breathe and told his lady he would have to rest for a while. I began to recite John 3: 14-19. Before I got to v.16 they both got up and hurried away.

What deep sense of hostility towards God, or weight of guilt could cause them to do this, I wondered. They reminded me of the man who visited his GP. He was told he had an extremely serious disease, and immediately, he clapped his hands to his ears and raced from the surgery, declaring that he didn’t want to hear that kind of thing. Had he stayed a moment longer he would have learned there was now a cure for his complaint.

So it is with the sinner who will not hear the Good News.

AV Verses Vindicated

Genesis 36: 24

And these are the children of Zibeon; both Ajah, and Anah: this was that Anah that found the mules (yem) in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father.

The RV and most modern versions has “....this is Anah who found the hot springs in the wilderness.”

There are no Hebrew manuscripts carrying a variant reading. The word is yem and means mule.

However, Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica has a footnote showing that the Versio Syriaca Hexaplaris  has a variant reading, changing the word (in Syriac) to mean springs. Jerome’s Vulgate (Latin) has the same change. It is suggested that the author of the Syriac version altered yemim (mules)to mayim (springs) and Jerome later took this up.

Clarke tells us that Bochart believed the Emim are meant. 

yem occurs here only in the O.T. and is not the common word for mules but this is no excuse for altering the word of God.

Isaac Leeser in his The Twenty four books of the Holy Scriptures, carefully translated ACCORDING TO THE MASSORETIC TEXT after the best Jewish Authorities; Bloch Publishing co. 1907, reads “....this was that Anah that found the mules...”

Anah discovered (found) how to cross horses with asses and he produced the first mules. After this mules are referred to in the O.T. as pered  ....and they brought ....horses and mules (1 Kings 10: 25). So the reason mules are not mentioned in Scripture before this point is simple: there weren’t any.

Isaiah 3: 3, 4

He is despised and rejected of men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not....yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted...

According to the Revised English Bible this reads, “He was despised, shunned by all, pain-racked and afflicted by disease...while we thought of him as smitten by God, struck down by disease and misery.”

This is one of the most highly blasphemous perversions of Scripture I have come across. The REB is teaching that Christ was riddled with disease and men though he deserved  it. But they came to realise he was struck down with disease for their sakes. One must have a diseased mind to put this construction on this passage.

When we learn that the REB was planned by representatives of Baptist Union, Methodist Church, Society of Friends, Roman Catholic Church, Salvation Army, United Reformed Church , Bible Society, and a few other similar organizations, we are not surprised at the outcome.

The use of the word grief in Jer. 6: 7, and Jer. 10: 19 demonstrate the reasonableness of the AV translation in Isaiah 3:3,4. All the words are in plain non-archaic English, easy to be understood.

Jeremiah 31: 22

How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man.

Modern Versions deny the teaching of the Virgin Birth.

Compass (saw-bab’) commonly means to surround, as the men of Sodom, compassed the house round. Gen. 19: 4

A woman in pregnancy compasses the child. The changes in modern versions listed below (which is far from being an exhaustive list) show a conscious wilful attack on the virgin birth of Christ, because no man is involved in this creatorial act.  It is a new creation on the Lord’s part.

“.... A transformed woman will embrace the transforming God.” The Message (MSG)

“....A woman will protect a man” God’s Word. Is this a new thing??  It is certainly not God’s word.

“....A woman turned into a man”  REB

“....A woman with the strengths of a man.” Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)

The NIV has “A woman will surround a man” and then uses a footnote to deny the Virgin Birth teaching in the verse; “or, will go about seeking, or, will protect”

William MacDonald in his Believer’s Bible Commentary, which is based on the NKJV denies there is any reference here to the virgin birth. He claims “The woman here is Israel and the man is Jehovah... the prediction is that the virgin of Israel will cease to go ‘hither and thither after idols’ and will seek and cleave to Immanuel.”

Those who read the prophecy of Jeremiah may note that about 40 times the nation is urged to return. RETURN,  RETURN, RETURN. But this is to be a NEW creation so how can they return to a relationship that never before existed? Had Israel NEVER enjoyed a close relationship with God?

If God can reverse the backslidings of a nation through a creatorial act why has He not already done so? What love is this?

 He goes on to quote Kelly (but does not identify which Kelly. J N D Kelly, William Kelly?) “a devout scholar of undoubted orthodoxy, explains why a popular interpretation is not valid...compassing a man has no reference whatever to the birth of a child.” Q E D??

So what about “In Jer.31: 22, ’A woman shall compass a man’ is a prophecy of the birth of the Messiah from a virgin”—Wilson’s Old Testament word Studies. Kregel.

The man here is gheh-ber’meaning a warrior or valiant man. The word is not used in relation to deity. But when we come to Isaiah 9: 6 which is an unequivocal reference to the virgin birth of Christ, we find another word used from the same root as gheber-ber’. It is unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given.... The mighty( ghib-bore’) God.

Now we shall add our QED.

Remember dear fellow believer, almost all commentaries are written by rationalists. J N Darby also denies the virgin birth in this verse.

1 Peter 2: 2

As new born babes,  desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby.

“Like new born babies, crave pure spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow up in your salvation.” (NIV)

The ASV is worse than the NIV. It reads, “As newborn babes, long for the spiritual milk which is without guile, that ye may grow thereby unto salvation.”

J N Darby also carries this blunder, “...that ye may grow up to salvation”.

The Contemporary English Version (CEV) emphasises this error with, “....pure spiritual milk that will help you grow and be saved. The CEV with the other modern versions has Peter writing to unsaved believers, who can eventually

get saved as long as they keep on drinking their milk.  They don’t mean Bible study either, because the words  of the word  are omitted from them all.

This is a salvation by works alteration; an early addition to the text. All who are genuinely saved will recognize this to be a false reading. The majority of cursive manuscripts omit “unto salvation”.

By the Way....

We read in The Growth of the Brethren Movement,

An indeterminate number [of “Brethren assemblies”], perhaps between fifty and 100, have linked up with the FIEC or one of the charismatic groups such as Icthus or New Frontiers International; others may follow......I shall be surprised if more than  a few of those who continue to follow the old paths will serve any useful purpose in the future, other than providing a spiritual home for elderly or conservatively-minded believers who love the Lord and his [sic] word, but find it impossible to embrace change.     —The Growth of the Brethren Movement; Neil T R Dickson and Tim Grass; Wipf and Stock; 2006; p.129.

Those Bible believers who know anything about the Fellowship of Independent Evangelical Churches (FIEC), Icthus, and NFI will know that the assemblies referred to in the paragraph above have moved deeper into apostasy. Those assemblies heeding Jer. 6: 16, (Thus saith the Lord, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls.) will apparently serve no useful purpose in the future.

The leader of NFI is Terry Virgo, described as a Reformed Charismatic and regarded by many NFI members as an Apostle. Enough said!

We heard of a serious case of assembly bullying recently. A travelling evangelist was engaged for a series of gospel meetings. The meetings were well attended but apparently nobody got saved. The evangelist announced this was because there was sin in the camp. (He wouldn’t admit that his preaching was without power, would he?). The elders decided they would have to carry out an investigation to find the guilty person. They did not know of any sin but they called uninvited at the home of a single sister, reducing her to tears with their unfounded accusations.

But what kind of god would bar people from responding to the gospel on the ground that another person in the audience wasn’t living right? It is clear that this evangelist and his employers have no true concept of the gospel or the nature of God.□

The following is found on Michael Penfold’s website, webtruth.org.

The Bible clearly and repeatedly refers to the physical body of Christ. It was a normal body of flesh and blood, in every respect the same as every other human body, apart from sin. Based on 1 Pet 1:18-19 some erroneously teach that Christ’s blood was not human but was physically eternal, never being subject to corruption. They claim that Jesus actually took all of His blood back to heaven with Him! These verses do not actually say that the blood of Christ was incorruptible. True, it is precious and eternally efficacious for sin, having supreme infinite value spiritually – but is never said to be physically incorruptible. Acts 20:28 says the blood is ‘God’s’ but only in the sense that Christ is God, not that His blood was non-human. Blood cells, which have no nucleus, are born to die within a lifespan of about 120 days. The Lord’s true humanity demands that His blood had to be replaced, as did His skin (about every 30 days), just as in all other humans. If the Lord’s blood never ‘died’, He would have had the same red and white blood cells from Bethlehem to Calvary which implies a totally inactive bone marrow. However, since He was truly human, His bone marrow would daily replace His dead blood cells. All other explanations lead to a non-human conclusion. The Saviour’s deciduous teeth, His hair, His nails and His spittle all passed from Him in the normal way without in any way compromising His holy sinless person. True, His body was incorruptible in the grave (Psa 16:10), but the discharges from that body were never incorruptible during His life. Heb 9:12 says Christ entered into heaven by His blood (dia), not with His blood; that is, by virtue of His blood, not literally carrying it.

M Penfold is proprietor of Penfold Book and Bible House, Bicester. Though much of what he has written on his website is true and therefore acceptable, many strange things appear.

To suggest that 1 Peter 1:18,19 “do not actually say that the blood of Christ was incorruptible” is a rank denial of Scripture. Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold......but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot. I fail to see how Scripture can be plainer than this.

Silver is corruptible. Gold is corruptible. They may be the least corruptible of all material things but they do corrupt. If we are to be redeemed it will have to be with that which is utterly beyond the possibility of corruption. The blood of Christ alone is the only commodity meeting this requirement. It is precious beyond anything this world can produce.

Acts 20: 28 does NOT say the blood is ‘God’s’. No reliable Greek manuscript says this either. The deity of Christ is established in this verse. It is the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Blood cells are not born. They cannot die. They are never alive. Efforts to imply the corruptibility of the blood of Christ by this argument are fictive.

Hebrews ch. 9 describes how the high priest entered into the Holiest of all, once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself and for the errors of the people....which was a figure for the time then present....but Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

An essential part of the figure was the carrying of the blood into the Holiest. This, we are specifically told, is a figure, a type of Christ entering into heaven itself. If He could not carry in His own blood because it had corrupted then the type is defective  and so is our redemption. Did Christ enter in empty handed? Perish the thought.

What Christ did was foreshadowed in Leviticus 17: 11,

For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul.

Furthermore, the type or shadow, albeit visible, tangible, has given place to the reality; But ye are come unto mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels. To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.  Heb.12: 22-24.

If the blood of sprinkling is here figurative and not actually present in heaven then we must have also a figurative heaven, a figurative God, etc.

If there is not a continuing actual efficacy in the blood then there is no present cleansing. the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth(present and continuous) us from all sin. 1 John1: 7. The blood surely must exist in order to cleanse, and where else can it be but in heaven?

One other point before we leave this subject, in the same article Penfold asserts that Christ “possessed the right of redeeming that fallen nature of which He took part [sin apart],” a quote that he attributes to Adam Clarke.

Penfold agrees with Clarke in this, that CHRIST HAD A FALLEN HUMAN NATURE (though apparently He chose not to sin.)

The human nature is irredeemable and persists even after conversion.

Ten Reasons

David Cloud in his book Faith vs, The Modern versions,  gives ten reasons for holding to the AV Bible

(1) Because of the doctrine of divine preservation
(2) Because the theories supporting the modern Greek text are heretical
(3) Because the modern texts and versions are a product of end-time apostasy
(4) Because of the King James Bible's superior doctrine
(5) Because of the King James Bible's unmatched heritage
(6) Because the modern versions are based upon a foundation of deception
(7) Because evangelical scholarship today is unreliable
(8) Because we reject dynamic equivalency
(9) Because we reject the "Majority Text" position
(10) Because of the evil fruit of the modern texts and versions.

Cloud’s book is well worth reading, and is available from wayoflife.org

Warnings to Bible Correctors

Deuteronomy 4: 2

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Proverbs 30: 6

Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22: 19

And if any man take away the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

These three statements are found near the beginning, at the centre, and at the end of the Bible. Despite the seriousness of these warnings the Bible correctors press on with their foolishness. By this the lateness of the hour is emphasised. We are deep into the great apostasy.

Tyndale’s Bible and Romish Lies

Tyndale’s New Testament was first printed in Worms and 6000 copies were produced. These were being sold in England by April 1526, but they were quickly seized and burned by the ecclesiastical authorities.

Subsequently some reprints were produced by Christopher Endhoven, in 1526, 1530, and 1534. There were so many errors that  in 1534 George Joye edited another reprint. Regrettably he wilfully altered  the text in a number of places.

This information is found in the Cambridge History of the Bible; Vol.3; p.142.

However, we read,

“In some editions of Tyndale’s New Testament” writes the protestant historian Blunt, “there is what must be regarded as a wiful omission of the gravest possible character, for it appears in several editions, and has no shadow of justification in the Greek or Latin of the passage (1 Peter ii, 13,14). Such an error was quite enough to justify the suppression of Tyndale’s translation.” — The Pre-reformation English Bible by F A Gasquet,D.D., O.S.B,, p.130; John C. Nimmo; 1897

I look into my facsimile N.T.  by William Tyndale, 1526, and there I read the words which apparently do not exist; Submit yourselves...whether it be unto the king, as unto the chief head...

I check my 1537 facsimile of Tyndale’s N.T. which John Rogers published after Tyndale had been murdered. There we read the same words, ....whether it be to the king as unto the chief head.

Thus the lies and malice of Rome to the Scriptures are laid bare. Because two men made changes to the printed Bible, some being accidental, before they were made and because of them Tunstall had the first edition burned. So they tried cover their foul deeds.

Gasquet tells us the evidence of this alteration to the 1526 edition is found in the Bodlian Library; Douce B., 226,227.

Incidentally, the frontispiece to the 1537 edition carries these words;

set forthe with the kinges most gracious lycence.1537 A.D.

Tunstall, Bishop of London at that time, is alleged to have told his archdeacons, regarding Tyndale’s N.T.

Some sons of iniquity and ministers of the Lutheran faction have craftily translated the Holy Gospels of God into our vulgar English, and intermingled with their translation articles gravely heretical and opinions that are erroneous, pernicious, pestilent, scandalous, and tending to seduce persons of simple and unwary dispositions

—ibid.

 

The hatred of the mother of harlots to the Scriptures remains the same today. Finding it impossible to destroy the Authorized Bible, they have introduced their counterfeit bible. It exists in all modern versions. Those who tell us there is no significant doctrinal difference between the AV Bible and modern versions are either grossly ignorant or are out to deceive.

Is the Fight for the KJV Necessary?

By Gary Freeman (from AV1611.com. website)
A writer who was despairing over the debate concerning Bible versions recently wrote, `Precious energies and talents must be wasted on petty quarrels between soldiers who ought to be giving their best efforts to fight the real enemies of biblical Christianity.' Is this correct thinking? We believe fellow soldiers ought to debate an issue when it involves the integrity and reliability of the most important piece of weaponry with which we intend to fight the enemy. How can we say nothing to our fellow soldiers when someone has tampered with our artillery. How do we intend to win the battle when we go into the fight with our main weapon taken away and replaced with a faulty, unreliable substitute?
The fight for the KJV is necessary. We who are holding the line for the KJV only are being called the culprits. One pastor said, `Certainly the KJV controversy rages on by those who would make it a test of fellowship.' Another writes, `One of the heartbreaks faced by any fellowship comes when some movement comes along and polarizes and then splits the group. It may be over Bible versions, personal squabbles or wrongs suffered. The issue is not doctrinal since there is always essential agreement among fundamental brethren in that regard.'
We are amazed how the group who brought in the new modern versions into our churches and fellowships now want to blame us who desire to stay with the KJV as being the dividers, polarizers, splitters and controversial ones. If these `fellow soldiers' want to bring in `Bibles' that leave out [or question] Mk. 16:9-20; Jn. 7:53-8:11; Ac. 8:37; Ro. 8:1b; and that delete `through His blood' in Col. 1:14; `God' in 1 Ti. 3:16; Trinity passage in 1 Jn. 5:7,8; "by Himself purged our sins' in He. 1:3; `washed us from our sins' in Re. 1:5; the word `yet' in Jn. 7:8 (this word being dropped from new versions makes our Saviour a liar); then they should not cry foul, unfair, unloving, or divisive when we squabble over which Bible will be the Word of God in the Battlefield.
The offenders, dividers, squabblers and polarizers are those who want to bring new modern versions into fundamentalism. We believe, contrary to the previous quote, that this is a doctrinal issue. We believe that God has preserved the word He inspired. We believe it to be found in the Greek Textus Receptus and in English in our KJV. We will continue the fight for the KJV, not to be divisive but so that we as fellow soldiers can go into battle against our enemies saying, `Thus saith the Lord,' rather than, `Yea, hath God said?'

 The New King James Bible Examined

By M. H. Reynolds, Editor, Foundation Magazine (from AV1611.com. website)
WHAT ABOUT THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE? In this article, we want to share with God's people some of the important facts which led us to reject the NKJV and warn others about it. We do not believe that the "NKJV makes the KJV even better" as its publishers cl aim. To the contrary, our study leads us to conclude that the NKJV vitiates the original, reliable, accurate KJV in a most deceptive manner. While claiming to have "preserved the authority and accuracy" of the original KJV, the actual result is a hybrid t ext which incorporates many changes identical with or similar to the corruptions found in other modern Bible versions.
Why the New King James Bible? Its publisher, Thomas Nelson Company, says its purpose is "To Preserve the Integrity of the Original in the Language of Today"-"To preserve the authority and accuracy . . . of the original King James while making it understan dable to 20th Century readers"-"To update with regard to punctuation and grammar; archaic verbs and pronouns"; and "Up-to-date accuracy with regard to words whose English meaning has changed over a period of 3 1/2 centuries." The completed NKJV text is said to be "Beautifully Clear" and "Highly Readable." Thomas Nelson Publishers has spent millions to convince Chr istians that the NKJV is "the" Bible of the present and the future.
Why do we recommend rejection of the NKJV? Space limitations preclude a full discussion of every reason, but we do urge a careful consideration of the following facts. It is essential to know that many of the word changes between the original KJV and the NKJV are not changes which result from removing archaisms, etc. Instead, many are changes which clearly reveal that, contrary to their agreed basis, the NKJV translators departed from the original KJV and its underlying Greek text, the Textus Receptus, in favor of the very same wording found in versions translated from corrupted Greek texts.
The instances in which the NKJV breaks with the original KJV by substituting wording identical to that of corrupted modern Bible versions are too numerous to be considered coincidence. And, since Nelson tells us that the NKJV scholars spent "months of pra yer, research, and discussion over the handling of a single word," we must conclude that these changes were neither coincidental nor accidental.
The following references are listed as examples of the way the translators inserted erroneous words and meanings from corrupted modern Bible versions into the NKJV text:
Titus 3:10-KJV reads, "A man that is an heretick...reject." NKJV and NIV change "heretick" to "divisive man"; RSV and NASV to "factious" man. (The one who holds to heresy is to be rejected, not the one who exposes false doctrine. The new versions confuse who is in mind here).
Acts 4:27-KJV reads, "Thy holy child, Jesus." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "holy child" to "holy servant."
Acts 8:9-KJV reads, "bewitched the people." NKJV and NASV change "bewitched" to "astonished." NIV and RSV change "bewitched" to "amazed."
Romans 1:25-KJV reads, "changed the truth of God into a lie." NKJV, NASV and NIV read "exchanged the truth of God for the lie" or "a lie."
Romans 4:25-KJV reads, "Who was delivered for our offenses and was raised again for our justification." NKJV and NASV change "for" to "because of." (Even the NIV and RSV use the correct word, "for").
2 Corinthians 10:5-KJV reads, "Casting down imaginations." NKJV, NIV and RSV change "imaginations" to "arguments."
Colossians 3:2-KJV reads, "Set your affection on things above." NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV change "affection" to "mind."
1 Thessalonians 5:22-KJV reads, "Abstain from all appearance of evil." NKJV, NASV and RSV change "appearance" to "form."
2 Timothy 2:15-KJV reads, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God." NKJV and NASV change "study" to "be diligent." NIV and RSV change "study" to "do your best."
Old Testament examples include:
Psalm 79:1-the word "heathen" in the KJV is changed to "nations" in the NKJV, NASV and NIV.
Isaiah 11:3-the entire phrase, "And shall make Him of quick understanding" in the KJV is eliminated in the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Isaiah 66:5-the wonderful phrase, "But He shall appear to your joy" in the KJV disappears without explanation from NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV.
Daniel 3:25-the fourth person who was in the fiery furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, was identified as "the Son of God." The same identification is given in the text of the NKJV but a footnote reads "or, a son of the gods," and both NIV and NA SV actually have the latter reading in their texts.
In other Old Testament portions, the word "evil" in the KJV is replaced by several different words-doom, disaster, calamity, catastrophe, trouble, adversity, terrible, harm, wild. In four different places in 1 and 2 Kings, "sodomites" is changed to "perve rted persons."
The NKJV does not deserve its respected name. It is a perverted version.
Additional examples of significant changes would include the following: Matthew 4:24; 6:13; 7:14; 20:20; Mark 4:19; John 14:2; Acts 17:29; Romans 1:18; Philippians 2:6; 1 Thessalonians 5:23; 1 Timothy 6:5, 10, 20; Hebrews 2:16; 10:14; James 1:15; 1 Peter 1:7.
A striking word change involves changing "corrupt" to "peddling" in 2 Corinthians 2:17. The KJV correctly says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the Word of God...." But the NKJV, NASV, NIV and RSV, change "corrupt" to "peddling." Is there any great difference between peddling (selling, or making a gain of) the Word of God and corrupting (adulterating) it? Of course there is, and one does not have to be a Greek scholar to decide which word is correct. When this warning was given in the 1st Century, was there any way for people to peddle (make a gain of) God's Word? Of course not-they were suffering for it. The warning clearly refers to corrupting God's Word, something that was common then as it is now. Only in our day has it ever been possible to pe ddle (make a gain of) the Bible. With its huge profits from the sale of many different Bible versions, the Thomas Nelson Publishers is both corrupting and peddling God's Word.
Dr. Jerry Falwell, a member of the NKJV overview committee, gives this new Bible his unqualified endorsement, stating that "It protects every thought, every idea, every word, just as it was intended to be understood by the original scholars." This simply is not true! As already pointed out, words have been changed and with those changed words have come changed thoughts and ideas.
Some will argue that the changes noted do not affect any fundamental Bible doctrine. We strongly disagree. Is not the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures a fundamental doctrine? Is not every word of the Bible important? Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" (Matt.4:4). He also said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away" (Matt. 24:35). Since Christ is concerned about every word, we should also be con cerned about every word and raise a voice of protest whenever scholarly sleight of hand is discovered in any modern version, including the NKJV.
In raising strenuous objections to the changed words of the NKJV text, we are not referring to those changes which update old English verb forms without changing the meaning, i.e., removing "est" or "eth" from verb endings. Neither do we refer to updating the old English pronouns "thee," "thou" and "thine" where they refer to individuals. We do consider it a tragic mistake to eliminate the use of "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" where these refer to Deity. There is a disturbing trend toward stripping God of His Majesty both in word and deed. The substitution of the common pronouns 'You" and "Yours" for "Thee," "Thou" and "Thine" which have historically been used to refer to Deity both in the Scriptures and the Hymns of the Church, only helps pave the way for further attempts of sinful men to bring God down to their level rather than exalting Him in every way possible.
The NKJV translators claimed it was one of their purposes to update words where the meaning of a particular word had changed over the last 375 years. In 2 Thessalonians 2:7, they updated "letteth" to "restraineth"; in Psalm 4:2, "leasing" is updated to "lying"; In 1 Thessalonians 4:15, "prevent" is updated to "precede"; in Matthew 19:14, "suffer" is updated to "let" (meaning allow or pennit).
In other instances it is difficult to understand how the NKJV scholars thought they were updating and clarifying the KJV as, for example, when they substituted "minas" for "pounds" in Luke 19:13; or, "satraps" for "princes" in Daniel 3:3; or, "black cummin" for "fitches" in Isaiah 28:27.
Many Christians today are purchasing NKJV Bibles for three reasons: (1) Many pastors and Christian leaders are highly recommending it. (2) They have been assured by translators and publishers that the NKJV is based upon the same Hebrew and Greek texts used by the KJV translators. However, as already mentioned, such a claim is simply not true and can be easily documented by comparing the wording of the NKJV with the NIV, NASV, RSV and other versions whose translators admittedly used other Hebrew and Greek texts. (3) The NKJV is supposedly easier to read and understand but its impurities actually make it doubly deceptive and dangerous.
The duplicity of the NKJV publishers, translators and endorsers greatly increases the possibility of believers being deceived. The word duplicity is used advisedly. Webster's Dictionary defines duplicity as, "Deception by pretending to feel and act one way while acting another." The following duplicity can be fully documented:
The duplicity of the Thomas Nelson Publishers is clearly evidenced by their supposed concern and stated desire to "preserve the authority and accuracy...of the original King James" Bible. Yet, Nelson is the largest publisher of Bibles in the world and publishes eight of the nine modern versions including the iniquitous Revised Standard Version, copyrighted by the apostate National Council of Churches. If the Thomas Nelson Publishers were genuinely concerned about the purity of the Scriptures, would they continue printing the RSV and other corrupted modern Bible versions?
The duplicity of the NKJV scholars is also a matter for concern. Although each scholar was asked to subscribe to a statement confirming his belief in the plenary, divine, verbal inspiration of the original autographs (none of which exist today), the question of whether or not they also believed in the divine preservation of the divinely inspired originals was not an issue as it should have been. Dr. Arthur Farstad, chairman of the NKJV Executive Review Committee which had the responsibility of final text approval, stated that this committee was about equally divided as to which was the better Greek New Testament text-the Textus Receptus or the Westcott-Hort. Apparently none of them believed that either text was the Divinely preserved Word of God. Yet, all of them participated in a project to "protect and preserve the purity and accuracy" of the original KJV based on the TR. Is not this duplicity of the worst kind, coming from supposedly evangelical scholars?
Further duplicity is revealed in the preface of the NKJV and in a 16-page history of the KJV printed at the end. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are given the following erroneous information: "There is only one basic New Testament used by Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Orthodox, by conservatives and liberals." This is simply not true! There are two basic New Testament texts-the Divinely preserved Textus Receptus from which the original KJV was translated and the satanically corrupted Westcott-Hort Text (and its revisions) which form the basis of all other modern Bible versions.
NKJV readers are further misinformed as to why there are so many differences between the original KJV and all the modern versions. On page VI of the preface, NKJV readers are assured, "...That the most important differences in the English New Testament of today are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way in which translators view the task of translation." This simply is not true. Many important differences in the English New Testament of today are indeed due to manuscript divergence (over 5700 differences exist between the TR and WH Greek texts) in addition to the divergent views of the scholars who produced the various translations.
On page VII of the preface is another very significant statement concerning the NKJV footnotes: "Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in footnotes. Important textual variants in the Old Testament are footnoted in a standard form. The textual information in the New Testament footnotes is a unique provision in the history of the English Bible. Terms in the footnotes such as 'better manuscripts' are avoided. The footnotes in the present edition make no evaluation of the readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings which diverge from the traditional text. Thus, a clearly defined presentation of the variants is provided for the benefit of interested readers representing all textual persuasions."
As a crowning climax of duplicity and inconsistency, the editors of the NKJV make the following incongruous statements on pages 1,234 and 1,235 of the King lames history printed at the conclusion of the NKJV text:
"The tendency of recent revisers has been to remove words and phrases from the text of Scripture, based on the most recently discovered extant manuscripts. In using the Greek text underlying the King James Bible, these words and phrases were retained. And, in those few places where the majority of the manuscripts did not support a word or phrase, that fact could best be indicated in a footnote. (The New Testament of the New King James Version shows in its footnotes those places where the major textual traditions differ from the language of the King James Bible.)
"It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."
Will the next modem Bible be the "Do It Yourself" version? This would be a distinct possibility if the advice of the NKJV editors in the two preceding paragraphs were to be followed. In effect, they are saying, let each reader decide for himself what portions, verses, phrases and words should be included in God's Holy Word." NKJV footnotes, far from being helpful, are an invitation to disobey the plain command of God not to add to or take from His Word. Deuteronomy 4:2; Revelation 22:18,19.
The preservation of God's divinely inspired Word is clearly set forth in Psalm 12:6,7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever. " God has fulfilled His promise through the Textus Receptus and the King James Version. Those who replace the KJV with the NKJV will have been duped into accepting a Bible which still bears a respected name but one which has placed "readability" above purity.
The translators of the original King James Bible had a distinct advantage. They were able to use their vast knowledge of ancient languages and translation abilities prior to the time when the deadly virus of so-called "Higher Criticism" infected the whole field of scholarship. False teachers boldly dissected God's Word with the "tools of scholarship" in order to reconstruct it according to their own speculations and presumptions. The result is a pseudo-intellectual aura in which no one can be sure of anything. It's time to get back to the pure Word of God where faith prevails and doubt is vanquished!
Believers who will take the time to compare the KJV with the NKJV and then with other modern versions will see for themselves why the NKJV should be exposed and repudiated as a polluted version. And, those who will take time to carefully look at the NKJV footnotes will be doubly concerned and will join in warning others about it.
Our plea to God's people is to reject the NKJV Bible and continue preaching, teaching, memorizing and meditating upon the pure, unadulterated, Divinely preserved milk and meat of God's Holy Word-The King James Authorized Version of 1611 upon which God has placed His stamp of approval over a span of nearly four centuries. Nothing is more important than the purity of God's Holy Word.
-M. H. REYNOLDS, EDITOR, FOUNDATION MAGAZINE
Fundamental Evangelistic Association Box 6278 Los Osos CA 93412 USA

 

Encyclopædia Britannica v. The Holy Bible

The following paragraph is from the article on Creation in the EB 2008 DVD-ROM.

The myth of creation is the symbolic narrative of the beginning of the world as understood by a particular community. The later doctrines of creation are interpretations of this myth in light of the subsequent history and needs of the community. Thus, for example, all theology and speculation concerning creation in the Christian community are based on the myth of creation in the biblical book of Genesis and of the new creation in Jesus Christ. Doctrines of creation are based on the myth of creation, which expresses and embodies all of the fertile possibilities for thinking about this subject within a particular religious community.
Scholars think that Christians modified their views of creation through the passage of time. Genesis will have to be a much altered and adjusted book over the course of history according to the scholars.
Christ taught that Genesis was written  by Moses. Luke 24: 44,  John 5: 46. The believer knows that the Scriptures are given by God and His word is eternally settled. Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. Hebrews 11: 3. Such faith is well placed for the believer. He knows His Creator God.

We constantly demonstrate that there are no grounds for the multitude of additions and subtractions that heady men seek to make concerning the Scriptures. They  gain ground in these days because of the general ignorance of Scripture manifested among us.

What they are saying:

Elder  A:   Brother X is thinking of leaving the assembly.

Elder B:    He’ll never be happy anywhere.

Elder A:    Not like us, eh? We would  be happy anywhere.

Within this sacred Volume lies

The mystery of mysteries;

Happiest they of human race

to whom our God hath given grace

To read, to mark, to think, to pray,

To know the right, to learn the way;

But better they had ne’er been born

Who read to doubt, or read to scorn.

            —The Editor; Waymarks; Vol.VII; 1935